CaseNo
stringlengths 6
242
⌀ | Parties
stringlengths 19
7.97k
⌀ | KeyWord
stringlengths 1
6.94k
⌀ | DateOfAP
stringlengths 10
10
| Judge
stringlengths 8
413
⌀ | Document
stringlengths 114
114
⌀ | Document_Text
stringlengths 131
486k
⌀ | Text_Len
float64 131
486k
⌀ | Text_Ext_Method
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WA-12ANCC-118-10/2022 | PERAYU E & D ASSET SDN. BHD RESPONDEN TAI WENG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD | Keywords:ARBITRATION: Stay of proceedings – Application under s. 10 of Arbitration Act 2005 – Whether the dispute between the parties fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement | 16/11/2023 | YA Puan Adlin Binti Abdul Majid | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=71040ac4-7f57-456b-a9e3-aeeb08eaee08&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR
DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR,
MALAYSIA
(BAHAGIAN DAGANG)
RAYUAN NO. WA-12ANCC-118-10/2022
ANTARA
E & D ASSET SDN BHD
[NO. SYARIKAT.: 201301036296 (1066125-T)] … PERAYU
DAN
TAI WENG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD
[NO. SYARIKAT.: 201501043544 (1168865-X)] … RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI KUALA LUMPUR
DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA
GUAMAN NO: WA-A52NCvC-457-06/2022
ANTARA
TAI WENG CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING SDN BHD
[NO. SYARIKAT.: 201501043544 (1168865-X)] … PLAINTIF
DAN
16/11/2023 07:48:29
WA-12ANCC-118-10/2022 Kand. 26
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
E & D ASSET SDN BHD
[NO. SYARIKAT.: 201301036296 (1066125-T)] … DEFENDAN
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court,
dismissing the appellant’s application to stay further proceedings in the
Sessions Court, pending reference of the dispute to arbitration (“Stay
Application”).
[2] The court allowed the appeal, for the reasons set out below.
B. Background Facts
[3] By a letter of award dated 29 August 2019 (“Letter of Award”), the
appellant as the employer appointed the respondent as the main
contractor to develop a condominium on Lot PT 8803, Jalan Pintar, Mukim
Kajang, Hulu Langat, Selangor (“Project”).
[4] Paragraph 1 of the Letter of Award provides that:
“The scope of works shall be in accordance with the Tender
Documents, Agreement and Conditions of PAM Contract 2006
(Without Quantities), Tender Drawings, Specifications, Schedule
of Rates and Post-Tender Addendum and Correspondences.”
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[5] In the course of the works for the Project, the respondent claimed
it had purchased a tunnel form for works for Block B of the Project.
Payment for the tunnel form, in the amount of RM820,000, was initially
made by the appellant. The amount was later reimbursed by the
respondent to the appellant.
[6] The appellant subsequently terminated the contract with the
respondent on 3 June 2022.
[7] The respondent claimed that since it had reimbursed the appellant
for the purchase of the tunnel form, it is the owner of the tunnel form.
However, it was alleged that the appellant did not return the tunnel form
to the respondent.
[8] Thus the respondent commenced the action in the Sessions
Court, seeking a refund of the amount of RM820,000 that was paid for the
tunnel form. The respondent claimed the appellant was unjustly enriched,
as it had not returned the tunnel form.
[9] In the course of the proceedings, the appellant filed the Stay
Application. The learned Sessions Court judge dismissed the application.
The appellant appealed.
C. Considerations and Findings
The Stay Application
[10] The Stay Application is made under section 10(1) of the
Arbitration Act 2005, which provides as follows:
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
“A court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a
matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall,
where a party makes an application before taking any other steps
in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer the parties
to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed.”
[11] It is not in dispute that the following requirements under section
10(1) of the AA must be met, in order for the appellant to stay the
proceedings in the Sessions Court:
a. There is an arbitration agreement between the parties;
b. The proceedings are in respect of a matter that is subject
to the arbitration agreement;
c. The appellant has not taken any other steps in the
proceedings; and
d. The arbitration agreement is not null and void, inoperative
or incapable of being performed.
[12] The parties also accepted that once the requirements under
section 10(1) of the AA have been met, it is mandatory for the court to
grant a stay of the proceedings and to refer the matter to arbitration (see
Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417
and Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v Juang Setia Sdn Bhd and another
appeal [2020] 3 MLJ 545).
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
Have the requirements under section 10(1) of the AA been met?
[13] Thus, in determining whether the Sessions Court was correct to
dismiss the Stay Application, the main issue for the court’s consideration
is whether the requirements under section 10(1) of the AA have been met.
[14] Three out of the four requirements are not in dispute, namely,
there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, the appellant has
not taken any other steps in the proceeding, and the arbitration agreement
is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The
parties agreed that they had been met.
[15] The arbitration agreement is set out in clause 34.5 of the
Agreement and Conditions of PAM Contract 2006 (Without Quantities)
(“PAM COC”), which provides that:
“In the event that any dispute or difference arises between the
Employer and Contractor, either during the progress or after
completion or abandonment of the Works regarding:
34.5(a) any matter of whatsoever nature arising under or
in connection with the Contract;
…
then such disputes or differences shall be referred to
arbitration.”
(emphasis added)
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
“[27] Mahkamah walau bagaimanapun mendapati bahawa
tuntutan Plaintif bagi wang berjumlah RM 820,000 in bukanlah
satu pertikaian atau perbezaan di bawah Surat Awad
[28] Menurut pihak Defendan, pembelian "tunnel form" yang
merupakan perkara yang menjadi subjek kepada tindakan Plaintif
di sini timbul daripada Surat Awad dan/atau Kontrak tersebut.
Are the proceedings in the Sessions Court suit in respect of a matter
that is subject to the arbitration agreement?
[16]
proceedings in the Sessions Court are in respect of a matter that is subject
to the arbitration agreement.
[17]
a return of the sum of RM820,000 that it had paid for the tunnel form does
not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The respondent
claimed its position is fortified by the fact that the Sessions Court suit is a
claim for unjust enrichment.
[18]
dismissed the Stay Application.
[19]
of judgment of the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Court judge
found that the respondent’s claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration
agreement:
dan/atau Kontrak yang perlu dirujuk kepada timbang tara.
For reasons explained in the following paragraphs in the grounds
The Sessions Court agreed with the respondent’s position, and
The respondent’s case is that its claim in the Sessions Court for
The only requirement that the parties disagree on is whether the
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
Pembelian “tunnel form” tersebut adalah bertujuan untuk
melaksanakan dan menyiapkan keria-kerja Projek terlibat.
[29] Mahkamah sebenarnya tidak melihat kepada tujuan
"tunnel form" tersebut dibeli tetapi melihat kepada fakta
bahawa Plaintif telah membuat bayaran yang sepatutnya
kepada pihak Defendan berkaitan "tunnel form" tersebut dan
Defendan telah gagal untuk menyerahkan "tunnel form" tersebut
kepada pihak Plaintif.”
(emphasis added)
[20] I am unable to agree with this reasoning. In my view, the
respondent’s claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
[21] In reaching this finding, I first assessed the respondent’s
statement of claim in the Sessions Court. The relevant paragraph states:
“4. Plaintif telah memulakan kerja-keria untuk Projek
tersebut dibawah Letter of Award tersebut sejak tahun
2019.
5. Untuk melaksanakan kerja-kerja tersebut untuk Blok
B, Plaintif memerlukan set tambahan Tunnel Form
untuk Blok B dan telah menulis surat kepada
Defendan bertarikh 15/7/2020 untuk menyatakan
hasrat Plaintif untuk membeli Tunnel Form tambahan
dan Plaintif telah memberikan sebut harga (“quotation”)
kepada Defendan yang berharga RM820,000.00 untuk
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
purchase of the tunnel form. The respondent’s letter dated 13 July 2020
issued to the appellant which attached a quotation for the purchase of the
tunnel form, referred to the Project. Similarly, a purchase order dated 15
July 2020, issued by the appellant to the respondent for the purchase of
directly to the Project, and as such, the dispute regarding the purchase of
the tunnel form is a matter arising from the contract between the parties,
committed an error in fact and in law in assessing the issue of the
respondent’s payment for the tunnel form and the appellant’s failure to
return the tunnel form separately from the purpose of the purchase of the
failed to assess the dispute between the parties in its entirety. Such a
narrow approach in the consideration of the nature of the dispute and in
“soft fit panel & vertical panel” termasuk “working
platform, wing nut, stop end and all the necessary
accessories”.
(emphasis added)
[22] It is clear from paragraph 5 that the requirement for an additional
tunnel form arises from works to be completed for Block B of the Project.
[23] I also considered documents issued by the parties for the
the tunnel form also referred to the Project.
[24] It is therefore clear that the purchase of the tunnel form relates
and is subject to the arbitration agreement.
[25] In this regard, I find that the learned Sessions Court judge
tunnel form for the Project.
[26] In adopting such reasoning, the learned Sessions Court judge
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
agreement. This includes flexibility, privacy, and control over the dispute
an arbitration agreement is entered into, the purpose of the parties would
necessarily be to ensure that the benefits of arbitration would apply to the
entirety of the matter which is subject to the arbitration agreement. The
approach adopted by the learned Sessions Court judge is inconsistent
Clause 34.5(a) of the PAM COC requires any dispute or difference arising
encompass all possible nature of causes of action, as this would give the
full commercial and practical effect to the arbitration agreement (see KNM
Process Systems Sdn Bhd v Missions Biofuels Sdn Bhd [2013] 1 CLJ
view, lacks commercial sense.
[27] There are various reasons why parties enter into an arbitration
resolution process, including the selection of the arbitrator(s). Thus, when
with such purpose.
[28] The construction of the arbitration agreement is also of guidance.
between an employer and a contractor regarding:
“any matter of whatsoever nature arising under or in connection
with the Contract”,
to be referred to arbitration.
[29] The provision ought to be given a wide interpretation, taking into
account commercial reality and the intention of the parties (see Press
Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd (supra)). Further, the linking words (“… arising
993).
the interpretation of the provisions of the arbitration agreement, in my
under or in connection with the Contract”) ought to be interpreted to
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
based on unjust enrichment does not place the dispute outside the scope
[2018] 5 CLJ 299, where the Court Appeal considered whether the
arbitration agreement would cover causes of action of conspiracy to
defraud / injure and the imposition of constructive trust. The provisions of
the arbitration agreement in that case (i.e. “… any dispute arising out of
or in connection with this agreement... shall be referred to and finally
interpreted widely, and that the claims premised on allegations of
conspiracy and the imposition of a constructive trust fall within the
arbitration clause. The following passages of the judgment are instructive:
[30] Finally, I am of the view that the respondent’s cause of action
of the arbitration agreement.
[31] I am guided by Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee & another appeal
settled by arbitration ...”) are similar to the present case.
[32] The Court of Appeal ruled that the arbitration agreement must be
“[59] The position is even clearer in Malaysia by reason of s.
10 which grants a mandatory stay of court proceedings so as to
give effect to the arbitration agreement. Applying Fiona Trusts, it
follows that Protasco and PT ASU as rational business people
would have wanted the entirety of their dispute determined
by an arbitral tribunal and not just that part relating to a
dispute arising out of the contract. In other words, both the
conspiracy to injure/defraud and the imposition of a constructive
trust dispute would be dealt with in any putative arbitration.
[60] Our conclusion is fortified, and we are indeed bound by
the decision of the Federal Court in Press Metal Sarawak Sdn
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 9 CLJ 1; [2016] 5 MLJ 417 in
this respect. In that case, the apex court held that in determining
the scope or precise nature of the dispute intended to be
submitted to arbitration, the clause ought to be interpreted
widely. The commercial purpose was of primary importance.
In arriving at this decision, it was held that the approach adopted
in the case of KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v. Mission
Biofuels Sdn Bhd [2013] 1 CLJ 993 by Mohamad Ariff Yusof J
(later JCA) was correct and approved accordingly.”
(emphasis added)
[33] As such, I found that the dispute in the Sessions Court between
the parties falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
D. Decision
[34] As the following requirements in section 10(1) of the AA have
been met, namely:
a. There is an arbitration agreement between the parties, in
the form of clause 34.5 of the PAM COC;
b. The proceedings in the Sessions Court are in respect of
a matter that is subject to an arbitration agreement;
c. The appellant has not taken any other steps in the
proceedings; and
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
d. The arbitration agreement is not null and void, inoperative
or incapable of being performed,
it is therefore mandatory for the Sessions Court to grant a stay of the
proceedings and to refer the matter to arbitration.
[35] I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Court judge
had committed an error in finding that the dispute between the respondent
and the appellant on the purchase of the tunnel form did not fall within the
scope of the arbitration agreement, and in dismissing the Stay Application.
As such, appellate intervention is justified in this case.
[36] The appeal is allowed, with costs.
Dated 30 September 2023
- sgd -
ADLIN ABDUL MAJID
Judge
High Court of Malaya
Commercial Division (NCC6)
Kuala Lumpur
Counsel:
Appellant: Susan Tan (together with Noor Sumaeya Sofea
Shamsudin) of Messrs. Zul Rafique & Partners
Respondent: Siti Zubaidah Jemadi of Messrs. Gary Wong & Co
S/N xAoEcVd/a0Wp467rCOruCA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 16,629 | Tika 2.6.0 |
NA-A53KJ-300-09/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) HAZELIN NOR BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) 2. ) DANNIS AL' HAFIZ ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) 3. ) SHAZRYN DANISHA BINTI MUHAMAD HAZRI ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) DEFENDAN 1. ) HASANUDDIN BIN RENTA 2. ) E BROTHERS TRADING SDN BHD | Burden of proof-section 101 Evidence Act- ‘balance of probabilities’ as ‘more probable than not’ and which is ‘not so high as required in a criminal case…but if the probabilities are equal, it is not discharged-Charged and plead guilty-an admission established by a guilty plea-subsection 43(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 for careless and inconsiderate driving-contributory negligence-rule 13 of the Highway Code -level of intoxication. - lose focus and ability to ride carefully -entitled to be compensated for the loss of his employer’s contribution to the Employee’s Provident Fund-loss of support -living expenses-multiplier-proviso in paragraph (iv) (d) to subsection 7(3) Civil Law Act 1956-funeral expenses | 16/11/2023 | Puan Mazni binti Nawi | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2103fa30-74b9-42fb-b297-5e2cf1d5b176&Inline=true |
IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT SEREMBAN
IN THE STATE OF NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS, MALAYSIA
CASE NO.NA-A53KJ-300-09/2022
BETWEEN
HAZELIN NOR BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN … PLAINTIFFS
DANNIS AL ‘HAFIZ
SHAZRYN DANISHA BINTI MUHAMAD HAZRI
(as the lawful widow and dependents of the deceased, MUHAMMAD
HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS)
AND
HASANUDDIN BIN RENTA
EBROTHERS TRADING SDN. BHD … DEFENDANTS
16/11/2023 21:30:40
NA-A53KJ-300-09/2022 Kand. 27
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
Introduction
[1] An appeal was filed dated 15 September 2023 by both Plaintiffs and
Defendants on the issues of liability and quantum decided by this Court
on 8 September 2023.
The factual background
[2] The proceedings at the Sessions Court originated from an accident
that occurred on 10 February 2022, involving a motorcycle NCY 8731
ridden by the deceased and a Lorry MAJ 3371 driven by the First
Defendant at Desa Kasia, Nilai.
[3] To prove her case, the Plaintiffs had called 3 witnesses while the
First Defendant himself had testified. Plaintiffs’ witnesses were as follows:
(a) Inspector Nor Fadzilah bin Mohd Zainuddin-The Investigation
Officer (“SP1”);
(b) Mrs. Hazelin bin Zainal Abidin -The widow of the deceased-The
First Plaintiff ("SP2"); and
(c) Tunku Nazruddin in Tunku Yahya - Representative of the
deceased’s Employer (“SP3”).
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[4] I apportioned liability at 20:80 between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants. Both parties appealed against such a decision, with the
Plaintiffs contending that the Defendants should have been made 100%
liable. On the other hand, the Defendants contended that the apportioned
liability should be at 40:60 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. On
the issue of quantum, both parties were dissatisfied with my decision and
appealed against such an award.
Liability
[5] At this juncture, Plaintiffs had the legal burden of proof as prescribed
by section 101 of the Evidence Act which reads:
“Burden of proof
101. (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he
asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”.
[6] This reminder was also administered by the Federal Court in Wong
Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali [1971] 1 LNS 151 in the words of Ong CJ:
“In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff,
whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
succeed without proof of the defendant’s negligence. Evidence is
the foundation of proof, with which it must not be confounded. Proof
is that which leads to a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged
facts which are the subject of inquiry. Evidence, if accepted and
believed, may result in proof, but it is not necessarily proof of itself.”
[7] Evrol Mariette Peters, J in Sabri Abdul Talib and Vt Logistics (M)
Sdn. Bhd. V. Tiong Mee Kooi [2021] 1 LNS 2275 also emphasised
that -
“The standard of proof on the Plaintiff to prove his claim was on a
balance of probabilities. The term ‘balance of probabilities’ was
described in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 by
Denning J (as he then was) as ‘more probable than not’ and which
is ‘not so high as required in a criminal case…but if the probabilities
are equal, it is not discharged’. The standard, therefore, does not
allow for any guesswork, speculation, surmise or conjecture. Miller
v. Minister of Pensions has been assimilated into Malaysian
jurisprudence through several cases including Inas Faiqah bt Mohd
Helmi (an infant suing through her father and next friend, Mohd
Helmi bin Abdul Aziz) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 MLJ 1.”.
[8] The Plaintiffs had contended that this was a case where the
Defendant should have been held 100% liable as it was a case where the
Defendant had admitted that he attempted to make a U-turn. The
Defendant was also charged under subsection 43(1) of the Road
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
Transport Act 1987 of careless and inconsiderate driving and he pleaded
guilty.
[9] However, the Defendants contended that the liability should be
apportioned at 40:60 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The
Defendants testified that there was no signage that disallowed him to
make a U-turn.
[10] Furthermore, the Plaintiffs should also be held liable and contributed
40% negligence as the deceased had lacked focus and was able to avoid
the collision.
Court’s finding
[11] Both the deceased and the First Defendant were traveling in the
same direction. The First Defendant attempted to make a U-turn when the
deceased who was riding a motorcycle collided with the lorry.
Charged and Plead Guilty
[12] The First Defendant was charged under subsection 43(1) of the
Road Transport Act 1987 for careless and inconsiderate driving. He then
pleaded guilty and was fined RM 7000. His driving license was also
endorsed.
[13] The issue of liability when one party was charged in Court was
discussed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Annamalay Retnam Vs
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
Mah Chong Peng & Anor [2010] 6 CLJ 487- at page 499 which quoted
as follows:
“[26] In Lim Ah Toh, supra, the pertinent of the judgement at p. 196
reads:
The plea of guilty by the first defendant to a charge of
inconsiderate driving is an admissible admission that further
supports the plaintiff's case, and which weighs against the
defendants see Noor Mohamed Vs Palanivelu [1956] MLJ
11; EA Long Vs Wong Chin Wah [1975] MLJ 165.”.
[14] Relying on that case, that an admission by the First Defendant was
established by a guilty plea, therefore on the balance of probabilities, I
found that the Defendants should be held liable for negligence while the
Second Defendant was vicariously liable for negligence.
Contributory Negligence
[15] Hence, the issue was whether the deceased contributed to the
negligence. The term “contributory negligence” was highlighted by the
Supreme Court in Lai Yew Seong Vs Chan Kim Sang [1987] CLJ Rep
151; [1987] 1 CLJ 352 as follows:
“.. negligent as used in the expression 'contributory negligence'
does not mean breach of duty. It means the failure by the person to
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
use reasonable care for the safety of himself or his property so that
he becomes the author of his own wrong. The test of contributory
negligent is based entirely on the conduct of the plaintiff in the
accident or case”.
[16] Despite the guilty plea, from SP1, it was revealed that the deceased
was riding at the fastest lane and not as required by rule 13 of the Highway
Code which states as follows:
“Keep to the left
13. Vehicles should at all times be driven on the lefthand side of
the road, the slower the speed the closer to the edge of the road.”.
[17] Furthermore, SP1 also testified that from the postmortem report,
there was alcohol in the blood of the deceased indicating some level of
intoxication.
[18] Moreover, it was a clear sunny day, and the deceased should have
been able to avoid the collision when approaching the motor lorry.
However, due to the intoxication level, the deceased might lose focus and
ability to ride carefully and collide with the motor lorry.
[19] I refer to the words of Nantha Balan, J in the case of Wan Mohd
Afzainizam bin Wan Ahmad & Anor Vs Tan Sew Yong (suing as lawful
widow and dependant of Chin Wai Loy, deceased) & Ors [2017] 11
MLJ 1, quoted by the Defendant as follows:
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
“[53] Hence, counsel for the defendants submitted (quite rightly) that
as a matter of common sense, the inference to be drawn is that the
said motorcar had been speeding and crashed into the stationary
vehicles. This therefore raises the question as to whether the
deceased was keeping a proper look-out and finally, losing control
over the said motorcar when he realized that the fast lane was
blocked. The fact that there was alcohol in the blood and urine of
the deceased indicates that there was some level of intoxication,
and this may have played a role in the ability (or inability) of the
deceased to drive carefully along the road and to have proper
control of the said motorcar”.
[20] In this case, based on the facts and evidence, I found on the balance
of probabilities that the accident was also contributed by the deceased.
[21] Therefore, I apportioned liability at 20:80 between the Plaintiffs and
the Defendants.
Quantum
Loss of support as USIM’s employee
[22] It was submitted that the Deceased was working at Universiti Sains
Islam Malaysia (“USIM”) as a driver, earning an average sum of
RM2525.30 per month. His pay slips were tendered in Court through his
employer’s representative as exhibits and were marked as P3.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[23] The defendants objected and submitted that the calculation for the
loss of support should be based on the disease’s net income with
reference to section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1955 which provided as follows:
“Compensation to persons entitled for loss occasioned by death
7. (1) Whenever the death of a person is caused by wrongful act,
neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would,
if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain
an action and recover damages in respect thereof , the party who
would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an
action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured,
and although the death has been caused under such circumstances
as an amount in law to an offence under the Penal Code [Act 574].
(2) Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife,
husband, parent, child and any person with disabilities under the
care, if any, of the person whose death has been so caused and
shall be brought by and in the name of the executor of the person
deceased.
(3) The damages which the party who shall be liable under
subsection (1) to pay to the party for whom and for whose benefit
the action is brought shall, subject to this section, be such as will
compensate the party for whom and for whose benefit the action is
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
brought for any loss of support suffered together with any
reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful act,
neglect or default of the party liable under subsection (1):
Provided that—
(i) in assessing the damages there shall not be taken into
account—
(a) any sum paid or payable on the death of the person
deceased under any contract of assurance or insurance,
whether made before or after the coming into force of this
Act;
(b) any sum payable, as a result of the death, under any
written law relating to employees’ provident fund;
(c) any pension or gratuity, which has been or will or may be
paid as a result of the death; or
(d) any sum which has been or will or may be paid under any
written law relating to the payment of any benefit or
compensation whatsoever, in respect of the death;
(ii) damages may be awarded in respect of the funeral expenses
of the person deceased if such expenses have been incurred
by the party for whose benefit the action is brought;
(iii) no damages shall be awarded to a parent on the ground only
of his having been deprived of the services of a child; and no
damages shall be awarded to a husband on the ground only
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
of his having been deprived of the services or society of his
wife; and
(iv) in assessing the loss of earnings in respect of any period after
the death of a person where such earnings provide for or
contribute to the damages under this section the Court shall—
(a) take into account that where the person deceased has
attained the age of sixty years at the time of his death, his
loss of earnings for any period after his death shall not be
taken into consideration; and in the case of any other
person deceased, his loss of earnings for any period after
his death shall be taken into consideration if it is proved or
admitted that the person deceased was receiving earnings
by his own labour or other gainful activity prior to his death;
(b) take into account only the amount relating to the earnings
as aforesaid and the Court shall not take into account any
prospect of the earnings as aforesaid being increased at
any period after the person’s death;
(c) take into account any diminution of any such amount as
aforesaid by such sum as is proved or admitted to be the
living expenses of the person deceased at the time of his
death;
(d) take into account that in the case of a person who was of
the age of thirty years and below at the time of his death,
the number of years’ purchase shall be 16; and in the case
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
of any other person who was of the age range extending
between thirty one years and fifty-nine years at the time of
his death, the number of years’ purchase shall be
calculated by using the figure 60, minus the age of the
person at the time of death and dividing the remainder by
the figure 2.
(3A) Any action under this section may consist of or include a
claim for damages for bereavement and, subject to subsection (3D),
the sum to be awarded as damages under this subsection shall be
thirty thousand ringgit.
(3B) A claim for damages for bereavement shall only be for
the benefit of — (a) the spouse of the person deceased; (b) the child
of the person deceased; and (c) the parents of the person deceased.
(3C) Where there is a claim for damages under subsection
(3B), the sum awarded shall be divided equally between them
subject to any deduction likely to be made in respect of all costs and
expenses including costs not recovered from the defendant.
(3D) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may from time to time by
order published in the Gazette vary the sum specified in subsection
(3A).
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(3E) An order made under subsection (3D) shall be published
in the Gazette and as soon as possible thereafter, shall be laid
before the Dewan Rakyat; and if the Dewan Rakyat passes a
resolution annulling the order, it shall be void but without prejudice
to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the
making of a new order as from the date of notification in the Gazette
of the passing of the resolution.
(4) The amount, other than the amount awarded under proviso
(iii) to subsection (3) and the amount recovered under subsection
(3B), so recovered after deducting all costs and expenses, including
the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided
amongst the before-mentioned parties, or any of them in such
shares as the Court by its judgment or decree directs.
(5) Not more than one action shall be brought for and in
respect of the same subject matter of complaint, and every such
action shall be brought within three years after the death of the
person deceased.
(6) In any such action the executor of the deceased may insert
a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the
deceased occasioned by the wrongful act, neglect, or default, which
sum when recovered shall be deemed part of the assets of the
estate of the deceased.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
(7) The plaint or writ or summons in any such action shall give
full particulars of the person or persons for whom or on whose behalf
the action is brought, and of the nature of the claim in respect of
which damages are sought to be recovered.
(8) If there is no executor of the person deceased or there
being an executor no action as in this section mentioned has, within
six calendar months after the death of the person deceased, been
brought by the executor, the action may be brought by all or any of
the persons, if more than one, for whose benefit the action would
have been brought if it had been brought by the executor, and every
action so to be brought shall be for the benefit of the same person
or persons and shall be subject to the same procedure as nearly as
may be as if it was brought by the executor.
(9) It shall be sufficient for any defendant in any action brought
under this section to pay any money, he is advised to pay into Court
as a compensation, in one sum to all persons entitled under this
section for his wrongful act, neglect or default without specifying the
shares into which it is to be divided.
(10) If the said sum is not accepted and an issue is taken by
the plaintiff as to its sufficiency and the Court thinks the same
sufficient, the defendant shall be entitled to judgment upon that
issue.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
(11) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—
“child” includes son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
stepson and stepdaughter;
“parent” includes father, mother, grandfather and
grandmother;
“pension” includes a return of contributions and any payment
of a lump sum in respect of a person’s employment:
Provided that in deducing any relationship referred to in this
subsection any illegitimate person or any person who has been
adopted, or whose adoption has been registered, in accordance
with any written law shall be treated as being or as having been the
legitimate offspring of his mother and reputed father or, as the case
may be, of his adopters.”.
[24] For this issue, I refer to the words of Mohamad Abazafree Mohd
Abbas, J in the case of Nagenthiran Thangarajoo Vs Muhammad
Azwan Mohd Afandi & Anor [2023] 1 LNS 1180 that stated as follows:
“…Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa Tuan HMS KB telah terkhilaf
di dalam penentuan jumlah ganti apabila mengecualikan pengiraan
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
sumbangan caruman KWSP. Ini adalah kerana ia adalah turut
merupakan pendapatan yang diperolehi oleh Perayu yang akan
dikumpulkan sehingga Perayu bersara kelak. Jumlah yang
terkumpul ini akan diterima secara terkumpul selepas Perayu
bersara.”
[25] Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas, J also quoted the High Court’s
decision in the case Lau Kung Kai Vs. Abu Serah bin Bol (M) [2008]
MLJU that stated as follows:
“The complaint that the EPF contribution must not be taken
into account has no merits when the purpose was to access a
suitable multiplicand in a dependency claim. Courts have
even considered EPF contribution in cases other than
dependency claim….
To my mind the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the
loss of his employer’s contribution to the Employee’s
Provident Fund…”.
[26] Therefore, in my view, the calculation for the loss of support should
be based on the deceased salary of RM 2525.30 as per the deceased’s
pay slips.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
Loss of support - as a mechanic
[27] The Plaintiffs through SP2 testified that the deceased received
additional income from his workshop. SP2 submitted the deceased’s bank
statements that showed the monthly income he had been receiving from
his workshop.
[28] However, the Defendants claimed that the source of that income
was not proven. Besides, that income was from an illegal source and
therefore not claimable as decided by the Federal Court in the case of
Chua Kim Suan and Teoh Teik Nam (suing as Administratrix and
Administrator of the estate of Teoh Tek Lee, deceased) Vs
Government of Malaysia & Anor [1994] 1 CLJ 321 that stated as
follows:
“The learned Chief Justice of Singapore also reviewed a case in the
South African Court of Appeal of five Judges in Dhlamini v. Protea
Assurance [1974] (4) SA 906 (A) in which it is said to have been
held that plaintiff, an unlicensed hawker for 20 years had her claim
for damages based on the loss of earnings from unlicensed hawking
disallowed on the ground of such claims being against public policy.
We have decided after most anxious consideration that any claim
for loss of earnings from any illegal source should not be allowed on
the ground that it is against public policy. We think that we would
also follow, on this point, the decisions of Ooi Han Sun; Burns;
Lebagge and Dhlamini, supra and approve the dictum in question in
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Yaacob. We therefore uphold the decision of the learned Judge in
the Court below and that of the learned Registrar at the first instance
that the claim for that part of damages as related to earnings from
the illegal operation of the taxi should be disallowed; because ex
turpi causa non oritur actio or in other words, such claim would be
against public policy. We would like to emphasize the timely caution
of the learned Chief Justice of Singapore in Ooi’s case, supra that
the maxim has a limited application in tort. The maxim’s principal
role lies mainly and almost exclusively in actions on contract.”.
[29] The issue before me was whether that income was from an illegal
source. The Defendant alleged that the part-time income was from an
illegal sources in para 25.15 the Defendant's written submission is as
follows:
“25.15 Kami menghujahkan di sini bahawa jika Si Mati
sebenarnya bekerja “part time” di bengkel, pendapatan yang
diperoleh daripada aktiviti yang tidak sah (pekerjaan di bengkel
yang berkemungkinan tidak wujud) adalah bercanggah dengan
polisi awam”.
[30] On the other hand, the Plaintiffs through SP2 had testified that the
deceased had been working at his workshop and presented the statement
of account of his part-time income.
[31] In my view, it is pertinent to note that there is no hard and fast rule
that a person’s income must be proved by documentary evidence only. In
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
Lee Thiam v. Fatimah Bte Salleh [1981] 1 MLJ 285, loss of dependency
was proved, despite the absence of documentary evidence of the
deceased’s income. The court in that case relied on the evidence of the
deceased’s wife and considering the average income of a rubber-tapper
which the Federal Court endorsed that amount. In this case, the Plaintiffs
had adduced evidence of the Deceased’s earnings through SP2.
[32] With reference to the Minimum Wage Policy and considering the
evidence of the deceased’s statement of account, I allowed RM 1500 as
a reasonable and fair one as the deceased part-time salary.
Living expenses
[33] The learned counsel for the defendants argued that living expenses
ought to be deducted from the actual earnings lost. However, Counsel for
the Plaintiffs did not rebut nor submit any authorities against the
Defendants’ proponent.
[34] For this matter, I refer to the case of Marappan Nallan Koundar v.
Siti Rahmah Ibrahim [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 174 which states as follows:
“[3] The court should not make any deduction for living expenses
under the subsection of s. 28A CLA as there was no proof or
admission in this case as to what the actual living expenses of the
plaintiff were at the time when she was injured.”
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
[35] Besides that, I also refer to the words of Mohamad Abazafree, J in
the case of Nagenthiran Thangarajoo Vs Muhammad Azwan Mohd
Afandi & Anor [2023] 1 LNS 1180 that stated as follows:
“[25] Berkaitan pemotongan kos sara hidup, Mahkamah Agung di
dalam kes Marappan Nallan Koundar v. Siti Rahmah Ibrahim [1990]
1 CLJ (Rep) 174 telah menyatakan seperti berikut;
[3] The court should not make any deduction for living
expenses under the subsection of s. 28A CLA as there was
no proof or admission in this case as to what the actual living
expenses of the plaintiff were at the time when she was
injured. (rujuk; Lau Lee Ching & anor v. Muhammad Faiz Md
Yusof [2019] 1 LNS 2109). [2023] 1 LNS
[26] Sehubungan dengan itu, menggunakan pendekatan
yang sama, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Tuan HMS
adalah tidak terkhilaf apabila memutuskan bahawa jumlah
ganti rugi kehilangan pendapatan adalah tertakluk kepada
pemotongan sebanyak 1/3. Oleh itu jumlah RM1,143,857.00
hendaklah dipotong sebanyak 1/3 menjadikan jumlah yang
sewajarnya diawardkan adalah sebanyak RM862,571.40”.
[36] In this case, SP2 had testified that part of the deceased salary was
used to pay for the utility bill of their matrimonial home and his workshop.
Besides that, the deceased also purchased spare parts for his workshops.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
[37] Therefore, based on that evidence, I allowed a deduction of one-third
from the deceased total salary.
Multiplier
[38] For the multiplier, I refer to the proviso in paragraph (iv) (d) to
subsection 7(3) Civil Law Act 1956 as follows:
“(d) take into account that in the case of a person who was of the
age of thirty years and below at the time of his death, the
number of years’ purchase shall be 16; and in the case of any
other person who was of the age range extending between
thirty one years and fifty-nine years at the time of his death,
the number of years’ purchase shall be calculated by using the
figure 60, minus the age of the person at the time of death and
dividing the remainder by the figure 2.”.
[39] To interpret the application of the proviso to subsection 7(3) I refer
to the Court of Appeal’s decision Cheng Bee Teik & Ors V. Peter
Selvaraj & Another Court Of Appeal, Putrajaya [Civil Appeal No: P-
04-93-2002] as follows:
“The issue before us is, what is the proper interpretation that ought
to be given to the proviso to s. 7(3) of the CLA, which reads: (iv) in
assessing the loss of earnings in respect of any period after the
death of a person where such earnings provide for or contribute to
the damages under this section the Court shall: (d) take into account
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
that in the case of a person who was of the age of thirty years and
below at the time of his death, the number of years' purchase shall
be 16; and 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
of his death, the number of years' purchase shall be calculated by
using the figure 55, minus the age of the person at the time of death
and dividing the remainder by the figure..”
[40] By virtue of the proviso in paragraph (iv) (d) to subsection 7(3) Civil
Law Act 1956, loss of support is calculated as follows:
[RM2525.30 (deceased salary at USIM)
+
RM 1500 (minimum pay as a mechanic]
= RM4025.30 x 13 [60-43 (age of the deceased] x 12
= RM 627,946.8-1/3(209,315.6)
= RM418,631.20.
Bereavement
[41] With reference to subsection 7(3) Civil Law Act 1956, I awarded
RM 30,000.00 for bereavement.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
Funeral expenses and documentation cost
[42] I also awarded RM 3,000.00 for funeral expenses and RM 148.00
for documentation’s costs.
Cost and interest
[43] All interest as per paragraphs (c) to (e) of the Statement of Claim
was also allowed as follows:
(a) interest rate of 5% per annum on the general damages from
the date of the issuance of writ to the date of the judgment;
(b) interest rate of 2.5% per annum on the special damages from
the date of the accident to the date of the judgment; and
(c) interest rate of 5% per annum on the whole judgment from the
date of judgment until full payment.
[44] Plaintiffs’ claim was allowed with fixed costs pursuant to Order 59
rule 23(1) of the Rules of Court.
Conclusion
[45] To recapitulate, based on the aforesaid reasons, and after scrutiny
and consideration of all the evidence before this Court, including the
written and submissions of both parties, I found that liability at 20:80
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and the amount awarded was
fair and reasonable.
(MAZNI BINTI NAWI)
Session Judge
Session Court (4) Seremban
Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus
16 November 2023
For the Plaintiffs:
Messrs Sivaruben & Co
8-12-13, Menara Mutiara Bangsar;
Jalan Liku Off Riong
59100 Bangsar
Kuala Lumpur
For the Defendants:
Messrs Francis Pereira & Shan
No.7, Jalan Mawar,
Suit 8a, Wisma TCT,
516-1, 3rd mile,
Jalan Ipoh,
51200 Kuala Lumpur
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 31,840 | Tika 2.6.0 |
NA-A53KJ-300-09/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) HAZELIN NOR BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) 2. ) DANNIS AL' HAFIZ ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) 3. ) SHAZRYN DANISHA BINTI MUHAMAD HAZRI ( Menuntut sebagai Isteri dan Anak-Anak Yang Sah serta Orang Tanggungan Simati, MUHAMAD HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS ) DEFENDAN 1. ) HASANUDDIN BIN RENTA 2. ) E BROTHERS TRADING SDN BHD | Burden of proof-section 101 Evidence Act- ‘balance of probabilities’ as ‘more probable than not’ and which is ‘not so high as required in a criminal case…but if the probabilities are equal, it is not discharged-Charged and plead guilty-an admission established by a guilty plea-subsection 43(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 for careless and inconsiderate driving-contributory negligence-rule 13 of the Highway Code -level of intoxication. - lose focus and ability to ride carefully -entitled to be compensated for the loss of his employer’s contribution to the Employee’s Provident Fund-loss of support -living expenses-multiplier-proviso in paragraph (iv) (d) to subsection 7(3) Civil Law Act 1956-funeral expenses | 16/11/2023 | Puan Mazni binti Nawi | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2103fa30-74b9-42fb-b297-5e2cf1d5b176&Inline=true |
IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT SEREMBAN
IN THE STATE OF NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS, MALAYSIA
CASE NO.NA-A53KJ-300-09/2022
BETWEEN
HAZELIN NOR BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN … PLAINTIFFS
DANNIS AL ‘HAFIZ
SHAZRYN DANISHA BINTI MUHAMAD HAZRI
(as the lawful widow and dependents of the deceased, MUHAMMAD
HAZRI BIN ASLIYAS)
AND
HASANUDDIN BIN RENTA
EBROTHERS TRADING SDN. BHD … DEFENDANTS
16/11/2023 21:30:40
NA-A53KJ-300-09/2022 Kand. 27
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
Introduction
[1] An appeal was filed dated 15 September 2023 by both Plaintiffs and
Defendants on the issues of liability and quantum decided by this Court
on 8 September 2023.
The factual background
[2] The proceedings at the Sessions Court originated from an accident
that occurred on 10 February 2022, involving a motorcycle NCY 8731
ridden by the deceased and a Lorry MAJ 3371 driven by the First
Defendant at Desa Kasia, Nilai.
[3] To prove her case, the Plaintiffs had called 3 witnesses while the
First Defendant himself had testified. Plaintiffs’ witnesses were as follows:
(a) Inspector Nor Fadzilah bin Mohd Zainuddin-The Investigation
Officer (“SP1”);
(b) Mrs. Hazelin bin Zainal Abidin -The widow of the deceased-The
First Plaintiff ("SP2"); and
(c) Tunku Nazruddin in Tunku Yahya - Representative of the
deceased’s Employer (“SP3”).
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[4] I apportioned liability at 20:80 between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants. Both parties appealed against such a decision, with the
Plaintiffs contending that the Defendants should have been made 100%
liable. On the other hand, the Defendants contended that the apportioned
liability should be at 40:60 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. On
the issue of quantum, both parties were dissatisfied with my decision and
appealed against such an award.
Liability
[5] At this juncture, Plaintiffs had the legal burden of proof as prescribed
by section 101 of the Evidence Act which reads:
“Burden of proof
101. (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he
asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”.
[6] This reminder was also administered by the Federal Court in Wong
Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali [1971] 1 LNS 151 in the words of Ong CJ:
“In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff,
whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
succeed without proof of the defendant’s negligence. Evidence is
the foundation of proof, with which it must not be confounded. Proof
is that which leads to a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged
facts which are the subject of inquiry. Evidence, if accepted and
believed, may result in proof, but it is not necessarily proof of itself.”
[7] Evrol Mariette Peters, J in Sabri Abdul Talib and Vt Logistics (M)
Sdn. Bhd. V. Tiong Mee Kooi [2021] 1 LNS 2275 also emphasised
that -
“The standard of proof on the Plaintiff to prove his claim was on a
balance of probabilities. The term ‘balance of probabilities’ was
described in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 by
Denning J (as he then was) as ‘more probable than not’ and which
is ‘not so high as required in a criminal case…but if the probabilities
are equal, it is not discharged’. The standard, therefore, does not
allow for any guesswork, speculation, surmise or conjecture. Miller
v. Minister of Pensions has been assimilated into Malaysian
jurisprudence through several cases including Inas Faiqah bt Mohd
Helmi (an infant suing through her father and next friend, Mohd
Helmi bin Abdul Aziz) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 MLJ 1.”.
[8] The Plaintiffs had contended that this was a case where the
Defendant should have been held 100% liable as it was a case where the
Defendant had admitted that he attempted to make a U-turn. The
Defendant was also charged under subsection 43(1) of the Road
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
Transport Act 1987 of careless and inconsiderate driving and he pleaded
guilty.
[9] However, the Defendants contended that the liability should be
apportioned at 40:60 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The
Defendants testified that there was no signage that disallowed him to
make a U-turn.
[10] Furthermore, the Plaintiffs should also be held liable and contributed
40% negligence as the deceased had lacked focus and was able to avoid
the collision.
Court’s finding
[11] Both the deceased and the First Defendant were traveling in the
same direction. The First Defendant attempted to make a U-turn when the
deceased who was riding a motorcycle collided with the lorry.
Charged and Plead Guilty
[12] The First Defendant was charged under subsection 43(1) of the
Road Transport Act 1987 for careless and inconsiderate driving. He then
pleaded guilty and was fined RM 7000. His driving license was also
endorsed.
[13] The issue of liability when one party was charged in Court was
discussed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Annamalay Retnam Vs
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
Mah Chong Peng & Anor [2010] 6 CLJ 487- at page 499 which quoted
as follows:
“[26] In Lim Ah Toh, supra, the pertinent of the judgement at p. 196
reads:
The plea of guilty by the first defendant to a charge of
inconsiderate driving is an admissible admission that further
supports the plaintiff's case, and which weighs against the
defendants see Noor Mohamed Vs Palanivelu [1956] MLJ
11; EA Long Vs Wong Chin Wah [1975] MLJ 165.”.
[14] Relying on that case, that an admission by the First Defendant was
established by a guilty plea, therefore on the balance of probabilities, I
found that the Defendants should be held liable for negligence while the
Second Defendant was vicariously liable for negligence.
Contributory Negligence
[15] Hence, the issue was whether the deceased contributed to the
negligence. The term “contributory negligence” was highlighted by the
Supreme Court in Lai Yew Seong Vs Chan Kim Sang [1987] CLJ Rep
151; [1987] 1 CLJ 352 as follows:
“.. negligent as used in the expression 'contributory negligence'
does not mean breach of duty. It means the failure by the person to
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
use reasonable care for the safety of himself or his property so that
he becomes the author of his own wrong. The test of contributory
negligent is based entirely on the conduct of the plaintiff in the
accident or case”.
[16] Despite the guilty plea, from SP1, it was revealed that the deceased
was riding at the fastest lane and not as required by rule 13 of the Highway
Code which states as follows:
“Keep to the left
13. Vehicles should at all times be driven on the lefthand side of
the road, the slower the speed the closer to the edge of the road.”.
[17] Furthermore, SP1 also testified that from the postmortem report,
there was alcohol in the blood of the deceased indicating some level of
intoxication.
[18] Moreover, it was a clear sunny day, and the deceased should have
been able to avoid the collision when approaching the motor lorry.
However, due to the intoxication level, the deceased might lose focus and
ability to ride carefully and collide with the motor lorry.
[19] I refer to the words of Nantha Balan, J in the case of Wan Mohd
Afzainizam bin Wan Ahmad & Anor Vs Tan Sew Yong (suing as lawful
widow and dependant of Chin Wai Loy, deceased) & Ors [2017] 11
MLJ 1, quoted by the Defendant as follows:
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
“[53] Hence, counsel for the defendants submitted (quite rightly) that
as a matter of common sense, the inference to be drawn is that the
said motorcar had been speeding and crashed into the stationary
vehicles. This therefore raises the question as to whether the
deceased was keeping a proper look-out and finally, losing control
over the said motorcar when he realized that the fast lane was
blocked. The fact that there was alcohol in the blood and urine of
the deceased indicates that there was some level of intoxication,
and this may have played a role in the ability (or inability) of the
deceased to drive carefully along the road and to have proper
control of the said motorcar”.
[20] In this case, based on the facts and evidence, I found on the balance
of probabilities that the accident was also contributed by the deceased.
[21] Therefore, I apportioned liability at 20:80 between the Plaintiffs and
the Defendants.
Quantum
Loss of support as USIM’s employee
[22] It was submitted that the Deceased was working at Universiti Sains
Islam Malaysia (“USIM”) as a driver, earning an average sum of
RM2525.30 per month. His pay slips were tendered in Court through his
employer’s representative as exhibits and were marked as P3.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[23] The defendants objected and submitted that the calculation for the
loss of support should be based on the disease’s net income with
reference to section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1955 which provided as follows:
“Compensation to persons entitled for loss occasioned by death
7. (1) Whenever the death of a person is caused by wrongful act,
neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would,
if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain
an action and recover damages in respect thereof , the party who
would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an
action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured,
and although the death has been caused under such circumstances
as an amount in law to an offence under the Penal Code [Act 574].
(2) Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife,
husband, parent, child and any person with disabilities under the
care, if any, of the person whose death has been so caused and
shall be brought by and in the name of the executor of the person
deceased.
(3) The damages which the party who shall be liable under
subsection (1) to pay to the party for whom and for whose benefit
the action is brought shall, subject to this section, be such as will
compensate the party for whom and for whose benefit the action is
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
brought for any loss of support suffered together with any
reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful act,
neglect or default of the party liable under subsection (1):
Provided that—
(i) in assessing the damages there shall not be taken into
account—
(a) any sum paid or payable on the death of the person
deceased under any contract of assurance or insurance,
whether made before or after the coming into force of this
Act;
(b) any sum payable, as a result of the death, under any
written law relating to employees’ provident fund;
(c) any pension or gratuity, which has been or will or may be
paid as a result of the death; or
(d) any sum which has been or will or may be paid under any
written law relating to the payment of any benefit or
compensation whatsoever, in respect of the death;
(ii) damages may be awarded in respect of the funeral expenses
of the person deceased if such expenses have been incurred
by the party for whose benefit the action is brought;
(iii) no damages shall be awarded to a parent on the ground only
of his having been deprived of the services of a child; and no
damages shall be awarded to a husband on the ground only
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
of his having been deprived of the services or society of his
wife; and
(iv) in assessing the loss of earnings in respect of any period after
the death of a person where such earnings provide for or
contribute to the damages under this section the Court shall—
(a) take into account that where the person deceased has
attained the age of sixty years at the time of his death, his
loss of earnings for any period after his death shall not be
taken into consideration; and in the case of any other
person deceased, his loss of earnings for any period after
his death shall be taken into consideration if it is proved or
admitted that the person deceased was receiving earnings
by his own labour or other gainful activity prior to his death;
(b) take into account only the amount relating to the earnings
as aforesaid and the Court shall not take into account any
prospect of the earnings as aforesaid being increased at
any period after the person’s death;
(c) take into account any diminution of any such amount as
aforesaid by such sum as is proved or admitted to be the
living expenses of the person deceased at the time of his
death;
(d) take into account that in the case of a person who was of
the age of thirty years and below at the time of his death,
the number of years’ purchase shall be 16; and in the case
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
of any other person who was of the age range extending
between thirty one years and fifty-nine years at the time of
his death, the number of years’ purchase shall be
calculated by using the figure 60, minus the age of the
person at the time of death and dividing the remainder by
the figure 2.
(3A) Any action under this section may consist of or include a
claim for damages for bereavement and, subject to subsection (3D),
the sum to be awarded as damages under this subsection shall be
thirty thousand ringgit.
(3B) A claim for damages for bereavement shall only be for
the benefit of — (a) the spouse of the person deceased; (b) the child
of the person deceased; and (c) the parents of the person deceased.
(3C) Where there is a claim for damages under subsection
(3B), the sum awarded shall be divided equally between them
subject to any deduction likely to be made in respect of all costs and
expenses including costs not recovered from the defendant.
(3D) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may from time to time by
order published in the Gazette vary the sum specified in subsection
(3A).
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(3E) An order made under subsection (3D) shall be published
in the Gazette and as soon as possible thereafter, shall be laid
before the Dewan Rakyat; and if the Dewan Rakyat passes a
resolution annulling the order, it shall be void but without prejudice
to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the
making of a new order as from the date of notification in the Gazette
of the passing of the resolution.
(4) The amount, other than the amount awarded under proviso
(iii) to subsection (3) and the amount recovered under subsection
(3B), so recovered after deducting all costs and expenses, including
the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided
amongst the before-mentioned parties, or any of them in such
shares as the Court by its judgment or decree directs.
(5) Not more than one action shall be brought for and in
respect of the same subject matter of complaint, and every such
action shall be brought within three years after the death of the
person deceased.
(6) In any such action the executor of the deceased may insert
a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the
deceased occasioned by the wrongful act, neglect, or default, which
sum when recovered shall be deemed part of the assets of the
estate of the deceased.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
(7) The plaint or writ or summons in any such action shall give
full particulars of the person or persons for whom or on whose behalf
the action is brought, and of the nature of the claim in respect of
which damages are sought to be recovered.
(8) If there is no executor of the person deceased or there
being an executor no action as in this section mentioned has, within
six calendar months after the death of the person deceased, been
brought by the executor, the action may be brought by all or any of
the persons, if more than one, for whose benefit the action would
have been brought if it had been brought by the executor, and every
action so to be brought shall be for the benefit of the same person
or persons and shall be subject to the same procedure as nearly as
may be as if it was brought by the executor.
(9) It shall be sufficient for any defendant in any action brought
under this section to pay any money, he is advised to pay into Court
as a compensation, in one sum to all persons entitled under this
section for his wrongful act, neglect or default without specifying the
shares into which it is to be divided.
(10) If the said sum is not accepted and an issue is taken by
the plaintiff as to its sufficiency and the Court thinks the same
sufficient, the defendant shall be entitled to judgment upon that
issue.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
(11) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—
“child” includes son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
stepson and stepdaughter;
“parent” includes father, mother, grandfather and
grandmother;
“pension” includes a return of contributions and any payment
of a lump sum in respect of a person’s employment:
Provided that in deducing any relationship referred to in this
subsection any illegitimate person or any person who has been
adopted, or whose adoption has been registered, in accordance
with any written law shall be treated as being or as having been the
legitimate offspring of his mother and reputed father or, as the case
may be, of his adopters.”.
[24] For this issue, I refer to the words of Mohamad Abazafree Mohd
Abbas, J in the case of Nagenthiran Thangarajoo Vs Muhammad
Azwan Mohd Afandi & Anor [2023] 1 LNS 1180 that stated as follows:
“…Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa Tuan HMS KB telah terkhilaf
di dalam penentuan jumlah ganti apabila mengecualikan pengiraan
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
sumbangan caruman KWSP. Ini adalah kerana ia adalah turut
merupakan pendapatan yang diperolehi oleh Perayu yang akan
dikumpulkan sehingga Perayu bersara kelak. Jumlah yang
terkumpul ini akan diterima secara terkumpul selepas Perayu
bersara.”
[25] Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas, J also quoted the High Court’s
decision in the case Lau Kung Kai Vs. Abu Serah bin Bol (M) [2008]
MLJU that stated as follows:
“The complaint that the EPF contribution must not be taken
into account has no merits when the purpose was to access a
suitable multiplicand in a dependency claim. Courts have
even considered EPF contribution in cases other than
dependency claim….
To my mind the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the
loss of his employer’s contribution to the Employee’s
Provident Fund…”.
[26] Therefore, in my view, the calculation for the loss of support should
be based on the deceased salary of RM 2525.30 as per the deceased’s
pay slips.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
Loss of support - as a mechanic
[27] The Plaintiffs through SP2 testified that the deceased received
additional income from his workshop. SP2 submitted the deceased’s bank
statements that showed the monthly income he had been receiving from
his workshop.
[28] However, the Defendants claimed that the source of that income
was not proven. Besides, that income was from an illegal source and
therefore not claimable as decided by the Federal Court in the case of
Chua Kim Suan and Teoh Teik Nam (suing as Administratrix and
Administrator of the estate of Teoh Tek Lee, deceased) Vs
Government of Malaysia & Anor [1994] 1 CLJ 321 that stated as
follows:
“The learned Chief Justice of Singapore also reviewed a case in the
South African Court of Appeal of five Judges in Dhlamini v. Protea
Assurance [1974] (4) SA 906 (A) in which it is said to have been
held that plaintiff, an unlicensed hawker for 20 years had her claim
for damages based on the loss of earnings from unlicensed hawking
disallowed on the ground of such claims being against public policy.
We have decided after most anxious consideration that any claim
for loss of earnings from any illegal source should not be allowed on
the ground that it is against public policy. We think that we would
also follow, on this point, the decisions of Ooi Han Sun; Burns;
Lebagge and Dhlamini, supra and approve the dictum in question in
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Yaacob. We therefore uphold the decision of the learned Judge in
the Court below and that of the learned Registrar at the first instance
that the claim for that part of damages as related to earnings from
the illegal operation of the taxi should be disallowed; because ex
turpi causa non oritur actio or in other words, such claim would be
against public policy. We would like to emphasize the timely caution
of the learned Chief Justice of Singapore in Ooi’s case, supra that
the maxim has a limited application in tort. The maxim’s principal
role lies mainly and almost exclusively in actions on contract.”.
[29] The issue before me was whether that income was from an illegal
source. The Defendant alleged that the part-time income was from an
illegal sources in para 25.15 the Defendant's written submission is as
follows:
“25.15 Kami menghujahkan di sini bahawa jika Si Mati
sebenarnya bekerja “part time” di bengkel, pendapatan yang
diperoleh daripada aktiviti yang tidak sah (pekerjaan di bengkel
yang berkemungkinan tidak wujud) adalah bercanggah dengan
polisi awam”.
[30] On the other hand, the Plaintiffs through SP2 had testified that the
deceased had been working at his workshop and presented the statement
of account of his part-time income.
[31] In my view, it is pertinent to note that there is no hard and fast rule
that a person’s income must be proved by documentary evidence only. In
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
Lee Thiam v. Fatimah Bte Salleh [1981] 1 MLJ 285, loss of dependency
was proved, despite the absence of documentary evidence of the
deceased’s income. The court in that case relied on the evidence of the
deceased’s wife and considering the average income of a rubber-tapper
which the Federal Court endorsed that amount. In this case, the Plaintiffs
had adduced evidence of the Deceased’s earnings through SP2.
[32] With reference to the Minimum Wage Policy and considering the
evidence of the deceased’s statement of account, I allowed RM 1500 as
a reasonable and fair one as the deceased part-time salary.
Living expenses
[33] The learned counsel for the defendants argued that living expenses
ought to be deducted from the actual earnings lost. However, Counsel for
the Plaintiffs did not rebut nor submit any authorities against the
Defendants’ proponent.
[34] For this matter, I refer to the case of Marappan Nallan Koundar v.
Siti Rahmah Ibrahim [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 174 which states as follows:
“[3] The court should not make any deduction for living expenses
under the subsection of s. 28A CLA as there was no proof or
admission in this case as to what the actual living expenses of the
plaintiff were at the time when she was injured.”
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
[35] Besides that, I also refer to the words of Mohamad Abazafree, J in
the case of Nagenthiran Thangarajoo Vs Muhammad Azwan Mohd
Afandi & Anor [2023] 1 LNS 1180 that stated as follows:
“[25] Berkaitan pemotongan kos sara hidup, Mahkamah Agung di
dalam kes Marappan Nallan Koundar v. Siti Rahmah Ibrahim [1990]
1 CLJ (Rep) 174 telah menyatakan seperti berikut;
[3] The court should not make any deduction for living
expenses under the subsection of s. 28A CLA as there was
no proof or admission in this case as to what the actual living
expenses of the plaintiff were at the time when she was
injured. (rujuk; Lau Lee Ching & anor v. Muhammad Faiz Md
Yusof [2019] 1 LNS 2109). [2023] 1 LNS
[26] Sehubungan dengan itu, menggunakan pendekatan
yang sama, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Tuan HMS
adalah tidak terkhilaf apabila memutuskan bahawa jumlah
ganti rugi kehilangan pendapatan adalah tertakluk kepada
pemotongan sebanyak 1/3. Oleh itu jumlah RM1,143,857.00
hendaklah dipotong sebanyak 1/3 menjadikan jumlah yang
sewajarnya diawardkan adalah sebanyak RM862,571.40”.
[36] In this case, SP2 had testified that part of the deceased salary was
used to pay for the utility bill of their matrimonial home and his workshop.
Besides that, the deceased also purchased spare parts for his workshops.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
[37] Therefore, based on that evidence, I allowed a deduction of one-third
from the deceased total salary.
Multiplier
[38] For the multiplier, I refer to the proviso in paragraph (iv) (d) to
subsection 7(3) Civil Law Act 1956 as follows:
“(d) take into account that in the case of a person who was of the
age of thirty years and below at the time of his death, the
number of years’ purchase shall be 16; and in the case of any
other person who was of the age range extending between
thirty one years and fifty-nine years at the time of his death,
the number of years’ purchase shall be calculated by using the
figure 60, minus the age of the person at the time of death and
dividing the remainder by the figure 2.”.
[39] To interpret the application of the proviso to subsection 7(3) I refer
to the Court of Appeal’s decision Cheng Bee Teik & Ors V. Peter
Selvaraj & Another Court Of Appeal, Putrajaya [Civil Appeal No: P-
04-93-2002] as follows:
“The issue before us is, what is the proper interpretation that ought
to be given to the proviso to s. 7(3) of the CLA, which reads: (iv) in
assessing the loss of earnings in respect of any period after the
death of a person where such earnings provide for or contribute to
the damages under this section the Court shall: (d) take into account
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
that in the case of a person who was of the age of thirty years and
below at the time of his death, the number of years' purchase shall
be 16; and 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
of his death, the number of years' purchase shall be calculated by
using the figure 55, minus the age of the person at the time of death
and dividing the remainder by the figure..”
[40] By virtue of the proviso in paragraph (iv) (d) to subsection 7(3) Civil
Law Act 1956, loss of support is calculated as follows:
[RM2525.30 (deceased salary at USIM)
+
RM 1500 (minimum pay as a mechanic]
= RM4025.30 x 13 [60-43 (age of the deceased] x 12
= RM 627,946.8-1/3(209,315.6)
= RM418,631.20.
Bereavement
[41] With reference to subsection 7(3) Civil Law Act 1956, I awarded
RM 30,000.00 for bereavement.
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
Funeral expenses and documentation cost
[42] I also awarded RM 3,000.00 for funeral expenses and RM 148.00
for documentation’s costs.
Cost and interest
[43] All interest as per paragraphs (c) to (e) of the Statement of Claim
was also allowed as follows:
(a) interest rate of 5% per annum on the general damages from
the date of the issuance of writ to the date of the judgment;
(b) interest rate of 2.5% per annum on the special damages from
the date of the accident to the date of the judgment; and
(c) interest rate of 5% per annum on the whole judgment from the
date of judgment until full payment.
[44] Plaintiffs’ claim was allowed with fixed costs pursuant to Order 59
rule 23(1) of the Rules of Court.
Conclusion
[45] To recapitulate, based on the aforesaid reasons, and after scrutiny
and consideration of all the evidence before this Court, including the
written and submissions of both parties, I found that liability at 20:80
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and the amount awarded was
fair and reasonable.
(MAZNI BINTI NAWI)
Session Judge
Session Court (4) Seremban
Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus
16 November 2023
For the Plaintiffs:
Messrs Sivaruben & Co
8-12-13, Menara Mutiara Bangsar;
Jalan Liku Off Riong
59100 Bangsar
Kuala Lumpur
For the Defendants:
Messrs Francis Pereira & Shan
No.7, Jalan Mawar,
Suit 8a, Wisma TCT,
516-1, 3rd mile,
Jalan Ipoh,
51200 Kuala Lumpur
S/N MPoDIbl00Kyl14s8dWxdg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 31,840 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-33-546-09/2018 | PEMPETISYEN YOGITA KISHANCHAND JETHWANI RESPONDEN 1. ) ASHVIN JETHANAND VALIRAM 2. ) SHERINA LACHMAN MAHTANI 3. ) HARVINDER KAUR A/P HARCHAND SINGHPIHAK KETIGAVALIRAM HOLDINGS SDN BHD | Family law - Respondent Husband's application to vary previous court order - Petitioner Wife utilising spousal maintenance to fund her legal fees in proceedings against Respondent - Whether spousal maintenance for Petitioner such legal fees - Whether allowed by court order - Whether just and equitable for Petitioner to do so - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 83 and 96Family law - Respondent Husband's application to vary previous court order - Whether there was procedural non-compliance by the Respondent - Whether such non-compliance had prejudiced the Petitioner wife - Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 rules 61, 63, 65 | 16/11/2023 | YA Puan Evrol Mariette Peters | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0f9808df-6742-4fbb-b923-77e34d8e8be4&Inline=true |
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA
DIVORCE PETITION NO: WA-33-546-09/2018
In the matter of sections
53, 54(1)(a) & (b), 58 and 59 of the
Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (Act 164))
BETWEEN
YOGITHA KISHANCHAND JETHWANI …PETITIONER
AND
ASHVIN JETHANAND VALLIRAM … RESPONDENT
SHERINA LACHMAN MAHTANI …1ST CO-RESPONDENT
HARVINDER KAUR A/P HARCHAND SINGH …2ND CO-RESPONDENT
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
16/11/2023 09:10:21
WA-33-546-09/2018 Kand. 467
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
2
Introduction
[1] This was an application (“this Application”) by the Respondent
Husband in enclosure 405, seeking to vary certain terms of a court
order dated 9 December 2019 (“the Court Order”), granted pursuant to
an application by the Petitioner Wife for interim relief.
The factual background
[2] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively “the Parties”) were aged
50 and 52 respectively at the time of the hearing. The Petitioner is a
permanent resident of Malaysia, while the Respondent, a Malaysian
citizen, is an entrepreneur. They were married in July 1999, and are
blessed with two children, a son and a daughter, who were 22 and 19
years old, respectively, at the time of the hearing.
[3] At the outset of their marriage, the Parties established their residence
in the Respondent’s family home in Sentul, where they resided for the
initial decade. In 2009, they relocated to a condominium known as Sri
Penaga.
[4] Over the years, the marital relationship underwent a gradual decline
marked by frequent arguments and conflicts. The situation reached a
turning point in October 2017, when the Respondent vacated Sri
Penaga. The Petitioner, however, has chosen to remain at Sri Penaga.
[5] In September 2018, the Petitioner commenced divorce proceedings by
filing a divorce petition (“the Divorce Petition”). Two weeks later, she
filed an application for interim relief in enclosure 8, and in December
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
3
2019, the Court granted various forms of relief (“the Court Order”),
encompassing provisions for spousal maintenance, a car, a domestic
helper, and a driver.
[6] In December 2018, the Respondent filed a cross-petition (“the Cross-
Petition”) in response to the Divorce Petition. Hearing of the Divorce
Petition and Cross-Petition commenced only in December 2022.
[7] In June 2023, while the hearing of the Divorce Petition and Cross-
Petition was ongoing, the Respondent filed this Application to vary
specific terms of the Court Order in the following manner:
A. One (1) full-time driver for the family who will be available 7 days in
a week (“the driver”) employed in accordance with the Malaysian
Employment Act 1955 (Amendment 2022) and the labour laws.
B. One (1) car which is a Mercedes-Benz model (“the said car”) which
will be available 7 days in a week and in the event the said car has
broken down, the Respondent will provide a replacement car of any
model, temporarily, within a short period of time until the said car is
fixed.
…
D. The Respondent provides The Petitioner shall apply, on her own one
(1) full-time domestic helper (“the domestic helper”) selected by the
Respondent in accordance with the Malaysian Employment Act 1955
(Amendment 2022) and the Respondent to reimburse the expense
incurred.
…
G. The Respondent provides the Petitioner with one (1) supplementary
credit card with a credit limit of RM100,00.00 (“the credit card”) where
the Petitioner’s monthly usage is capped at RM30,000 RM20,000
each month save and except for the medical expenses of the
Petitioner not covered by the medical insurance and the OTP to be
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
4
sent to the Petitioner’s number directly, of which the Petitioner shall
utilise the same to pay only for her means and needs with the
express PROHIBITION of the following:
(a) Fund legal fees and/ or any fees in respect of any suits and/ or
legal matters and/ or any action arising thereof involving the
Respondent as a party;
(b) Subsequent withdrawals of case and/ or cash equivalent after
transferring, topping up, and/ or reloading cash or cash
equivalents; store value, vis the app or whatsoever, (for eg, TNG,
E-wallet, Grab Pay, apply Pay, by using the credit card);
(c) Fund any other expense not stated here
Save and except for the medical expenses of the Petitioner not
covered by the medical insurance and the OTP to be sent to the
Petitioner’s number directly,
1.2 That the Petitioner reimburses the Respondent any such payments
made by the Petitioner previously in contradiction to the amended
1G within 14 days from the date of this Order.
[8] This Application was allowed only with regard to the driver and car, and
to some extent, the domestic helper, but not with regard to spousal
maintenance. The following were my reasons.
The issues
[9] The issues to be considered by this Court, were as follows:
(a) Whether there was procedural non-compliance by the
Respondent; and
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
5
(b) Whether Respondent had established that there was
misrepresentation, mistake of fact, or material change in
circumstances. The further issue that the Court had to address
was whether spousal maintenance for the Petitioner included her
legal fees in the proceedings against the Respondent.
Contentions, evaluation, and findings
Whether there was procedural non-compliance by the Respondent
[10] At the outset, the Petitioner argued that this Application was flawed
due to the Respondent’s failure to adhere to the provisions outlined in
the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 ("the Divorce
and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules"), namely rules 61, 63, and 65,
all of which read:
Rule 61 - General provisions as to evidence etc. on application for ancillary
relief
(1) A petitioner or respondent who has applied for ancillary relief in his
petition or answer and who intends to proceed with the application before a
registrar shall, subject to Rule 84, file a notice in Form 12 and within four
days after doing so serve a copy on the other spouse.
(2) Where a respondent or a petitioner is served with a notice in Form 11 or
13 in respect of an application for ancillary relief, not being an application to
which Rule 62 or 63 applies then, unless the parties are agreed upon the
terms of the proposed order, he shall, within 14 days after service of the
notice, file an affidavit in answer to the application containing full particulars
of his property and income, and if does not do so, the court may order him
to file an affidavit containing such particulars.
(3) Within 14 days after service of any affidavit under paragraph (2) or within
such other time as the court may fix, the applicant shall file an affidavit in
reply containing full particulars of his property and income.
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
6
*****
Rule 63 - Evidence on application for variation order
(1) An application for a variation order shall be supported by an affidavit by
the applicant setting out full particulars of his property and income and the
grounds on which the application is made.
(2) The respondent to the application may, within 14 days after service of
the affidavit, file an affidavit in answer.
[Emphasis added.]
*****
Rule 65 - Investigation by Registrar of application for ancillary relief.
(1) On or after the filing of a notice in Form 11 or 13 an appointment
shall be fixed for the hearing of the application by the registrar.
(2) An application for an avoidance of disposition order shall, if
practicable, be heard at the same time as any related application
for financial relief:
(3) Notice of the appointment, unless given in Form 11 or 13 (as the
case may be) shall be given by the registrar to every party to the
application.
(4) Any party to an application for ancillary relief may by letter require
any other party to give further information concerning any matter
contained in any affidavit filed by or on behalf of that other party or
any other relevant matter, or to furnish a list of relevant documents
or to allow inspection of any such document, and may, in default of
compliance by such other party, apply to the registrar for directions.
(5) At the hearing of an application for ancillary relief the registrar shall,
subject to Rules 66, 68, and 69, investigate the allegations made in
support of and in answer to the application and may take evidence
orally and may order the attendance of any person for the purpose
of being examined or cross-examined, and may at any stage of the
proceedings order the discovery and production of any document
or require further affidavit.
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
7
(6) The registrar may at any stage of the proceedings give directions
as to the filling and service of pleadings and as to the further
conduct of the proceedings.
(7) Where any party to such an application intends on the day
appointed for the hearing to apply only for directions, he shall file
and serve on every other party a notice to that effect.
[Emphasis added.]
[11] As this Application sought ancillary relief to vary the Court Order,
it consequently activated the provisions stipulated in Rules 61, 63,
and 65 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules. These
rules essentially mandate the Respondent to file an affidavit in
support of this Application, containing full particulars of his property
and income.
[12] It was undisputed that the Respondent had not adhered to the
abovementioned rules, albeit his persistent claim of substantial
financial standing.
[13] Although I agreed with the Petitioner that there was indeed non-
compliance with rules 61, 63, and 65 of the Divorce and Matrimonial
Proceedings Rules, I was unable to endorse the Petitioner’s view that
this Application should be dismissed altogether on such grounds, for
the following reasons.
[14] First and foremost, the Respondent, from the very outset, expressly
indicated that he had filed this Application not only on his assertion of
a material change in circumstances, but also on his claims of
misrepresentation and mistake of fact.
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
8
[15] Secondly, this Application was filed amidst the ongoing proceedings of
the Divorce Petition and Cross-Petition, specifically during the
Respondent’s case, subsequent to the Petitioner’s conclusion of her
case. The Petitioner herself had repeatedly asserted her personal
knowledge regarding the Respondent’s financial situation and wealth.
Consequently, the absence of compliance with rules 61, 63, and 65 of
the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules had not resulted in any
prejudice to the Petitioner.
[16] At this juncture, it was incumbent upon this Court to underscore the
importance of rule 102 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings
Rules, which reads:
Rule 102 - Irregularities
(1) Non-compliance with these Rules or any rule of practice in force shall
not render the proceedings void unless the Court shall so order but the
Court may of its own motion or on application of any party set aside any
proceedings wholly or in part as irregular or order amendment on such
terms as may be just.
(2) Any such application may be dismissed unless made within a
reasonable time and before the applicant has taken any step in the
proceedings with knowledge of the irregularity.
[Emphasis added.]
[17] Moreover, the Petitioner had not suffered any prejudice, as this was
simply an irregularity that also squarely aligned with the provisions of
Order 1A, Order 2 rule 3, and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court
2012 (“Rules of Court”), all of which read:
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
9
Order 1A - Court or judge shall have regard to justice
Regard shall be to justice
In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to
the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non-
compliance with these Rules
*****
Order 2 - Effect of non-compliance
Rule 3 - Preliminary objection for non-compliance of rules not allowed
A Court or Judge shall not allow any preliminary objection by any party to
any cause or matter or proceedings only on the ground of non-compliance
of any provision of these Rules unless the Court or Judge is of the opinion
that such non-compliance has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of
justice or occasioned prejudice that cannot be cured either by amendment
or an appropriate order for costs or both.
*****
Order 92 - Miscellaneous
Rule 4 - Inherent powers of the Court
For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules
shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make
any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse
of the process of the Court.
[Emphasis added.]
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
10
[18] In light of the objections raised, it was essential to emphasise that
raising non-prejudicial issues was unwise as it ultimately leads to a
needless consumption of judicial time.
[19] Furthermore, it was important to bear in mind that the rules of practice
should serve as a supportive tool rather than an overriding authority in
the pursuit of justice. As aptly expressed by Lord Collins MR in the
case of Re Coles and Ravenshear [1907] 1 KB 1, the Court should not
be excessively constrained by rules. Therefore, there was no
justification for raising technicalities that had no relevance to the
substance of this Application.
[20] It has also been said that 'procedural skirmishes ought not to prevail,
to defeat substantive justice' (per Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA
in Reebok (M) Sdn Bhd v. CIMB Bank Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 230).
Consequently, I could not consider the Petitioner’s contention on any
of the procedural defects since, in my view, such defects did not pose
any actual prejudice to her.
Whether Respondent had established misrepresentation, mistake of fact, or
material change in circumstances
[21] One of the issues before this Court was whether a material change
in circumstances, as defined in section 96 of the Law Reform
(Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce)
Act”), had indeed taken place. This provision reads:
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
11
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.]
[22] The words "material change" has been emphasised in the case
of Sivajothi a/p K Suppiah v. Kunathasan a/l Chelliah [2006] 5 CLJ
318; [2006] 3 MLJ 184 to mean not simply any change, as the
operative word is ‘material’.
[23] The phrase ‘material change in circumstances’ has also been
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.]
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
12
[24] 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.’
[25] Hence, in examining the question of material change in circumstances,
the inquiry is not simply whether there has been any material change
per se since the Court Order was granted. The change must be
sufficiently material, such that expecting the status quo to remain
would not be justified.
[26] It was also crucial to note that the question of whether there was a
material change in circumstances is a question of fact, as decided in
the High Court case of Anna Tay Siew Hong v Joseph Ng Tiong Yong
[1995] 3 CLJ 717, [1995] MLJU 257. Reference was made also to the
case of Navarajan a/l Subramaniam v Rajeswary a/p Muniandy [2019]
MLJU 715, where it was stated by Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J, in the
following passage:
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.]
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
13
[27] The Respondent, therefore, had the legal burden to prove the
material change of circumstances on a balance of probabilities: YCC
v. LSY [2007] 7 CLJ 207; Ng Say Chuan v Lim Szu Ling [2010] 10 CLJ
37.
[28] It was undisputed that the Court Order was granted approximately four
years ago, at a time when the Children were residing with the
Petitioner. The current situation differs significantly from that time, as
the Children have since departed from Sri Penaga to pursue their
further studies. Furthermore, the Petitioner herself had asserted that
the reliefs concerning the driver, car, and domestic helper were
primarily intended for the benefit of the Children.
[29] The material change in circumstances, therefore, arose from the fact
that the Children no longer reside with the Petitioner. Therefore, the
need for a driver to be available around the clock, seven days a week,
is no longer justified. In light of this, I allowed a variation for the driver
to be employed in compliance with the Employment Act 1955
(”Employment Act”), and the applicable labour laws. Nevertheless,
should the Petitioner need the driver’s assistance outside regular
working hours, she is free to coordinate directly with the driver for such
additional services. It is important to note that any overtime wages
arising from such arrangements will be the sole responsibility of the
Petitioner.
[30] With regard to the car (“the Mercedes Benz”), it was undisputed that
since the Court Order was granted, it had experienced multiple
breakdowns. In an effort to permanently address this issue, the
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
14
Respondent had not only suggested to the Petitioner an alternative
vehicle model as a replacement, but had also offered to purchase for
the Petitioner, a new Tesla car valued at approximately MYR200,000.
However, this proposal was rejected by the Petitioner. Nonetheless,
each time the Mercedes Benz experienced a breakdown, the Petitioner
remained steadfast in her insistence that the replacement car should
bear the same brand and model as the Mercedes Benz.
[31] It was crucial to note that four years had passed since the Court Order
was granted back in 2019, and during that time, the Parties had not
foreseen such a delay in the proceedings. Consequently, it should
come as no surprise that the Mercedes Benz, which was already not a
new car when it was provided in 2019, experienced multiple
breakdowns.
[32] I was also of the view that it would be unjust for the Petitioner to
persistently demand the exact brand and model of the Mercedes Benz
as a replacement car. This demand, in my opinion, was unreasonable,
especially since the Mercedes Benz was no longer intended for the
Children but for the Petitioner herself. I have to also add at this juncture
that the variation pertaining to the Mercedes Benz was fundamental to
prevent any form of abuse by the Petitioner of the reliefs provided by
the Court, at the expense of the Respondent.
[33] Hence, I concluded that material change in the circumstances had
transpired over time. This change had rendered the car less
roadworthy than it was originally, leading to frequent trips to the
mechanic. Additionally, the absence of the Children as a constant
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
15
presence in Sri Penaga reinforced my view that the Respondent was
entitled to vary the clause concerning the Mercedes Benz, that is, in
the event of a breakdown, the Respondent should be allowed to
provide a temporary replacement car of any model, until the Mercedes
Benz is repaired.
[34] With regard to the domestic helper, the Respondent asserted that the
Petitioner should personally apply for a domestic helper, who will be
selected by the Respondent and subject to the regulations outlined in
the Employment Act. The Respondent also asserted that he will
continue to bear the costs associated with such application and the
domestic helper.
[35] The Respondent’s contention was predicated on his submission that
any domestic helper employed must reside with the individual
requesting such services. In this particular scenario, if the Respondent
was the one applying for the domestic helper, then such domestic
helper would be obliged to reside at the Respondent’s abode rather
than the Petitioner’s. Consequently, the Respondent contended that
the onus of applying for the domestic helper should fall on the
Petitioner.
[36] I had to disagree with the Respondent on this point as he had failed to
provide any supporting literature or legal precedent indicating that a
domestic helper secured by the Respondent necessitates residing with
the Respondent as the applicant. Therefore, there was no factual basis
for the assertion that it must be the Petitioner who should initiate the
application for the domestic helper.
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
16
[37] Secondly, the Court Order pertaining to the domestic helper had
stipulated that the Respondent was responsible for procuring a full-
time domestic helper, as selected by the Respondent. It was crucial to
note that the Court Order specified ‘full-time’ and not ‘live-in’, implying
that there was no express requirement for the domestic helper to
reside with the Petitioner. Instead, the domestic helper was solely
mandated to work full-time at the Petitioner’s residence and may,
therefore, reside at the Respondent’s residence. As such, there was
no basis for the Petitioner to undertake the application for the domestic
helper.
[38] However, I agreed with the Respondent’s contention that, given the
full-time nature of the domestic helper’s role at the Petitioner’s
residence, it was appropriate for her employment to be regulated by
the provisions of the Employment Act.
Whether spousal maintenance for Petitioner included legal fees in
proceedings against Respondent
[39] The Respondent had additionally sought to vary the terms of the Court
Order concerning spousal maintenance in accordance with the
provisions of section 83 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act,
which reads:
Section 83 – Power for court to vary orders for maintenance
The court may at any time and from time to time vary, or rescind, any
subsisting order for maintenance, whether secured or unsecured, on the
application of the person in whose favour or of the person against whom the
order was made, or, in respect of secured maintenance, of the legal
personal representatives of the latter, where it is satisfied that the order was
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
17
based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact or where there has been
any material change in the circumstances.
[Emphasis added.]
[40] The motivation for seeking this modification stemmed from the
Petitioner’s utilisation of the maintenance funds, notably her allocation
of spousal maintenance to cover her legal expenses incurred during
these proceedings against the Respondent.
[41] The Respondent asserted that the Petitioner’s actions, during the
hearing of the interim application, amounted to misrepresentation to
Court, which led to the granting of the Court Order. The Respondent
argued that the Court was influenced by false information, and there
had in fact been material change in circumstances since the
Children were no longer residing with the Petitioner. Consequently,
the Respondent contended that the Petitioner’s maintenance
should be reduced.
[42] I found the Respondent’s contention untenable for several reasons.
First and foremost, the maintenance granted under the Court Order
was specifically designated as spousal maintenance, irrespective of
the Children’s needs, making their current residence status irrelevant.
[43] Secondly, the Court Order, had already provided for child
maintenance, reinforcing the distinction between spousal and child
maintenance.
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
18
[44] I must emphasise that the Court Order had expressly stated that the
Petitioner's monthly spending is capped at MYR30,000 each month.
This term made it clear that the MYR30,000 is not exclusively intended
for the Petitioner’s daily expenses, as no other exceptions were made
by the previous judge in the Court Order, save for medical expenses.
[45] The Respondent’s primary contention revolved around the Petitioner’s
usage of the maintenance funds to cover her legal fees for the divorce
proceedings, which meant that the Respondent was funding the
Petitioner’s litigation against him, This, the Respondent asserted, was
wrong and an abuse of the utilisation of such funds meant for spousal
maintenance.
[46] The Respondent’s contention was untenable as there was no
indication that the Petitioner could not use the funds for spousal
maintenance for legal fees when the Court Order was obtained in
December 2019, as the divorce proceedings were anticipated to be
complex and lengthy. Furthermore, spousal maintenance is inherently
subjective and depends on the individual needs of the applicant, with
the court exercising discretion in each case.
[47] While I acknowledged the Respondent’s concerns regarding funding
the Petitioner’s litigation against him, I must disagree with the
Respondent’s argument that misrepresentation of fact had occurred.
There was no indication that the Petitioner was not going to use the
maintenance money for her legal fees. In fact, when the Court Order
was obtained in December 2019, it was foreseeable that the Petitioner
would incur legal expenses due to the intricate nature of the divorce
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
19
proceedings. Therefore, I maintained the view that misrepresentation
had not been substantiated.
[48] Furthermore, considering that spousal maintenance is contingent upon
an applicant’s specific requirements, it is well-established that the
evaluation of these needs can vary from one case to another. This
principle is not rigidly prescribed by law, allowing the Court to exercise
discretion in its determination.
[49] The Respondent’s reliance on the case of Gurbachan Singh a/l Wazir
Singh v Amarjit Kaur a/p Atma Singh and another appeal [2018] MLJU
341 was misplaced, as that case pertained to a fresh maintenance
order, based on the means and needs test in sections 77 and 78 of the
Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act, whereas the present case
involved an application to vary spousal maintenance under sections 83
and 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act.
[50] My view was fortified by the analogy that if the Petitioner possessed
the freedom to acquire valuable items worth MYR30,000 and to
subsequently sell them to cover her legal expense, then she should
likewise be entitled to utilise a portion of the spousal maintenance for
legal fees, as long as the total amount does not surpass MYR30,000.
[51] I additionally emphasised to the Respondent that any allocation the
Petitioner made from the MYR30,000 to pay for the legal expenses
would inevitably reduce the funds available for the Petitioner’s other
financial obligations. The overarching constraint was clear, that is, the
total expenditure could not surpass the designated limit of MYR30,000.
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
20
[52] Moreover, supporting a spouse’s legal costs during divorce
proceedings is not without precedent, as exemplified in the New
Zealand High Court ruling in Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550. This
decision emphasised that a maintenance award can encompass the
necessity for one party to cover accounting or legal expenses when
there is ongoing litigation, facilitating the party’s journey towards self-
sufficiency. Therefore, I took the view that unless expressly excluded
from the Court Order, the Petitioner’s legal costs are included.
[53] The Respondent further implored the Court to invoke its inherent
jurisdiction as outlined in Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court. The aim
was to ensure that justice prevails in this case, as it was, according to
the Respondent, fundamentally inappropriate in any conceivable
scenario to employ funds earmarked for spousal maintenance to cover
legal expenses incurred in proceedings against the Respondent. The
provision reads:
Order 92 – Miscellaneous
Rule 4 – Inherent powers of the Court
For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules
shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make
any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse
of the process of the Court.
[Emphasis added.]
[54] In my view, justice is not a unilateral concept, exclusively concerned
with the rights and interests of a single party. Instead, it is a dynamic
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
21
interplay of rights and interests of all parties involved. In the specific
context of this case, dictating the manner in which the Petitioner could
spend the maximum amount of MYR30,000 which had already been
awarded to her as spousal maintenance, would inherently undermine
the principles of justice.
[55] It is essential to note that in January 2020, the Respondent had lodged
an appeal against the Court Order, which was subsequently dismissed.
Undeterred, in April 2021, the Respondent pursued another legal
avenue by filing an application to vary the Court Order. In that
application, the Respondent cited, among other factors, the Petitioner’s
alleged unwarranted expenditures. However, such an attempt was
unsuccessful, as that application was dismissed in May 2022. Now, in
June 2023, this Application was filed.
[56] It, therefore, became unmistakably clear that the Respondent was
resolute in controlling the Petitioner’s expenditures, aiming to curtail
her entitlement to spousal maintenance. This behaviour, in my view,
flagrantly violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness. The
situation was further aggravated by the Respondent’s consistent
insistence on his considerable wealth in justifying why he should have
been exempt from disclosing his income and assets to the Court. Given
the undisputed fact of the Respondent’s substantial wealth, it fortified
my view that reducing the Petitioner’s interim spousal maintenance at
this stage would be a stark contradiction to principles of justice and
equity.
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
22
[57] Consequently, the prayer to vary the terms of maintenance was not
allowed.
Conclusion
[58] 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 both Parties,
this Application was allowed only with respect to the driver, car, and
to some extent, the domestic helper.
Dated: 16 November 2023
SIGNED
………………………………………….
(EVROL MARIETTE PETERS)
Judge
High Court, Kuala Lumpur
Counsel:
For the Petitioner – S Vasanthi and Subathra KS Nathan; Messrs K Sugu
& Associates
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
23
For the Respondent – Chris Lim Su Heng, Sumita Gnanarajah, Tan
Chee Yen, and Hirasini S Mahandran; Messrs Chris Lim Su Heng
For the First Co-Respondent – Alex Tan Jee Hian; Messrs Jublin
Tan & Tey
For the Second Co-Respondent – Yoges M Verasuntharam; Messrs
Chambers of Yoges
Cases referred to:
➢ Anna Tay Siew Hong v Joseph Ng Tiong Yong [1995] 3 CLJ 717,
[1995] MLJU 257
➢ Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550
➢ Gisela Gertrud Abe v Tan Wee Kiat [1986] 2 MLJ 58, [1986] CLJ (Rep)
133
➢ Gurbachan Singh a/l Wazir Singh v Amarjit Kaur a/p Atma Singh and
another appeal [2018] MLJU 341
➢ 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
➢ Re Coles and Ravenshear [1907] 1 KB 1
➢ Reebok (M) Sdn Bhd v. CIMB Bank Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 230
➢ Sivajothi a/p K Suppiah v Kunathasan a/l Chelliah [2006] 5 CLJ
318; [2006] 3 MLJ 184
➢ YCC v LSY [2007] 7 CLJ 207
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-33-546-09/2018 16 November 2023
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
24
Legislation referred to:
➢ Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 – rules 61, 63, 65,
102
➢ Employment Act 1955
➢ Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – sections 77, 78, 83, 96,
97
➢ Rules of Court 2012 – Orders 1A, 3, 92
S/N 3wiYD0Jnu05I3fjTY6L5A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 40,211 | Tika 2.6.0 |
W-02(NCC)(A)-1925-10/2021 | PERAYU LOW EAN NEE RESPONDEN SNE MARKETING SDN BHD | DISCOVERY - INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS MADE UNDER S.254 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2016 - SHAREHOLDER DISPUTE - DIRECTOR'S RIGHT TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS - ISSUE OF THE ALLEGED IN VALIDITY OF THE DIRECTOR'S REMOVAL | 16/11/2023 | YA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. MoorthyKorumYA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. MoorthyYA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahDato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ed2f91c9-dfd6-4e9a-b60f-b16a4900118e&Inline=true |
1 | P a g e
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCC)(A)-1925-10/2021
BETWEEN
LOW EAN NEE
(NRIC NO: 750316-07-5408) …APPELLANT
AND
SNE MARKETING SDN BHD
(COMPANY NO: 237161-U) …RESPONDENT
[In the matter of In the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur
In the Federal Territory, Malaysia
(Commercial Division)
Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-164-04/2021
In the matter of SNE Marketing
Sdn Bhd (Company No: 237161-U)
[the “COMPANY”]
And
In the matter of section 245 of the
Companies Act, 2016
And
In the matter of the inspection of the
various accounting documents or records
of the Company by a Director of the
Company
And
In the matter of the inherent powers of this
Honourable Court
16/11/2023 15:46:07
W-02(NCC)(A)-1925-10/2021 Kand. 66
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2 | P a g e
Between
Low Ean Nee
(NRIC No: 750316-07-5408) …Plaintiff
And
SNE Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Company No: 237161-U) …Defendant]
CORAM:
S. NANTHA BALAN, JCA,
HASHIM BIN HAMZAH, JCA,
CHOO KAH SING, JCA
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Learned Judicial
Commissioner dated 28 September 2021 dismissing an application by the
Appellant made under s.254 of the Companies Act 2016 (“the
Application”) that she be allowed to inspect the accounting and other
records of the Respondent for the financial years 2015 - 2019. The
decision of the High Court which gave rise to the present appeal is
reported as Low Ean Nee v SNE Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 4 AMR
843, [2022] MLJU 1002, [2022] 1 LNS 981 (HC).
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3 | P a g e
[2] The Respondent is a multi-level direct marketing company which supplies
food supplements, nutritional supplements, and dietetic substances for
medicinal use that bear the trademark SNE and its variants thereof. At the
material time when the Application was made, the Appellant was a
shareholder and a director of the Respondent. She is still a shareholder of
the Respondent.
[3] The Appellant was “removed” as a director of the Respondent on 9
December 2021. Her removal as a director was done via a directors’
resolution. As such, after the High Court had delivered its decision and
after Notice of Appeal in respect of the instant appeal was filed, the
Appellant “ceased” to be a director. The first question in this appeal
pertains to the merits of the Application and the issue is whether, as
contended by the Appellant, the Learned Commissioner had erred in law
in dismissing the Application. The second question arises out of the
Appellant’s removal as a director post the High Court’s decision. The
question is whether by reason of the principle that was enunciated by the
Singapore Court of Appeal in the case of Haw Par Bros (Pte) Ltd. v
Dato Aw Kow [1973] 2 MLJ 169 (SGCA), the Appellant, being an “ex-
director” (with effect from 9 December 2021), is not entitled to seek the
statutory right of inspection under s.254 of the Companies Act 2016.
Background
[4] At all material times, the Appellant was, and still, is a shareholder of the
Respondent. She has been a director of the Respondent since 22 May
2003. The Respondent’s shareholders and directors (as at 24 March
2021), are as follows:
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4 | P a g e
(i) Low Ean Nee (the Appellant) - 50% (Director)
(ii) Low Cheng Teik (“LCT”)* - 39.7% (Director/Chairman)
(iii) Low Hock Boon (son of LCT)** - 10% (Director)
(iv) Lau See Yoong - 0.3% (Director)
* LCT is the Appellant’s paternal uncle
** Low Hock Boon is the Appellant’s cousin
[5] The Appellant sent letters requesting the Respondent to allow her to
inspect the Respondent’s accounting documents or records as
particularized in Annexure A to the Originating Summons dated 7 April
2021 (“the Documents”).
[6] The Appellant’s request for inspection was made against the backdrop of
various actions which she had earlier taken vis-à-vis LCT and/or the other
directors and shareholders of the Respondent. On or about January 2019,
the Appellant visited the office of the Respondent’s company secretary.
She searched and made copies of the Respondent’s documents, including
documents that are (allegedly) the subject matter of the Application.
[7] On 12 March 2019, the Appellant lodged a police report against LCT and
alleged, inter alia that he had wrongfully transferred a trademark
belonging to the Respondent to SNE Global Sdn Bhd (“SNE-G”). LCT’s
daughter, Low Poh Ling (“LPL”) is a shareholder and director of SNE-
G. The Appellant further alleged that her signature had been forged on
several directors’ resolutions and that there was defalcation of funds of
the Respondent by the other directors of the Respondent.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5 | P a g e
[8] Following the police report, on 16 April 2019, the Respondent’s premises
was raided by the police, and documents were confiscated. LCT was
charged with criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) under s.409 of the penal
Code. His daughter, LPL, was subsequently charged with abetting him in
the offence of CBT. On 14 December 2020, LCT and LPL were both
discharged and acquitted by the Sessions Court at the end of the
prosecution’s case. The prosecution’s appeal to the High Court was
subsequently dismissed on 9 August 2021.
[9] In the meanwhile, on 14 October 2019, the Appellant filed an action under
s.346 of the Companies Act 2016 (“the Oppression Suit”) via Kuala
Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No. WA-24NCC-536-
10/2019 against LCT and the other directors and shareholders, alleging
oppressive conduct towards her.
[10] In the Oppression Suit, the Appellant claimed, inter alia, that the affairs
of the Respondent were not conducted in accordance with its Articles of
Association, that the Respondent had failed to secure a reasonable or
better price for disposal of the Respondent’s assets, that there had been
mismanagement in the Respondent and that the funds of the Respondent
were not properly utilised. One of the key complaints in the Oppression
Suit was the assignment of the Respondent’s trademark to SNE-G for a
mere RM10.00. The Appellant also alleged that her signature which
appeared in 32 board of directors’ resolutions, was forged.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6 | P a g e
[11] On 13 July 2020, the High Court dismissed the Oppression Suit. The
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal via Court of Appeal Civil
Appeal No: W-02 (NCC)(A)-909-07/2020. On 13 September 2022, the
Appellant’s appeal was allowed (See: [2023] 2 CLJ 19). The Court of
Appeal agreed with the Appellant’s contention that the assignment of the
SNE Trademark to SNE-G was a manifestation of oppressive conduct.
The Court of Appeal held [35], “the actions of the first to third
respondents were calculated to benefit them indirectly via other corporate
entities controlled and/or related by them to the prejudice of the appellant
being a substantial 50% shareholder of the fourth respondent. The
assignment of the trademark at the consideration of RM10 is
unquestionably dubious here. This smacks of non-compliance of norms of
fair dealing and violation of conditions of fair play and hence oppressive.
Consequently, we find the learned High Court Judge has committed a
misdirection by finding there was no oppression on the appellant by the
first to third respondents. In other words, there was failure to appreciate
that majority of the directors failed to act in the best interest of the
appellant vis-à-vis fourth respondent. The affairs of the company were
conducted effectively to side-line and exclude the appellant's interest as
shareholder and director.
[12] The respondents in the Oppression Suit filed an application for leave to
appeal to the Federal Court. On 28 March 2023 the Federal Court granted
leave to appeal on certain questions of law. The substantive appeal (per
Federal Court Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-30-04/2023) is yet to be disposed.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7 | P a g e
[13] Back to the issue of the Appellant’s request for inspection of documents.
By a letter dated 27 October 2020, the Appellant requested the
Respondent to provide her the Documents for inspection. By a letter dated
11 November 2020 the Respondent took the position that they were
unable to provide the Documents. They gave various reasons.
[14] On 2 December 2020, the Appellant replied to the Respondent’s letter
dated 11 November 2020 and again requested the Respondent to provide
the Documents for her inspection. The Appellant claimed that the
Respondent failed to reply to the Appellant’s letter dated 2 December
2020.
[15] On 3 March 2021, the Appellant wrote to the Respondent and reminded
the Respondent on her request for the Documents. By letter dated 5 March
2021, the Respondent replied to the Appellant’s said letter and alleged as
follows:
(a) The Respondent alleged that it had sent a letter dated 9 December
2020 to the Appellant and the Appellant failed to respond to
paragraph 6 of the Respondent’s said letter;
(b) The Respondent is willing to allow the Appellant to inspect the
Documents upon receiving the Appellant’s reply to the
Respondent’s letter dated 9 December 2020; and
(c) The Appellant has copies of most of the Documents in view of the
Oppression Suit initiated by the Appellant in the Kuala Lumpur
High Court and the pending appeal to the Court of Appeal at the
material time.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8 | P a g e
[16] The Appellant maintained that she did not receive the Respondent’s letter
dated 9 December 2020 and requested for a copy of the same via her letter
dated 8 March 2021. Thereafter, the Respondent’s letter dated 9
December 2020 was forwarded to the Appellant on 10 March 2021. In
essence, via paragraph 6 of the Respondent’s letter, the Appellant was
asked to justify her request for the Documents and to provide a
covenant that she will not use the Documents for any ulterior and/or
improper purpose that is detrimental to the interest of the
Respondent. Paragraph 6 of the Respondent’s letter dated 9 December
2020 is significant as it was an integral part of the High Court’s decision
to dismiss the Application. The Respondent’s stance in refusing to grant
the Appellant the right to inspect and to take copies of the relevant
documents may be seen from paragraphs 4-6 of their letter dated 9
December 2020 which reads as follows:
4. Instead, you have made copies of some of the documents and
wrongfully exposed the Company and Its other directors to
unnecessary litigation. This is evident in your alleged oppression
action (Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-24NCC-536-
10/2019) which has been dismissed by the Honourable Court and
the criminal proceedings against Dato' Seri Low Cheng Teik vide
Sessions Court Case No. WA-62K-56-07/2019. Your actions thus
far has been detrimental to the Company, its officers and other
shareholders, and exposed the Company and its directors to
unnecessary litigation costs when they (the Company and its
officers) should be focussing on developing its business, more so
in these challenging times. Suffice it to say that whilst we have
no objections to your request, we have reason to be sceptical of
your intentions and demands.
5. We also note that there is no urgency in providing you access to
all the documents requested and we will in due course make
available the documents for your inspection. The time period
stated in your letter is unfair and unreasonable.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9 | P a g e
6. While the Company acknowledges a director's right to inspect
certain documents of the Company, in light of your actions
described in Item 4 above, perhaps you could explain the
reason you require these voluminous documents now, after so
many years when these documents have always been available
to you and you never expressed any interest in any of them.
Please include in your response a covenant that you will not use
the information obtained will not be used for any ulterior
and/or an improper purpose that is detrimental to the interest
of the Company.
[Emphasis added]
[17] We may now examine the Respondent’s reasons for refusing inspection.
In the Affidavit in Reply by Low Hock Boon, affirmed on 2 August 2021,
it was stated as follows:
3. In reply to paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff's AIR, the Defendant
states that the Plaintiff has never shown any interest in the
business nor affairs of the Defendant. This is also apparent from
the fact that despite the Plaintiff having full and unrestricted
access to all the Defendant's records, including accounting
records, the Plaintiff chose never to do so. In light of the
Plaintiff's past mischiefs, it is apparent that the Plaintiff's
objective in purportedly exercising her rights vide this suit as a
Director is tainted with mala-fides as can be seen from the events
leading from the police report to the Criminal Suit against the
Managing Director of the Defendant and the Oppression Suit
against the shareholders and the Defendant/Company, both of
which have been dismissed by the respective Honourable Courts.
4. In the circumstances, the Defendant had for good reason denied
the Plaintiff's request and demands unless the Plaintiff complies
with the Defendant's request in their letter dated 09.12.2020
(Exhibit LBH 14). The Defendant is merely acting in the best
interest of the Company/Defendant and wish to avoid being
continuously engaged with the Plaintiff in futile litigation
exercises which drains their resources, time and energies and
therefore prejudicial to the reputation, business and affairs of the
Defendant.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10 | P a g e
5. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 15 (ii)
and 15 (ii) of the Plaintiff's AIR of being accountable under the
law to manage the Company as a Director is also misconceived
and or misplaced as none of the Directors nor the shareholders
nor the Defendant have ever held the Plaintiff accountable as a
Director nor shareholder of the Company, particularly since the
Plaintiff has never expressed any interest in the management,
business, activities nor affairs of the Defendant. In addition the
Plaintiff also failed in her duties as a Director in refusing to
execute the letter of offer from Maybank Islamic Bank Berhad as
referred to in paragraph 15(iv) of the Plaintiff's AIR.
6. In reply to paragraph 15(iv) of the Plaintiff's AIR, the Defendant
states that the request for the Plaintiff as a signatory/guarantor
was imposed by Maybank Islamic Bank Berhad as the Plaintiff
was one of the directors of the Defendant.
6.1 In order to justify the acquisition of the property, details of the
need for the property to capitalize on the current market trends of
a "buyers' market' were also shared with the Plaintiff vide a power
point presentation. However, the Plaintiff refused to sign the
Letter of Offer although the Defendant had responded to the
Plaintiff's queries in her letter of 13.04.2021 vide a power point
presentation.
A copy of the Plaintiff's email dated 20.04.2021 enclosing the
power point presentation is now produced herewith and marked
as Exhibit LHB-19.
Clearly the reasons stated in paragraph 15(v) of the Plaintiff's AIR
is an after- thought to now justify her wrongful refusal to sign as
a guarantor. The Plaintiff must surely be aware that it is part of a
Director's duty and responsibility to also execute guarantees as
may necessarily be required by a financial institution(s) for the
benefit of the Company, especially since the Defendant has
explained the logical and commercial reasons and need for the
Defendant to acquire its own business premises.
6.2 The Plaintiff has also refused to fulfill her responsibility and duty
as a Director of the Defendant when she failed to attend a
Directors meeting on 14.04.2021 despite appropriate notice being
given in accordance with the with the Memorandum and Articles
of Association, which required seven (7) Notice in advance of a
Directors meeting. On the contrary, and in response, the Plaintiff
made an unreasonable demand that she required at least 3-4
weeks' notice for the same. A copy of the Defendant's
Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Plaintiff's
email of 27.04.2021 is now produced herewith and marked as
Exhibit LHB-20 and LBH 21 respectively.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11 | P a g e
7. Clearly, the Plaintiff has not expressed any interest in the
management, operations and affairs of the Defendant nor
expressed any intention to participate fruitfully or productively to
carry out her duties as a Director. Instead, the Plaintiff has only
been disruptive to the business of the Defendant. In the
circumstance, the only honourable thing that the Plaintiff should
do is to resign as a Director and allow the Defendant to grow and
progress.
7.1 The Plaintiff's conduct of continuously harassing the Defendant
and its active directors with numerous demands, which demands
could well have been answered at Directors' meeting(s), is
prejudicial to the Defendant's growth and progress.
PLAINTIFF NEVER PERFORMED HER DUTIES AS A
DIRECTOR
8. The Plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the
Plaintiff's AIR that she owes a statutory and fiduciary duty
towards the Defendant, clearly contradicts her actions from the
outset. The Plaintiff's continued conduct of harassing the
Defendant and its Directors clearly show that she (the Plaintiff)
never had the best interest of the Company at heart.
.....
9. Premised on the Plaintiff's actions/conduct, her refusal to
participate in the Director's meeting for frivolous reasons and the
continued harassment, the only and sole purpose of the inspection
must be to use the Requested Documents to launch unfounded
attacks on the Defendant and its Directors in the management of
the affairs of the Defendant (as done before in the Oppression
Suit) to the detriment of the Defendant and the lodging of a police
report which led to the Criminal Suit.
10. I re-emphasize that the Defendant has never before restrained the
Plaintiff from coming into the Defendant's office and inspecting
any of its records, including making copies of the same. The
breakdown of the relationship with the Plaintiff was purely
attributed to the Plaintiff's wrongful actions/misconduct and lack
of bona-fides which actions are detrimental to the Defendant's
business and reputation in the multi-level marketing industry.
11. The Plaintiff has repeatedly shown impropriety in the purpose of
seeking the reliefs prayed for which are unrelated to the discharge
of her duties as a non- performing Director. Therefore the
inspection of the documents, and requests for copies of such
documents ought not to be allowed unconditionally especially
since the Plaintiff is a Director without any functions or duties.
[Emphasis added]
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12 | P a g e
[18] The Appellant’s response per her Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 18
August 2021 is relevant. In her Affidavit in Reply she stated (at paragraph
[15] the following:
I reiterate that:-
(i) the right to inspect documents and to take copies of them is
essential to the proper performance of a director's duties;
(ii) even though I do rely upon other directors including Dato Seri
Low Cheng Teik and Low Hock Boon in the conduct of the
Defendant's affairs, I am accountable under the law to manage the
company I serve as a director;
iii) hence, I must be at liberty to satisfy myself in relation to all
matters relating to the company's business, without which, I
would not be able to discharge my duty with care, skill and
diligence;
(iv) for example, I was included as one of the signatories (without my
express consent) to sign and to be one of the guarantors for the
banking facility vide the Defendant's letter dated 10.05.2021
which enclosed an offer from Maybank Islamic Berhad to obtain
a loan facility for the purchase of a Defendant's property; and
(v) in the above instant, I was unwilling to execute the said loan
facility as I do not have a full or complete view of the Defendant's
financial state of affairs and I have been denied access to the
Defendant's books and records ie. the Requested Documents.
.....
21. Paragraphs 20 to 24 of AIR No.1 are unfounded. I state that:-
(i) for so long as I remain a director of the Defendant, I retain a right
of inspection of the accounting and other records of the Defendant
and to take copies of them;
(ii) the Defendant's mere allegations that I am hostile, the possibility
of abuse or misuse of the right of inspection does not afford any
ground for its denial or restriction. Further, the Requested
Documents are common accounting records of the Defendant. I
fail to understand how, if the Defendant's accounting records are
properly prepared and kept, a director's inspection of the same
could amount to an 'abuse';
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13 | P a g e
(iii) the recent breakdown of the relationship between the other
directors of the Defendant and myself makes this application for
inspection more so crucial given the lack of co-operation by the
rest of the Defendant’s directors;
A Director’s Right to Inspect the Documents – Companies Act 2016
[19] The following statutory provisions are relevant to the director’s right of
inspection.
Section 245(1) Companies Act 2016:
(1) A company, the directors and managers of a company shall-
(a) cause to be kept the accounting and other records to
sufficiently explain the transactions and financial position of
the company and enable true and fair profit and loss accounts
and balance sheets and any documents required to be
attached thereto to be prepared; and
(b) cause the accounting and other records to be kept in a manner
as to enable the accounting and other records to be
conveniently and properly audited.”
Section 245(4) Companies Act 2016:
“(4) The records referred to in subsection (1) shall be kept at the
registered office of the company or at such other place as the
directors think fit, and shall at all times be open for inspection
by the directors.”
Section 245(8) Companies Act 2016:
“(8) The Court may, in any particular case, order that the accounting
and other records of a company be open to inspection by an
approved company auditor acting for a director, subject to a
written undertaking given to the Court that information acquired
by the auditor during his inspection shall not be disclosed by him
except to that director.”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14 | P a g e
Section 245(9) Companies Act 2016:
“(9) The company and every officer who contravene this section
commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not
exceeding five hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years or to both.”
[20] It is relevant to mention that some of the case laws referred to on this
subject are based on the provisions under the Companies Act 1965. In this
regard, s.167(3), (6) and (7) of the Companies Act 1965 are the same as
s.245(4), (8) and (9) Companies Act 2016 except for s.245(9) of the
Companies Act 2016, wherein a fine of RM5,000.00 or a term of
imprisonment of six months or both as provided for in s.167(7)
Companies Act 1965 has been increased to a maximum fine of
RM500,000.00, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or
to both.
Director’s Right to Inspect – The Contentions
[21] The Appellant took position that, as a director, she has the absolute
right to inspect the Documents and she is not required to provide any
covenant or reason to do so. The Appellant relied on the case of Dato’
Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2
MLJ 527 (CA) (per Low Hop Bing, JCA) which laid down the principles
as follows:
“[16] The relevant established principles have been succinctly stated by
the Singapore Court of Appeal in Wuu Khek Chiang George.
There, the appellant, a director of the respondent, took out an
application under s. 199 of the Singapore Companies Act
(equipollent to our s. 167) for an order requiring the respondent
to inspect its accounting and financial records. The High Court
judge dismissed the application. After reviewing a long line of
authorities, the Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal
and held, inter alia, that:
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15 | P a g e
(1) the right of a director of a company to inspect its accounting
and other records is a right existing at common law and is
recognized in s. 199 of the Companies Act. Such right is a
concomitant of the fiduciary duties of good faith, care,
skill and diligence which the director owes to the
company, and as such, like other rights and powers,
must be exercised for the benefit of the company. The
obligation of the company to allow inspection by its
director is mandatory.
(2) this right has been described as being “absolute”. A
director is prima facie entitled to inspection and is not
required to demonstrate any particular ground or ‘need
to know’ as a basis: Molomby. So long as the right is
exercised for the proper performance of the director’s
duties to the company and not with a view to causing
any detriment to the company, it is in that sense
‘absolute’:……
(3) there is no residual discretion in the court to refuse
inspection. Where the court bars a director from
exercising his right of inspection, it is not in fact
exercising a residual discretion, but is in such an event
satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the
director’s intention is to use the information obtained
for ulterior purposes such as with a view to causing
detriment to the company and that the director is thus
abusing the confidence reposed in him;......”
(4) the right of a director to inspect the books and records
of the company flows from his office as a director and
enables him to perform his duties as a director. The
corollary of this is that the right will be lost where it is
exercised not to advance the interests of the company
but some other ulterior purpose to injure the
company…”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16 | P a g e
[22] In so far as giving reasons for the inspection, counsel for the Appellant
referred to the case of Mirza Mohamed Tariq Beg Mirza HH Beg v
Perunding Pakarmedia Sdn Bhd [2009] 10 CLJ 273 (HC), where the
High Court opined that the applicant (director) “was not obliged under
the law to justify his request to inspect the accounts of the company”. In
Ho Yee Chin v Ho Min Hao & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 728 (HC), the High
Court had held that, “the plaintiff was still a director at the time she
requested for the company's records, she was not obliged to provide a
reason for her request. The onus was on the defendants to prove mala
fides and unless the burden was discharged, it must be assumed that the
plaintiff would exercise the right for the benefit of the company.”
[23] As mentioned earlier, the Respondent had indicated that they would only
allow inspection on condition that the Appellant gives a covenant that she
will not use the information obtained for any ulterior purpose and/or an
improper purpose that is detrimental to the interest of the Respondent. In
response, Counsel for the Appellant referred Dato' Seri Timor Shah
Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 CLJ 103 (HC),
where the High Court held as follows:
“[26] The Court of Appeal in Tan Kim Hor & Ors v. Tan Chong
Consolidated Sdn Bhd also made clear that a director's right to
inspect the accounting records is absolute in the sense that he
is entitled to inspection without subject to any requirement to
provide any reason for the inspection. The courts do not even
have any residual discretion to refuse inspection by a director. A
director’s statutory right of inspection may only be refused if the
director is exercising his right of inspection for some ulterior
purpose or to injure the company.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17 | P a g e
[27] It would be a complete misconception of the true meaning of the
directors' inspection rights if the company seeks to qualify the
exercise of such inspection right. It would thus be wholly
unwarranted for a company to demand as a condition
permitting inspection for the requesting director to execute a
non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement precisely by
reason of the trite legal position that the director's fiduciary
duties to the company already impose strict duties against any
infringement of confidentiality or injury to the company.”
[Emphasis added]
[24] In opposing the Application, the Respondent said that the Appellant had
engaged in “mischief” (see: paragraph [17] of this judgment). In this
regard, the Respondent has described the Appellant’s past conduct, inter
alia, in lodging a police report against LCT and mounting the Oppression
Suit as mischief.
[25] In response, it was argued for the Appellant that it was her constitutional
right to commence legal actions in Court for her transgressed rights using
the accounting records of the Respondent against the relevant parties.
Counsel said commencement of legal actions in Court to ventilate
grievances and vindicate personal rights is certainly not and cannot by any
stretch, be an ulterior or improper motive.
[26] According to Counsel for the Appellant, the commencement of the
Oppression Suit and the lodging of the police report (which complained
of the unlawful transfer of the Respondent’s property, i.e. its trademark
“SNE”, by one of the Respondent’s directors) which led to LCT and his
daughter being charged for CBT are also not, and cannot by any stretch
be an ulterior or improper motive on the part of the Appellant against the
Respondent itself. It may have been against others, but certainly not the
Respondent itself.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18 | P a g e
[27] Hence, Counsel’s complaint was that the Learned Judicial Commissioner
failed to appreciate that the ulterior or improper motive referred to in the
case of Dato’ Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn
Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 527 (CA) or Liaw Yeou Huah v Wong Kee Kian &
Ors [2016] MLJU 1589 (HC) are confined to motives against the
company, not others like directors or shareholders of the company. The
Oppression Suit and the CBT charge merely show hostility towards the
other directors and shareholders of the Respondent and not the
Respondent itself.
[28] In conclusion, it was submitted that the Appellant cannot be precluded
from exercising her rights of inspection of the Documents as a director of
the Respondent, even if there is a possibility that future litigation may
ensue from the inspection of the Documents in furtherance of the ongoing
hostility between the directors and shareholders of the Respondent.
Counsel referred to the High Court’s decision in Mirza Mohamed Tariq
Beg Mirza HH Beg v Perunding Pakarmedia Sdn Bhd [2009] 10 CLJ
273 (HC), at [11] where the Court said relevantly:
“[11] When these competing contentions are considered it is evident
that:
(i) The real hostility is between Mirza and the other directors and
shareholders of the company, not between Mirza and the
company per se. The fact that further litigation may ensue means
that there is a possibility that there will be further litigation
between Mirza and the other directors and shareholders of the
company. In Welch & Anor v. Britannia Industries Pte Ltd [1993]
1 SLR 673 it was held inter alia, that an intention to wrest control
of the company from other shareholders cannot be regarded as
synonymous with an intention to injure the company. Even if this
extends to an intention to force control of the company to one
party, that intention will not deprive that same party of the right
of inspection.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19 | P a g e
The exercise of the directors' right of inspection is not extortion
or oppression, nor is an intention to remove any person from the
management of a company per se an improper purpose. Given the
wide compass of a director's right of inspection, and as s. 167(6)
is an adjunct to this right, it does not follow that simply because
there is a possibility that future litigation may ensue from an
inspection in furtherance of the ongoing hostility between the
directors and shareholders of the company, that Mirza should
be precluded from exercising his rights of inspection as a
director.”
[Emphasis added]
[29] And in Loh Teck Wah v Lim Pang Kiam & Ors [2022] 6 CLJ 549
(HC), the Court opined that the fact that parties were at loggerheads was
of little relevance and was no bar to an application under s. 245 of the
Companies Act 2016. Indeed, the Court went further to say that, “hostility
might often be the explanation for the application in the first place.” In
Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd
[2018] 2 CLJ 103 (HC), the High Court touched on the same point and
opined [93],
“that a director may be hostile towards the company or its staff
does not limit the inspection right and the right to take copies.
The mere possibility of abuse or misuse of the right does not
afford any ground for its denial or restriction. A director retains
this right of inspection (inclusive of the right to be supplied with
copies of documents so inspected), despite mere allegations that
he is hostile, adverse or a competitor of the corporation, for as
long as he remains a director of the company.”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20 | P a g e
The High Court’s Decision
[30] On 28 September 2021, the Learned Judicial Commissioner dismissed the
Application. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the
decision of the High Court via Notice of Appeal dated 14 October 2021.
It is germane to note here that the Appellant was a director of the
Respondent when she filed the Application on 7 April 2021, and later
when she filed the Notice of Appeal on 14 October 2021. In dismissing
the Application, the High Court was of the view that the Appellant is not
entitled to exercise her statutory right of inspection of the Documents,
inter alia, because she was effectively a non-participating director of the
Respondent (See: paragraph [24] of the Grounds of Judgment).
[31] The Learned Judicial Commissioner concluded that the Appellant was
actuated by mala fides and that the Documents are not necessary and the
Appellant did not need them in carrying out her duties as a director of the
Respondent (See: paragraph [27] of the Grounds of Judgment).
[32] The Learned Judicial Commissioner’s reasons for dismissing the
Application may be gathered from the following paragraphs of the
Grounds of Judgment which read as follows;
[17] There are a few reasons which led the court to this finding.
Firstly, the defendant had on multiple occasions enquired with
the plaintiff on the reason why she requires access to the
Documents. The defendant issued letters dated 9 December
2020 and 19 March 2021, and in the letters, raised the fact that
when the plaintiff was given access to the defendant's
documents, she had used them to expose the defendant to
unnecessary litigation. Further, the defendant highlighted that
the Documents were available to the plaintiff at all times, but
the plaintiff had never shown any interest in the Documents or
in the business of the defendant.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21 | P a g e
[18] The defendant also requested for an undertaking that the
plaintiff will not use the Documents for any ulterior and/or
improper purpose that would be detrimental to the interest of the
defendant.
[19] The plaintiff did not respond to the letters, and did not provide
any reason why she required the Documents. The undertaking
requested by the defendant was also not forthcoming.
[20] The failure to provide reasons and to provide the undertaking,
together with the plaintiff's previous action in using the
defendant's documents to which she was given access, to lodge
a police report against Dato' Seri Low Cheng Teik and to initiate
the Oppression Action, have led the court to find that the
defendant has proven that the plaintiff's request for inspection
of the Documents is made in bad faith and with an ulterior,
improper or collateral purpose.
….
[22] In this instance, I find that there is more than mere allegations
of hostility or adversity against the plaintiff. This is a case where
there is clear evidence that would warrant refusal to allow her
access to the Documents. Her past acts in using the defendant's
documents to initiate actions against other directors and the
defendant (which actions have proven to be frivolous), raise
serious questions on whether the request for access is in fact
made in good faith.
[23] Her previous actions notwithstanding, the court acknowledges
that as a director, it is well within the plaintiff's rights to question
the management and conduct of the defendant, and to take the
necessary actions in the event of mismanagement or
misconduct. But what strengthens the defendant's position is the
plaintiff's refusal to provide an undertaking that she will not use
the Documents for any ulterior and/or improper purpose that
would be detrimental to the interest of the defendant.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22 | P a g e
[24] Finally, a fact raised by the defendant that remains largely
unrebutted by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had never been
interested in the management or affairs of the defendant. The
defendant was managed by Dato' Seri Low Cheng Teik, Lau See
Yoong and Low Hock Boon, and the plaintiff played no role or
part the in management of the defendant. The plaintiff did not
express any interest to participate in management, she did not
visit the defendant's office, and she did not attend any event
organised by the defendant. She was effectively a non-
participating director of the defendant.
….
[27] A similar situation arises in this instant case. Considering the
lack of interest of the plaintiff in the management of the
defendant, and the fact that she was hardly involved or engaged
in the business of the defendant, the court finds it inconceivable
that the Documents are required to assist the plaintiff in
undertaking her duties as a director.
E. Decision
[28] In the circumstances, the court finds that the defendant has
provided sufficient evidence to prove that the request for the
Documents is unrelated to the discharge of the plaintiff's duties
as a director, and is actuated by an ulterior motive, which would
be detrimental to the interest of the defendant.
[29] It is on this basis that the court dismissed the originating
summons, with costs.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23 | P a g e
Our Decision
[33] There is no denial that historically, the Appellant has had a stormy
relationship with the other directors. She had previously lodged a police
report against LCT alleging that he had committed CBT in connection
with the Respondent’s “SNE” trademark which was purportedly assigned
for a nominal consideration of RM10 to SNE-G. LCT’s daughter, LPL is
a director and shareholder of SNE-G. Consequently, LCT was charged in
the Sessions Court for the offence of CBT under s. 409 of the Penal Code.
LPL was charged with having abetted LCT in the CBT offence.
[34] On 14 December 2020 LCT and LPL were both acquitted and discharged
without their defence being called as the Sessions Court held that
prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against both the
accused persons. The Prosecutor’s appeal to the High Court was later
dismissed.
[35] In the meanwhile, on 14 October 2019 the Appellant commenced the
Oppression Suit. The Appellant raised a plethora of complaints in support
of the Oppression Suit. On 13 July 2020 the High Court dismissed the
Oppression Suit. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal via Civil
Appeal No. W-02(NCC)(A)-909-07/2020. On 13 September 2022, the
Court of Appeal allowed the Appellant’s appeal. The Court of Appeal’s
decision is reported as [2023] 2 CLJ 19. The matter is now pending in the
Federal Court via Federal Court Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-30-04/2023.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24 | P a g e
[36] As mentioned earlier, the Appellant’s attempt to inspect the Respondent’s
accounting and financial records was vehemently resisted by the
Respondent. The Respondent’s unyielding position was that the Appellant
was guilty of mischief and was using the statutory right under s.245 of the
Companies Act 2016 to gain access to the Respondent’s documents, and
to use them to injure the Respondent.
[37] It was also contended that the Appellant was not interested in the affairs
of the Respondent and not involved in the day to day management of the
business of the Respondent. The Respondent wanted to extract a covenant
from the Appellant that the documents would not be misused. The
Appellant was not prepared to give any such covenant.
[38] As far as the Appellant was concerned, she was a director and was entitled
to inspect the documents as of right. She conceded that she was not
involved in the day to day management of the Respondent. But she
asserted that as a director she was entitled to inspect the accounting and
financial records as these are relevant in terms of her liability as a director.
She said that in light of the hostility between the directors it becomes all
the more imperative that inspection be allowed.
[39] We have carefully examined the Appeal Record and in particular, the rival
contentions as stated in the respective affidavits that were filed by the
parties. We have also studied the cases that were relied upon by the
parties. From the several case laws that were read to us, we find it to be
quite well settled that the Appellant, as a director of the Respondent has
the absolute right to inspect the documents and the Appellant is not
required to provide any covenant or reasons for the inspection.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25 | P a g e
[40] In amplification, we are compelled to state here that it is trite that the right
of a director of a company to inspect the Company’s accounting and other
records is a right existing at common law. Thus, s. 254 of the Companies
Act 2016 is declaratory of the director’s common law right. According to
the cases, a director’s right to inspect accounting and financial records is
a concomitant of the fiduciary duties of good faith, care, skill and
diligence which the director owes to the company, and as such, like other
rights and powers, must be exercised for the benefit of the company.
[41] Thus, the obligation of the company to allow inspection by its director is
regarded as mandatory. And, being an “absolute” right, a director is prima
facie entitled to inspection and is not required to demonstrate any
particular ground or ‘need to know’ as a basis. As such, the right to inspect
remains extant so long as the right is exercised for the proper
performance of the director’s duties to the company and not with a view
to causing any detriment to the company.
[42] According to established jurisprudence, there is no residual discretion in
the court to refuse inspection. The principle is that where the court bars a
director from exercising his right of inspection, it is not in fact exercising
a residual discretion, but is in such an event, satisfied on the basis of the
evidence before it that the director’s intention is to use the information
obtained for ulterior purposes such as with a view to causing detriment to
the company and that the director is thus abusing the confidence reposed
in him. Thus, in those circumstances, the right will be lost where it is
exercised not to advance the interests of the company but some other
ulterior purpose to injure the company.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26 | P a g e
[43] We agree with the submissions that were made by counsel for the
Appellant that the commencement of the Oppression Suit and the lodging
of the police report (pertaining to the unlawful assignment of the trade
mark to SNE-G) which led to LCT and his daughter being charged for
CBT cannot be construed as an ulterior or improper motive on the part of
the Appellant against the Respondent itself. The Appellant may well have
had ulterior motives against others e.g. directors and shareholders, but not
the Respondent itself.
[44] Indeed, on the issue of the unlawful assignment of the Respondent’s
trademark to SNE-G, the Appellant was quite obviously vindicated by
virtue of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (see: [2023] 2 CLJ 19 at
paragraph [35]).
[45] In the circumstances, it appears to be the case that the Learned Judicial
Commissioner did not properly appreciate that the ulterior or improper
motive referred to in the case of Dato’ Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan
Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 527 (CA) or Liaw Yeou
Huah v Wong Kee Kian & Ors [2016] MLJU 1589 (HC) are confined
to motives against the company, not others like directors or shareholders
of the company.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27 | P a g e
[46] As correctly pointed out by Counsel for the Appellant, the Oppression
Suit and the CBT charge merely demonstrate hostility towards the other
directors and shareholders of the Respondent and not the Respondent
itself. But, it was contended by the Respondent in its affidavits that the
Appellant was seeking to obtain the Respondent’s financial records and
documents so as to launch further attacks and was a launch-pad to injure
the Respondent. With respect, we see no evidence of intention by the
Appellant to injure the Respondent. She may well have an intention to
commence other legal proceedings against the directors and shareholders
but that is her right. The germane question here is whether there was any
evidence that she was intending to injure the Respondent. The answer is
– no.
[47] Here, it is important to emphasize that it requires a strong case to
disentitle a director from the statutory right of inspection under s.245 of
the Companies Act 2016 and the burden is on the Respondent to establish
positively by convincing evidence (and not just by making bald assertions
or speculation) that in making the application under s.245 of the
Companies Act 2016 the Appellant was actuated by improper motives vis-
à-vis the Respondent.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28 | P a g e
[48] Clearly, it is unlikely that the Appellant will sit still. She will possibly
continue her crusade against the other directors and shareholders. But the
key point here is that the Appellant cannot be precluded from exercising
her statutory right of inspection of the Documents as a director of the
Respondent, even if there is a possibility that future litigation may ensue
from the inspection of the documents in furtherance of the ongoing
hostility between the directors and shareholders of the Respondent. See:
Mirza Mohamed Tariq Beg Mirza HH Beg v Perunding Pakarmedia
Sdn Bhd [2009] 10 CLJ 273 (HC) at paragraph [11].
[49] Thus, applying the principles of law that are derived from the cases that
were read to us, we are satisfied that the Learned Judicial Commissioner
had misdirected herself in holding at [26] that “the failure to provide
reasons and to provide the undertaking, together with the plaintiff's
previous action in using the defendant's documents to which she was
given access, to lodge a police report against [LCT] and to initiate the
Oppression [Suit], have led the court to find that the defendant has proven
that the plaintiff's request for inspection of the Documents is made in bad
faith and with an ulterior, improper or collateral purpose.”.
[50] Having due regard to the factual matrix of facts and the conduct of the
parties and the exchange of correspondence and affidavits, we are of the
considered view that the Respondent’s position in refusing to allow the
Appellant to inspect the Documents was untenable, to say the Least.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29 | P a g e
[51] It is important to emphasize that a director’s non-participation of the day-
to-day affairs of the company does not extinguish the director’s right to
inspect the company’s documents. In Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v.
Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 CLJ 103 (HC), the Court
said at [54]:
“[54] As such, the defendant's suggestion that the plaintiff is not
entitled to encl. 1 because he is a foreign national who resides
overseas, or that the plaintiff is non-executive and also merely a
corporate representative of NSSB is entirely devoid of merit.
The law, as so clearly encapsulated in ss. 131B and 132 of the
CA does not make a distinction on the powers and duties of
company directors on the basis of nationality, residence, or
whether the director is performing an executive role or
otherwise, or whether the director is a nominee or a corporate
representative of a shareholder. It is a fundamental principle of
company law that the right to inspect emanates from the
plaintiff's office as a director of the defendant company.
Directors of a company enjoy the same right of inspection under
the law. The law admits of no distinction between the statutory
and fiduciary duties owed by different categories of directors.”
[52] The same point was also made to the case of Ho Yee Chin v Ho Min Hao
& Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 728 (HC), where the Court held that,
“There was no merit in the contention by the first and second
defendants that the fact that the plaintiff had never run or managed
the business from the day it was incorporated until this application
was made suggested that the plaintiff sought inspection, not to
discharge her duties as director. The right of inspection by a director
is an inalienable right and is not restricted in any way.”
[53] We are therefore unable to agree with the Learned Judicial Commissioner
who opined that the Appellant’s actions in lodging the police report and
the Oppression Suit and the fact that she was not actively involved in the
management of the Respondent, can be construed as suggesting that the
Appellant was actuated by improper motives, or that she was likely to
injure the Respondent, or that she had no need for the Documents.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30 | P a g e
[54] The Appellant’s past actions in lodging the police report which resulted
in LCT and his daughter being prosecuted and in filing the Oppression
Suit are in our view, manifestations of the Appellant’s right as a
shareholder/director of the Respondent to protect and preserve the assets
of the Respondent – the trade mark which LCT had assigned to his
daughter’s company for a mere RM10.00. As we said earlier, the
Appellant was justified in mounting the Oppression Suit as the Court of
Appeal found in her favour and granted the requisite reliefs.
[55] As for the Appellant’s hostility towards her co-directors, we do not see
this as a disqualification for an application under s.245 of the Companies
Act 2016. The fact that the Appellant is an inactive director is also
irrelevant. In fact, her hostility towards her co-directors and her
passiveness as a director of the Respondent makes it all the more
compelling that she should be given the right to inspect the Documents,
which in law, is an “absolute right”. We are thus satisfied that the
decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner in refusing to make the
order under s.245 of the Companies Act 2016 was in all the
circumstances, plainly wrong and warranted appellate intervention on our
part.
[56] As such, we are constrained to hold that the Learned Judicial
Commissioner erred in dismissing the Originating Summons. Thus,
appellate intervention is warranted. Ordinarily we would have allowed the
appeal. However, is necessary for us to consider the impact of the post
High Court event, namely, the Appellant’s removal as director.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31 | P a g e
[57] The next part of our judgment deals with the Appellant’s removal as a
director of the Respondent with effect from 9 December 2021. It may be
noted here that when the Originating Summons was filed on 7 April 2021,
and later dismissed on 28 September 2021, the Appellant was still a
director of the Respondent. The Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal on
14 October 2021. She was a director as at the date of filing of the Notice
of Appeal. However, by a directors’ resolution dated 9 December 2021,
the Appellant was removed as a director of the Respondent.
[58] As such, we now proceed to deal with the next issue – whether the
Appellant is entitled to obtain an order for inspection in light of the
decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Haw Par Bros (Pte) Ltd v
Dato Aw Kow [1973] 2 MLJ 169 (SGCA) (“Haw Par”). The question
before the Singapore Court of Appeal was – whether an order for
inspection which had been made by a court under s.167(5) of the
Companies Act continues in full force and effect after the director of a
company ceases to be a director? The case is highly relevant as s.167(5)
of the Singapore Companies Act is in pari materia with our previous
s.167(6) of the Companies Act 1965 and the present s.245(8) of the
Companies Act 2016.
[59] In that case, on 17 December 1971, the respondent director (Dato Aw
Kow) filed an Originating Summons (“the OS”) under s. 167(5) of the
Singapore Companies Act seeking an order to inspect the accounting and
other records of the company by his auditor, a Mr Curran. On 22
December 1971, the order was made by the Singapore High Court (“the
Inspection Order”).
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32 | P a g e
[60] The Inspection Order did not appear to specify a time limit during which
the accounting and other records of the company should be kept open for
the inspection of Mr Curran, nor also the period of the accounting and
other records to be inspected, including whether it related to the period
within which the respondent was a director. The company did not appeal
the Inspection Order. Mr Curran commenced inspection of the accounting
and other records of the company shortly after the Inspection Order and
continued until 22 June 1972, approximately six months into the
Inspection Order, when he (Mr Curran) left Singapore on leave. On 20
July 1972, the respondent was removed as a director of the company.
On 17 August 1972, the solicitors for the company informed the solicitors
for the respondent that the Inspection Order had lapsed upon the
respondent ceasing to be a director and hence Mr Curran was no longer
free to inspect the accounting and other records of the company.
[61] Thereafter, the respondent commenced a fresh civil suit on 18 August
1972, at a time when he was no longer a director of the company, claiming
a declaration that the Inspection Order remained in full force and for
orders to restrain the company from preventing or obstructing Mr Curran
from inspecting, and pending the same obtained an ex parte interim
injunction in those terms, which was upheld by Choor Singh J inter partes
(“Injunction Order”) on the basis that the respondent had made out a
strong prima facie case for his inspection to continue and the balance of
convenience lay in favour of the Injunction Order to continue. (See:
[1972] 2 MLJ 225).
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33 | P a g e
[62] Justice Choor Singh was of the opinion that the right expressly conferred
by s.167(3) on a director to inspect the accounts and other records of a
company would be illusory and would lead to unreasonableness and
injustice if s. 167(3) were to be construed to confer the right to inspect
on a director only so long as he is and continues to remain a director
of the company. We may add that the same point was made here by
Counsel for the Appellant. For completeness, we reproduce here the
relevant passage from Justice Choor Singh’s judgment (230 MLJ) where
he said,
“Parliament having conferred on a director the right to inspect, the
court ought not so to construe the statute as to make the right
conferred illusory, for that would be the result if the court were to
hold that the inspection must cease upon removal of the director. On
such an interpretation the court would in effect be rendering the
statute of no avail in the case of an honest director who obtains an
inspection order under section 167(5), if his fellow directors, who
are dishonest, can by causing him to be removed the very next day,
nullify the said order. In my opinion the right of a director, who has
obtained an inspection order under section 167(5), to continue to
inspect after he ceases to be a director, cannot be denied without
examining what his interest is in such inspection and whether further
inspection is reasonably necessary for the protection of that interest.
To deny him further inspection without such enquiry would render
the right to inspect practically useless. In my opinion, the
interpretation which the defendants have put forward, would lead to
unreasonableness and injustice, and must therefore be rejected
because the court must presume against any intention on the part of
the Legislature to cause injustice. For these reasons I hold that an
inspection order obtained by a director under section 167(5) of the
Act does not, ipso facto, lapse upon his ceasing to be director. It
remains in full force until it is discharged, rescinded or varied by the
court upon the application of either party. On such application, the
court has a discretion to allow the inspection to continue,
notwithstanding the fact that the director has been removed, if the
circumstances of the case so warrant. If further inspection is
reasonably necessary for the protection of the applicant's legitimate
interest, the court must do justice in the matter and allow further
inspection, for a reasonable period, of the accounts and other records
of the company for the period during which the applicant was a
director.”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34 | P a g e
[63] On appeal by the company against the Injunction Order, the Singapore
Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set-aside the Injunction Order
holding that (a) an ex-director cannot successfully invoke the right of
inspection under s. 167 of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap 185); (b)
the director’s right of inspection granted by the Inspection Order ceases
once he is no longer a director, unless there was a prima facie case that
the shareholders had no power to remove the said director to support the
injunction applied for, of which there was none in that case; and (c) the
Inspection Order in that case did not amount to a true injunction either
interim or perpetual as it did not specify any time limit within which the
accounting and other records of the company were to be open for
inspection.
[64] According to Haw Par, a director’s right to inspect and, if necessary, take
copies of documents belonging to a company are due to “the nature of a
director's duties and to enable him to properly perform his duties as a
director”. The Singapore Court of Appeal disagreed with Justice Choor
Singh’s interpretation of the statutory provision and were very much
influenced by the decision of Jacobs J. in Funerals of Distinction Pty
Ltd [1963] NSWR 614 where the Learned Judge had referred to the
almost equivalent Australian statutory provision and said that once a
director ceases to hold that office, then the statutory right of inspection
also ceases.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35 | P a g e
[65] The Singapore Court of Appeal then went on to state the principle at p.170
MLJ as follows:
It seems to us clear that section 167(3) gives an absolute right to inspect
the accounting and other records required to be kept by a company and
its directors under section 167(1) only to persons who are the then
directors of the company. It is clear that section 167(3) cannot be
successfully invoked by an ex-director. In our opinion where an ex-
director wishes to inspect such accounting and other records of a
company he cannot rely on section 167(3) and must rely on other
grounds because it is clear law that an ex-director, as such, has no
proprietary, managerial or other similar interest in the accounting and
other records of a company.
It seems to us clear also that section 167(5) is in aid of the right to
inspection which is given to a director by section 167(3) and therefore
the court has no power under section 167(5) to order that the accounting
and other records of a company should be open for inspection on behalf
of an ex-director of that company.
[66] Since the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Haw Par, the
Courts in Malaysia have consistently applied the principle alluded to
earlier (p.170 MLJ) - an ex-director is not entitled to seek the aid of the
court for an order of inspection. It was argued for the Appellant that in this
case, the Appellant was a director of the Respondent when she moved the
High Court, and also when she filed her Notice of Appeal. It was also
argued that the Appellant is only seeking to inspect the accounting and
financial records of the Respondent for the period from 2015-2019 and
this was well within the period when she was a director of the Respondent.
It was also argued that the Appellant’s removal was not valid as she was
here removed by a director’s resolution whereas under the Respondent’s
Constitution and pursuant to s.206(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016, she
can only be removed by a resolution of the shareholders at a general
meeting.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36 | P a g e
[67] In our view, the present appeal is not the proper forum to deal with the
issue of the alleged invalidity of the Appellant’s removal as a director of
the Respondent. That has to be taken up by way of separate proceedings.
If and when the Appellant succeeds in impugning her removal as a director
of the Respondent, then she can make a fresh application under s.245(8)
of the Companies Act 2016 for inspection. But until that happens, as far
as we are concerned, the Haw Par principle applies to the facts of the
present case, with the result that the appeal fails. We must add that but for
the Appellant’s removal as a director, and the Haw Par principle, we
would have allowed the appeal and granted order in terms of the
Originating Summons. We conclude by stating that s.245 of the
Companies Act 2016 exists for the benefit of a director in the performance
of his/her duties as a director.
[68] Hence, as the Court of Appeal had clearly enunciated in Tan Kim Hor &
Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 527 (CA), at
paragraph [16](4), “the right of a director to inspect the books and
records of the company flows from his office as a director and enables
him to perform his duties as a director …”. As such, upon the Appellant
ceasing to be a director, she is no longer entitled to seek relief under s.245
of the Companies Act 2016. It is also relevant for us to refer to Walter
Woon on Company Law (3rd ed.) at page 415 (paragraph 10.47) where
the learned authors had opined that, “This right of inspection may be
exercised only by directors and not ex-directors, and any order of court
authorising an auditor to inspect such records on behalf of a director will
be ineffective after the director’s removal”.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37 | P a g e
[69] For completeness we would add that the same view was articulated by the
learned authors, Lau Zhong Yan and Sebastian Liew Tzen Jue in their
Article, “A Director’s Absolute and Unqualified Right to Inspection:
Section 245 of the Companies Act 2016, a Statutory Mandate” - [2021]
3 MLJ clxix, where the issue at hand is discussed at p. clxxii under the
heading “Do retired or former directors retain the right to inspect the
accounting or other records of a company?”.
[70] We now deal with costs. The following matters are relevant to the issue
of costs of this appeal. In this regard, we take cognisance of the fact that
the issue of the Appellant’s removal as a director and the Haw Par
principle were not taken up in the Respondent’s original submissions
before this Court. These matters came up during the course of oral
submissions and questions posed by this Court on 16 August 2023. In the
circumstances, although the appeal stands dismissed, it is necessary to
note that the Respondent failed in so far as the merits of the appeal are
concerned. The outcome of this appeal is based on the Appellant’s
removal and the application of the Haw Par principle.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38 | P a g e
Outcome
[71] The appeal is dismissed. We did not think that the Respondent should be
granted any costs. As such, we exercised our discretion under Order 59
r.2(2) Rules of Court 2012 and declined to award costs to the Respondent.
As such, the order of this Court is that for the reasons mentioned above,
the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. We also order that the
costs awarded by the High Court be set aside, and if it has been paid, to be
refunded to the Appellant.
S. Nantha Balan,
Judge,
Court of Appeal,
Putrajaya, Malaysia
Date: 25 October 2023
Legal Representation
For the Appellant:
Conrad Young Wye King
Alfred Lai Choong Wui
Cheng Xin Yan
Messrs Alfred Lai & Partners
36-2, Jalan 1/116B
Sri Desa Entrepreneurs Park
58200 Kuala Lumpur
[Ref No: ALF/278/2021]
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39 | P a g e
For the Respondent:
Arjan Pursumal
Vasdev G Bakshani
Messrs Vasdev Bakhsani & Associates
35-5, The Boulevard
Mid Valley City, Lingkaran Syed Putra
59200 Kuala Lumpur
[Ref: VBA/AP/L/4857/20/SNEMSB]
Legislation:
Order 59 Rule 2 (2) Rules of Court 2012
Section 167(6) Companies Act 1965
Section 206(1)(a) Companies Act 2016
Section 245 Companies Act 2016
Section 245(1) Companies Act 2016
Section 245(4) Companies Act 2016
Section 245(8) Companies Act 2016
Section 245(9) Companies Act 2016
Section 167 Singapore Companies Act (Cap 185)
Reference Material
Walter Woon on Company Law (3rd ed.), p. 415 (paragraph 10.47)
Article by Lau Zhong Yan and Sebastian Liew Tzen Jue - A Director’s Absolute
and Unqualified Right to Inspection: Section 245 of the Companies Act 2016, a
Statutory Mandate - [2021] 3 MLJ clxix
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40 | P a g e
Cases:
Low Ean Nee v SNE Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 4 AMR 843, [2022] MLJU 1002,
[2022] 1 LNS 981 (HC)
Dato’ Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ
527 (CA)
Mirza Mohamed Tariq Beg Mirza HH Beg v Perunding Pakarmedia Sdn Bhd
[2009] 10 CLJ 273 (HC)
Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 CLJ
103 (HC)
Ho Yee Chin v Ho Min Hao & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 728 (HC)
Liaw Yeou Huah v Wong Kee Kian & Ors [2016] MLJU 1589 (HC)
Loh Teck Wah v Lim Pang Kiam & Ors [2022] 6 CLJ 549 (HC),
Welch v Britannia Industries Pte Ltd [1992] 3 SLR (R) 64
Haw Par Bros (Pte) Ltd v Dato Aw Kow [1973] 2 MLJ 169 (SGCA)
Funerals of Distinction Pty Ltd [1963] NSWR 614
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 73,954 | Tika 2.6.0 |
W-02(NCC)(A)-1925-10/2021 | PERAYU LOW EAN NEE RESPONDEN SNE MARKETING SDN BHD | DISCOVERY - INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS MADE UNDER S.254 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2016 - SHAREHOLDER DISPUTE - DIRECTOR'S RIGHT TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS - ISSUE OF THE ALLEGED IN VALIDITY OF THE DIRECTOR'S REMOVAL | 16/11/2023 | YA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. MoorthyKorumYA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. MoorthyYA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahDato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ed2f91c9-dfd6-4e9a-b60f-b16a4900118e&Inline=true |
1 | P a g e
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCC)(A)-1925-10/2021
BETWEEN
LOW EAN NEE
(NRIC NO: 750316-07-5408) …APPELLANT
AND
SNE MARKETING SDN BHD
(COMPANY NO: 237161-U) …RESPONDENT
[In the matter of In the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur
In the Federal Territory, Malaysia
(Commercial Division)
Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-164-04/2021
In the matter of SNE Marketing
Sdn Bhd (Company No: 237161-U)
[the “COMPANY”]
And
In the matter of section 245 of the
Companies Act, 2016
And
In the matter of the inspection of the
various accounting documents or records
of the Company by a Director of the
Company
And
In the matter of the inherent powers of this
Honourable Court
16/11/2023 15:46:07
W-02(NCC)(A)-1925-10/2021 Kand. 66
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2 | P a g e
Between
Low Ean Nee
(NRIC No: 750316-07-5408) …Plaintiff
And
SNE Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Company No: 237161-U) …Defendant]
CORAM:
S. NANTHA BALAN, JCA,
HASHIM BIN HAMZAH, JCA,
CHOO KAH SING, JCA
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Learned Judicial
Commissioner dated 28 September 2021 dismissing an application by the
Appellant made under s.254 of the Companies Act 2016 (“the
Application”) that she be allowed to inspect the accounting and other
records of the Respondent for the financial years 2015 - 2019. The
decision of the High Court which gave rise to the present appeal is
reported as Low Ean Nee v SNE Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 4 AMR
843, [2022] MLJU 1002, [2022] 1 LNS 981 (HC).
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3 | P a g e
[2] The Respondent is a multi-level direct marketing company which supplies
food supplements, nutritional supplements, and dietetic substances for
medicinal use that bear the trademark SNE and its variants thereof. At the
material time when the Application was made, the Appellant was a
shareholder and a director of the Respondent. She is still a shareholder of
the Respondent.
[3] The Appellant was “removed” as a director of the Respondent on 9
December 2021. Her removal as a director was done via a directors’
resolution. As such, after the High Court had delivered its decision and
after Notice of Appeal in respect of the instant appeal was filed, the
Appellant “ceased” to be a director. The first question in this appeal
pertains to the merits of the Application and the issue is whether, as
contended by the Appellant, the Learned Commissioner had erred in law
in dismissing the Application. The second question arises out of the
Appellant’s removal as a director post the High Court’s decision. The
question is whether by reason of the principle that was enunciated by the
Singapore Court of Appeal in the case of Haw Par Bros (Pte) Ltd. v
Dato Aw Kow [1973] 2 MLJ 169 (SGCA), the Appellant, being an “ex-
director” (with effect from 9 December 2021), is not entitled to seek the
statutory right of inspection under s.254 of the Companies Act 2016.
Background
[4] At all material times, the Appellant was, and still, is a shareholder of the
Respondent. She has been a director of the Respondent since 22 May
2003. The Respondent’s shareholders and directors (as at 24 March
2021), are as follows:
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4 | P a g e
(i) Low Ean Nee (the Appellant) - 50% (Director)
(ii) Low Cheng Teik (“LCT”)* - 39.7% (Director/Chairman)
(iii) Low Hock Boon (son of LCT)** - 10% (Director)
(iv) Lau See Yoong - 0.3% (Director)
* LCT is the Appellant’s paternal uncle
** Low Hock Boon is the Appellant’s cousin
[5] The Appellant sent letters requesting the Respondent to allow her to
inspect the Respondent’s accounting documents or records as
particularized in Annexure A to the Originating Summons dated 7 April
2021 (“the Documents”).
[6] The Appellant’s request for inspection was made against the backdrop of
various actions which she had earlier taken vis-à-vis LCT and/or the other
directors and shareholders of the Respondent. On or about January 2019,
the Appellant visited the office of the Respondent’s company secretary.
She searched and made copies of the Respondent’s documents, including
documents that are (allegedly) the subject matter of the Application.
[7] On 12 March 2019, the Appellant lodged a police report against LCT and
alleged, inter alia that he had wrongfully transferred a trademark
belonging to the Respondent to SNE Global Sdn Bhd (“SNE-G”). LCT’s
daughter, Low Poh Ling (“LPL”) is a shareholder and director of SNE-
G. The Appellant further alleged that her signature had been forged on
several directors’ resolutions and that there was defalcation of funds of
the Respondent by the other directors of the Respondent.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5 | P a g e
[8] Following the police report, on 16 April 2019, the Respondent’s premises
was raided by the police, and documents were confiscated. LCT was
charged with criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) under s.409 of the penal
Code. His daughter, LPL, was subsequently charged with abetting him in
the offence of CBT. On 14 December 2020, LCT and LPL were both
discharged and acquitted by the Sessions Court at the end of the
prosecution’s case. The prosecution’s appeal to the High Court was
subsequently dismissed on 9 August 2021.
[9] In the meanwhile, on 14 October 2019, the Appellant filed an action under
s.346 of the Companies Act 2016 (“the Oppression Suit”) via Kuala
Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No. WA-24NCC-536-
10/2019 against LCT and the other directors and shareholders, alleging
oppressive conduct towards her.
[10] In the Oppression Suit, the Appellant claimed, inter alia, that the affairs
of the Respondent were not conducted in accordance with its Articles of
Association, that the Respondent had failed to secure a reasonable or
better price for disposal of the Respondent’s assets, that there had been
mismanagement in the Respondent and that the funds of the Respondent
were not properly utilised. One of the key complaints in the Oppression
Suit was the assignment of the Respondent’s trademark to SNE-G for a
mere RM10.00. The Appellant also alleged that her signature which
appeared in 32 board of directors’ resolutions, was forged.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6 | P a g e
[11] On 13 July 2020, the High Court dismissed the Oppression Suit. The
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal via Court of Appeal Civil
Appeal No: W-02 (NCC)(A)-909-07/2020. On 13 September 2022, the
Appellant’s appeal was allowed (See: [2023] 2 CLJ 19). The Court of
Appeal agreed with the Appellant’s contention that the assignment of the
SNE Trademark to SNE-G was a manifestation of oppressive conduct.
The Court of Appeal held [35], “the actions of the first to third
respondents were calculated to benefit them indirectly via other corporate
entities controlled and/or related by them to the prejudice of the appellant
being a substantial 50% shareholder of the fourth respondent. The
assignment of the trademark at the consideration of RM10 is
unquestionably dubious here. This smacks of non-compliance of norms of
fair dealing and violation of conditions of fair play and hence oppressive.
Consequently, we find the learned High Court Judge has committed a
misdirection by finding there was no oppression on the appellant by the
first to third respondents. In other words, there was failure to appreciate
that majority of the directors failed to act in the best interest of the
appellant vis-à-vis fourth respondent. The affairs of the company were
conducted effectively to side-line and exclude the appellant's interest as
shareholder and director.
[12] The respondents in the Oppression Suit filed an application for leave to
appeal to the Federal Court. On 28 March 2023 the Federal Court granted
leave to appeal on certain questions of law. The substantive appeal (per
Federal Court Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-30-04/2023) is yet to be disposed.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7 | P a g e
[13] Back to the issue of the Appellant’s request for inspection of documents.
By a letter dated 27 October 2020, the Appellant requested the
Respondent to provide her the Documents for inspection. By a letter dated
11 November 2020 the Respondent took the position that they were
unable to provide the Documents. They gave various reasons.
[14] On 2 December 2020, the Appellant replied to the Respondent’s letter
dated 11 November 2020 and again requested the Respondent to provide
the Documents for her inspection. The Appellant claimed that the
Respondent failed to reply to the Appellant’s letter dated 2 December
2020.
[15] On 3 March 2021, the Appellant wrote to the Respondent and reminded
the Respondent on her request for the Documents. By letter dated 5 March
2021, the Respondent replied to the Appellant’s said letter and alleged as
follows:
(a) The Respondent alleged that it had sent a letter dated 9 December
2020 to the Appellant and the Appellant failed to respond to
paragraph 6 of the Respondent’s said letter;
(b) The Respondent is willing to allow the Appellant to inspect the
Documents upon receiving the Appellant’s reply to the
Respondent’s letter dated 9 December 2020; and
(c) The Appellant has copies of most of the Documents in view of the
Oppression Suit initiated by the Appellant in the Kuala Lumpur
High Court and the pending appeal to the Court of Appeal at the
material time.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8 | P a g e
[16] The Appellant maintained that she did not receive the Respondent’s letter
dated 9 December 2020 and requested for a copy of the same via her letter
dated 8 March 2021. Thereafter, the Respondent’s letter dated 9
December 2020 was forwarded to the Appellant on 10 March 2021. In
essence, via paragraph 6 of the Respondent’s letter, the Appellant was
asked to justify her request for the Documents and to provide a
covenant that she will not use the Documents for any ulterior and/or
improper purpose that is detrimental to the interest of the
Respondent. Paragraph 6 of the Respondent’s letter dated 9 December
2020 is significant as it was an integral part of the High Court’s decision
to dismiss the Application. The Respondent’s stance in refusing to grant
the Appellant the right to inspect and to take copies of the relevant
documents may be seen from paragraphs 4-6 of their letter dated 9
December 2020 which reads as follows:
4. Instead, you have made copies of some of the documents and
wrongfully exposed the Company and Its other directors to
unnecessary litigation. This is evident in your alleged oppression
action (Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-24NCC-536-
10/2019) which has been dismissed by the Honourable Court and
the criminal proceedings against Dato' Seri Low Cheng Teik vide
Sessions Court Case No. WA-62K-56-07/2019. Your actions thus
far has been detrimental to the Company, its officers and other
shareholders, and exposed the Company and its directors to
unnecessary litigation costs when they (the Company and its
officers) should be focussing on developing its business, more so
in these challenging times. Suffice it to say that whilst we have
no objections to your request, we have reason to be sceptical of
your intentions and demands.
5. We also note that there is no urgency in providing you access to
all the documents requested and we will in due course make
available the documents for your inspection. The time period
stated in your letter is unfair and unreasonable.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9 | P a g e
6. While the Company acknowledges a director's right to inspect
certain documents of the Company, in light of your actions
described in Item 4 above, perhaps you could explain the
reason you require these voluminous documents now, after so
many years when these documents have always been available
to you and you never expressed any interest in any of them.
Please include in your response a covenant that you will not use
the information obtained will not be used for any ulterior
and/or an improper purpose that is detrimental to the interest
of the Company.
[Emphasis added]
[17] We may now examine the Respondent’s reasons for refusing inspection.
In the Affidavit in Reply by Low Hock Boon, affirmed on 2 August 2021,
it was stated as follows:
3. In reply to paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff's AIR, the Defendant
states that the Plaintiff has never shown any interest in the
business nor affairs of the Defendant. This is also apparent from
the fact that despite the Plaintiff having full and unrestricted
access to all the Defendant's records, including accounting
records, the Plaintiff chose never to do so. In light of the
Plaintiff's past mischiefs, it is apparent that the Plaintiff's
objective in purportedly exercising her rights vide this suit as a
Director is tainted with mala-fides as can be seen from the events
leading from the police report to the Criminal Suit against the
Managing Director of the Defendant and the Oppression Suit
against the shareholders and the Defendant/Company, both of
which have been dismissed by the respective Honourable Courts.
4. In the circumstances, the Defendant had for good reason denied
the Plaintiff's request and demands unless the Plaintiff complies
with the Defendant's request in their letter dated 09.12.2020
(Exhibit LBH 14). The Defendant is merely acting in the best
interest of the Company/Defendant and wish to avoid being
continuously engaged with the Plaintiff in futile litigation
exercises which drains their resources, time and energies and
therefore prejudicial to the reputation, business and affairs of the
Defendant.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10 | P a g e
5. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 15 (ii)
and 15 (ii) of the Plaintiff's AIR of being accountable under the
law to manage the Company as a Director is also misconceived
and or misplaced as none of the Directors nor the shareholders
nor the Defendant have ever held the Plaintiff accountable as a
Director nor shareholder of the Company, particularly since the
Plaintiff has never expressed any interest in the management,
business, activities nor affairs of the Defendant. In addition the
Plaintiff also failed in her duties as a Director in refusing to
execute the letter of offer from Maybank Islamic Bank Berhad as
referred to in paragraph 15(iv) of the Plaintiff's AIR.
6. In reply to paragraph 15(iv) of the Plaintiff's AIR, the Defendant
states that the request for the Plaintiff as a signatory/guarantor
was imposed by Maybank Islamic Bank Berhad as the Plaintiff
was one of the directors of the Defendant.
6.1 In order to justify the acquisition of the property, details of the
need for the property to capitalize on the current market trends of
a "buyers' market' were also shared with the Plaintiff vide a power
point presentation. However, the Plaintiff refused to sign the
Letter of Offer although the Defendant had responded to the
Plaintiff's queries in her letter of 13.04.2021 vide a power point
presentation.
A copy of the Plaintiff's email dated 20.04.2021 enclosing the
power point presentation is now produced herewith and marked
as Exhibit LHB-19.
Clearly the reasons stated in paragraph 15(v) of the Plaintiff's AIR
is an after- thought to now justify her wrongful refusal to sign as
a guarantor. The Plaintiff must surely be aware that it is part of a
Director's duty and responsibility to also execute guarantees as
may necessarily be required by a financial institution(s) for the
benefit of the Company, especially since the Defendant has
explained the logical and commercial reasons and need for the
Defendant to acquire its own business premises.
6.2 The Plaintiff has also refused to fulfill her responsibility and duty
as a Director of the Defendant when she failed to attend a
Directors meeting on 14.04.2021 despite appropriate notice being
given in accordance with the with the Memorandum and Articles
of Association, which required seven (7) Notice in advance of a
Directors meeting. On the contrary, and in response, the Plaintiff
made an unreasonable demand that she required at least 3-4
weeks' notice for the same. A copy of the Defendant's
Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Plaintiff's
email of 27.04.2021 is now produced herewith and marked as
Exhibit LHB-20 and LBH 21 respectively.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11 | P a g e
7. Clearly, the Plaintiff has not expressed any interest in the
management, operations and affairs of the Defendant nor
expressed any intention to participate fruitfully or productively to
carry out her duties as a Director. Instead, the Plaintiff has only
been disruptive to the business of the Defendant. In the
circumstance, the only honourable thing that the Plaintiff should
do is to resign as a Director and allow the Defendant to grow and
progress.
7.1 The Plaintiff's conduct of continuously harassing the Defendant
and its active directors with numerous demands, which demands
could well have been answered at Directors' meeting(s), is
prejudicial to the Defendant's growth and progress.
PLAINTIFF NEVER PERFORMED HER DUTIES AS A
DIRECTOR
8. The Plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the
Plaintiff's AIR that she owes a statutory and fiduciary duty
towards the Defendant, clearly contradicts her actions from the
outset. The Plaintiff's continued conduct of harassing the
Defendant and its Directors clearly show that she (the Plaintiff)
never had the best interest of the Company at heart.
.....
9. Premised on the Plaintiff's actions/conduct, her refusal to
participate in the Director's meeting for frivolous reasons and the
continued harassment, the only and sole purpose of the inspection
must be to use the Requested Documents to launch unfounded
attacks on the Defendant and its Directors in the management of
the affairs of the Defendant (as done before in the Oppression
Suit) to the detriment of the Defendant and the lodging of a police
report which led to the Criminal Suit.
10. I re-emphasize that the Defendant has never before restrained the
Plaintiff from coming into the Defendant's office and inspecting
any of its records, including making copies of the same. The
breakdown of the relationship with the Plaintiff was purely
attributed to the Plaintiff's wrongful actions/misconduct and lack
of bona-fides which actions are detrimental to the Defendant's
business and reputation in the multi-level marketing industry.
11. The Plaintiff has repeatedly shown impropriety in the purpose of
seeking the reliefs prayed for which are unrelated to the discharge
of her duties as a non- performing Director. Therefore the
inspection of the documents, and requests for copies of such
documents ought not to be allowed unconditionally especially
since the Plaintiff is a Director without any functions or duties.
[Emphasis added]
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12 | P a g e
[18] The Appellant’s response per her Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 18
August 2021 is relevant. In her Affidavit in Reply she stated (at paragraph
[15] the following:
I reiterate that:-
(i) the right to inspect documents and to take copies of them is
essential to the proper performance of a director's duties;
(ii) even though I do rely upon other directors including Dato Seri
Low Cheng Teik and Low Hock Boon in the conduct of the
Defendant's affairs, I am accountable under the law to manage the
company I serve as a director;
iii) hence, I must be at liberty to satisfy myself in relation to all
matters relating to the company's business, without which, I
would not be able to discharge my duty with care, skill and
diligence;
(iv) for example, I was included as one of the signatories (without my
express consent) to sign and to be one of the guarantors for the
banking facility vide the Defendant's letter dated 10.05.2021
which enclosed an offer from Maybank Islamic Berhad to obtain
a loan facility for the purchase of a Defendant's property; and
(v) in the above instant, I was unwilling to execute the said loan
facility as I do not have a full or complete view of the Defendant's
financial state of affairs and I have been denied access to the
Defendant's books and records ie. the Requested Documents.
.....
21. Paragraphs 20 to 24 of AIR No.1 are unfounded. I state that:-
(i) for so long as I remain a director of the Defendant, I retain a right
of inspection of the accounting and other records of the Defendant
and to take copies of them;
(ii) the Defendant's mere allegations that I am hostile, the possibility
of abuse or misuse of the right of inspection does not afford any
ground for its denial or restriction. Further, the Requested
Documents are common accounting records of the Defendant. I
fail to understand how, if the Defendant's accounting records are
properly prepared and kept, a director's inspection of the same
could amount to an 'abuse';
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13 | P a g e
(iii) the recent breakdown of the relationship between the other
directors of the Defendant and myself makes this application for
inspection more so crucial given the lack of co-operation by the
rest of the Defendant’s directors;
A Director’s Right to Inspect the Documents – Companies Act 2016
[19] The following statutory provisions are relevant to the director’s right of
inspection.
Section 245(1) Companies Act 2016:
(1) A company, the directors and managers of a company shall-
(a) cause to be kept the accounting and other records to
sufficiently explain the transactions and financial position of
the company and enable true and fair profit and loss accounts
and balance sheets and any documents required to be
attached thereto to be prepared; and
(b) cause the accounting and other records to be kept in a manner
as to enable the accounting and other records to be
conveniently and properly audited.”
Section 245(4) Companies Act 2016:
“(4) The records referred to in subsection (1) shall be kept at the
registered office of the company or at such other place as the
directors think fit, and shall at all times be open for inspection
by the directors.”
Section 245(8) Companies Act 2016:
“(8) The Court may, in any particular case, order that the accounting
and other records of a company be open to inspection by an
approved company auditor acting for a director, subject to a
written undertaking given to the Court that information acquired
by the auditor during his inspection shall not be disclosed by him
except to that director.”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14 | P a g e
Section 245(9) Companies Act 2016:
“(9) The company and every officer who contravene this section
commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not
exceeding five hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years or to both.”
[20] It is relevant to mention that some of the case laws referred to on this
subject are based on the provisions under the Companies Act 1965. In this
regard, s.167(3), (6) and (7) of the Companies Act 1965 are the same as
s.245(4), (8) and (9) Companies Act 2016 except for s.245(9) of the
Companies Act 2016, wherein a fine of RM5,000.00 or a term of
imprisonment of six months or both as provided for in s.167(7)
Companies Act 1965 has been increased to a maximum fine of
RM500,000.00, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or
to both.
Director’s Right to Inspect – The Contentions
[21] The Appellant took position that, as a director, she has the absolute
right to inspect the Documents and she is not required to provide any
covenant or reason to do so. The Appellant relied on the case of Dato’
Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2
MLJ 527 (CA) (per Low Hop Bing, JCA) which laid down the principles
as follows:
“[16] The relevant established principles have been succinctly stated by
the Singapore Court of Appeal in Wuu Khek Chiang George.
There, the appellant, a director of the respondent, took out an
application under s. 199 of the Singapore Companies Act
(equipollent to our s. 167) for an order requiring the respondent
to inspect its accounting and financial records. The High Court
judge dismissed the application. After reviewing a long line of
authorities, the Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal
and held, inter alia, that:
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15 | P a g e
(1) the right of a director of a company to inspect its accounting
and other records is a right existing at common law and is
recognized in s. 199 of the Companies Act. Such right is a
concomitant of the fiduciary duties of good faith, care,
skill and diligence which the director owes to the
company, and as such, like other rights and powers,
must be exercised for the benefit of the company. The
obligation of the company to allow inspection by its
director is mandatory.
(2) this right has been described as being “absolute”. A
director is prima facie entitled to inspection and is not
required to demonstrate any particular ground or ‘need
to know’ as a basis: Molomby. So long as the right is
exercised for the proper performance of the director’s
duties to the company and not with a view to causing
any detriment to the company, it is in that sense
‘absolute’:……
(3) there is no residual discretion in the court to refuse
inspection. Where the court bars a director from
exercising his right of inspection, it is not in fact
exercising a residual discretion, but is in such an event
satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the
director’s intention is to use the information obtained
for ulterior purposes such as with a view to causing
detriment to the company and that the director is thus
abusing the confidence reposed in him;......”
(4) the right of a director to inspect the books and records
of the company flows from his office as a director and
enables him to perform his duties as a director. The
corollary of this is that the right will be lost where it is
exercised not to advance the interests of the company
but some other ulterior purpose to injure the
company…”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16 | P a g e
[22] In so far as giving reasons for the inspection, counsel for the Appellant
referred to the case of Mirza Mohamed Tariq Beg Mirza HH Beg v
Perunding Pakarmedia Sdn Bhd [2009] 10 CLJ 273 (HC), where the
High Court opined that the applicant (director) “was not obliged under
the law to justify his request to inspect the accounts of the company”. In
Ho Yee Chin v Ho Min Hao & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 728 (HC), the High
Court had held that, “the plaintiff was still a director at the time she
requested for the company's records, she was not obliged to provide a
reason for her request. The onus was on the defendants to prove mala
fides and unless the burden was discharged, it must be assumed that the
plaintiff would exercise the right for the benefit of the company.”
[23] As mentioned earlier, the Respondent had indicated that they would only
allow inspection on condition that the Appellant gives a covenant that she
will not use the information obtained for any ulterior purpose and/or an
improper purpose that is detrimental to the interest of the Respondent. In
response, Counsel for the Appellant referred Dato' Seri Timor Shah
Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 CLJ 103 (HC),
where the High Court held as follows:
“[26] The Court of Appeal in Tan Kim Hor & Ors v. Tan Chong
Consolidated Sdn Bhd also made clear that a director's right to
inspect the accounting records is absolute in the sense that he
is entitled to inspection without subject to any requirement to
provide any reason for the inspection. The courts do not even
have any residual discretion to refuse inspection by a director. A
director’s statutory right of inspection may only be refused if the
director is exercising his right of inspection for some ulterior
purpose or to injure the company.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17 | P a g e
[27] It would be a complete misconception of the true meaning of the
directors' inspection rights if the company seeks to qualify the
exercise of such inspection right. It would thus be wholly
unwarranted for a company to demand as a condition
permitting inspection for the requesting director to execute a
non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement precisely by
reason of the trite legal position that the director's fiduciary
duties to the company already impose strict duties against any
infringement of confidentiality or injury to the company.”
[Emphasis added]
[24] In opposing the Application, the Respondent said that the Appellant had
engaged in “mischief” (see: paragraph [17] of this judgment). In this
regard, the Respondent has described the Appellant’s past conduct, inter
alia, in lodging a police report against LCT and mounting the Oppression
Suit as mischief.
[25] In response, it was argued for the Appellant that it was her constitutional
right to commence legal actions in Court for her transgressed rights using
the accounting records of the Respondent against the relevant parties.
Counsel said commencement of legal actions in Court to ventilate
grievances and vindicate personal rights is certainly not and cannot by any
stretch, be an ulterior or improper motive.
[26] According to Counsel for the Appellant, the commencement of the
Oppression Suit and the lodging of the police report (which complained
of the unlawful transfer of the Respondent’s property, i.e. its trademark
“SNE”, by one of the Respondent’s directors) which led to LCT and his
daughter being charged for CBT are also not, and cannot by any stretch
be an ulterior or improper motive on the part of the Appellant against the
Respondent itself. It may have been against others, but certainly not the
Respondent itself.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18 | P a g e
[27] Hence, Counsel’s complaint was that the Learned Judicial Commissioner
failed to appreciate that the ulterior or improper motive referred to in the
case of Dato’ Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn
Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 527 (CA) or Liaw Yeou Huah v Wong Kee Kian &
Ors [2016] MLJU 1589 (HC) are confined to motives against the
company, not others like directors or shareholders of the company. The
Oppression Suit and the CBT charge merely show hostility towards the
other directors and shareholders of the Respondent and not the
Respondent itself.
[28] In conclusion, it was submitted that the Appellant cannot be precluded
from exercising her rights of inspection of the Documents as a director of
the Respondent, even if there is a possibility that future litigation may
ensue from the inspection of the Documents in furtherance of the ongoing
hostility between the directors and shareholders of the Respondent.
Counsel referred to the High Court’s decision in Mirza Mohamed Tariq
Beg Mirza HH Beg v Perunding Pakarmedia Sdn Bhd [2009] 10 CLJ
273 (HC), at [11] where the Court said relevantly:
“[11] When these competing contentions are considered it is evident
that:
(i) The real hostility is between Mirza and the other directors and
shareholders of the company, not between Mirza and the
company per se. The fact that further litigation may ensue means
that there is a possibility that there will be further litigation
between Mirza and the other directors and shareholders of the
company. In Welch & Anor v. Britannia Industries Pte Ltd [1993]
1 SLR 673 it was held inter alia, that an intention to wrest control
of the company from other shareholders cannot be regarded as
synonymous with an intention to injure the company. Even if this
extends to an intention to force control of the company to one
party, that intention will not deprive that same party of the right
of inspection.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19 | P a g e
The exercise of the directors' right of inspection is not extortion
or oppression, nor is an intention to remove any person from the
management of a company per se an improper purpose. Given the
wide compass of a director's right of inspection, and as s. 167(6)
is an adjunct to this right, it does not follow that simply because
there is a possibility that future litigation may ensue from an
inspection in furtherance of the ongoing hostility between the
directors and shareholders of the company, that Mirza should
be precluded from exercising his rights of inspection as a
director.”
[Emphasis added]
[29] And in Loh Teck Wah v Lim Pang Kiam & Ors [2022] 6 CLJ 549
(HC), the Court opined that the fact that parties were at loggerheads was
of little relevance and was no bar to an application under s. 245 of the
Companies Act 2016. Indeed, the Court went further to say that, “hostility
might often be the explanation for the application in the first place.” In
Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd
[2018] 2 CLJ 103 (HC), the High Court touched on the same point and
opined [93],
“that a director may be hostile towards the company or its staff
does not limit the inspection right and the right to take copies.
The mere possibility of abuse or misuse of the right does not
afford any ground for its denial or restriction. A director retains
this right of inspection (inclusive of the right to be supplied with
copies of documents so inspected), despite mere allegations that
he is hostile, adverse or a competitor of the corporation, for as
long as he remains a director of the company.”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20 | P a g e
The High Court’s Decision
[30] On 28 September 2021, the Learned Judicial Commissioner dismissed the
Application. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the
decision of the High Court via Notice of Appeal dated 14 October 2021.
It is germane to note here that the Appellant was a director of the
Respondent when she filed the Application on 7 April 2021, and later
when she filed the Notice of Appeal on 14 October 2021. In dismissing
the Application, the High Court was of the view that the Appellant is not
entitled to exercise her statutory right of inspection of the Documents,
inter alia, because she was effectively a non-participating director of the
Respondent (See: paragraph [24] of the Grounds of Judgment).
[31] The Learned Judicial Commissioner concluded that the Appellant was
actuated by mala fides and that the Documents are not necessary and the
Appellant did not need them in carrying out her duties as a director of the
Respondent (See: paragraph [27] of the Grounds of Judgment).
[32] The Learned Judicial Commissioner’s reasons for dismissing the
Application may be gathered from the following paragraphs of the
Grounds of Judgment which read as follows;
[17] There are a few reasons which led the court to this finding.
Firstly, the defendant had on multiple occasions enquired with
the plaintiff on the reason why she requires access to the
Documents. The defendant issued letters dated 9 December
2020 and 19 March 2021, and in the letters, raised the fact that
when the plaintiff was given access to the defendant's
documents, she had used them to expose the defendant to
unnecessary litigation. Further, the defendant highlighted that
the Documents were available to the plaintiff at all times, but
the plaintiff had never shown any interest in the Documents or
in the business of the defendant.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21 | P a g e
[18] The defendant also requested for an undertaking that the
plaintiff will not use the Documents for any ulterior and/or
improper purpose that would be detrimental to the interest of the
defendant.
[19] The plaintiff did not respond to the letters, and did not provide
any reason why she required the Documents. The undertaking
requested by the defendant was also not forthcoming.
[20] The failure to provide reasons and to provide the undertaking,
together with the plaintiff's previous action in using the
defendant's documents to which she was given access, to lodge
a police report against Dato' Seri Low Cheng Teik and to initiate
the Oppression Action, have led the court to find that the
defendant has proven that the plaintiff's request for inspection
of the Documents is made in bad faith and with an ulterior,
improper or collateral purpose.
….
[22] In this instance, I find that there is more than mere allegations
of hostility or adversity against the plaintiff. This is a case where
there is clear evidence that would warrant refusal to allow her
access to the Documents. Her past acts in using the defendant's
documents to initiate actions against other directors and the
defendant (which actions have proven to be frivolous), raise
serious questions on whether the request for access is in fact
made in good faith.
[23] Her previous actions notwithstanding, the court acknowledges
that as a director, it is well within the plaintiff's rights to question
the management and conduct of the defendant, and to take the
necessary actions in the event of mismanagement or
misconduct. But what strengthens the defendant's position is the
plaintiff's refusal to provide an undertaking that she will not use
the Documents for any ulterior and/or improper purpose that
would be detrimental to the interest of the defendant.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22 | P a g e
[24] Finally, a fact raised by the defendant that remains largely
unrebutted by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had never been
interested in the management or affairs of the defendant. The
defendant was managed by Dato' Seri Low Cheng Teik, Lau See
Yoong and Low Hock Boon, and the plaintiff played no role or
part the in management of the defendant. The plaintiff did not
express any interest to participate in management, she did not
visit the defendant's office, and she did not attend any event
organised by the defendant. She was effectively a non-
participating director of the defendant.
….
[27] A similar situation arises in this instant case. Considering the
lack of interest of the plaintiff in the management of the
defendant, and the fact that she was hardly involved or engaged
in the business of the defendant, the court finds it inconceivable
that the Documents are required to assist the plaintiff in
undertaking her duties as a director.
E. Decision
[28] In the circumstances, the court finds that the defendant has
provided sufficient evidence to prove that the request for the
Documents is unrelated to the discharge of the plaintiff's duties
as a director, and is actuated by an ulterior motive, which would
be detrimental to the interest of the defendant.
[29] It is on this basis that the court dismissed the originating
summons, with costs.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23 | P a g e
Our Decision
[33] There is no denial that historically, the Appellant has had a stormy
relationship with the other directors. She had previously lodged a police
report against LCT alleging that he had committed CBT in connection
with the Respondent’s “SNE” trademark which was purportedly assigned
for a nominal consideration of RM10 to SNE-G. LCT’s daughter, LPL is
a director and shareholder of SNE-G. Consequently, LCT was charged in
the Sessions Court for the offence of CBT under s. 409 of the Penal Code.
LPL was charged with having abetted LCT in the CBT offence.
[34] On 14 December 2020 LCT and LPL were both acquitted and discharged
without their defence being called as the Sessions Court held that
prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against both the
accused persons. The Prosecutor’s appeal to the High Court was later
dismissed.
[35] In the meanwhile, on 14 October 2019 the Appellant commenced the
Oppression Suit. The Appellant raised a plethora of complaints in support
of the Oppression Suit. On 13 July 2020 the High Court dismissed the
Oppression Suit. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal via Civil
Appeal No. W-02(NCC)(A)-909-07/2020. On 13 September 2022, the
Court of Appeal allowed the Appellant’s appeal. The Court of Appeal’s
decision is reported as [2023] 2 CLJ 19. The matter is now pending in the
Federal Court via Federal Court Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-30-04/2023.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24 | P a g e
[36] As mentioned earlier, the Appellant’s attempt to inspect the Respondent’s
accounting and financial records was vehemently resisted by the
Respondent. The Respondent’s unyielding position was that the Appellant
was guilty of mischief and was using the statutory right under s.245 of the
Companies Act 2016 to gain access to the Respondent’s documents, and
to use them to injure the Respondent.
[37] It was also contended that the Appellant was not interested in the affairs
of the Respondent and not involved in the day to day management of the
business of the Respondent. The Respondent wanted to extract a covenant
from the Appellant that the documents would not be misused. The
Appellant was not prepared to give any such covenant.
[38] As far as the Appellant was concerned, she was a director and was entitled
to inspect the documents as of right. She conceded that she was not
involved in the day to day management of the Respondent. But she
asserted that as a director she was entitled to inspect the accounting and
financial records as these are relevant in terms of her liability as a director.
She said that in light of the hostility between the directors it becomes all
the more imperative that inspection be allowed.
[39] We have carefully examined the Appeal Record and in particular, the rival
contentions as stated in the respective affidavits that were filed by the
parties. We have also studied the cases that were relied upon by the
parties. From the several case laws that were read to us, we find it to be
quite well settled that the Appellant, as a director of the Respondent has
the absolute right to inspect the documents and the Appellant is not
required to provide any covenant or reasons for the inspection.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25 | P a g e
[40] In amplification, we are compelled to state here that it is trite that the right
of a director of a company to inspect the Company’s accounting and other
records is a right existing at common law. Thus, s. 254 of the Companies
Act 2016 is declaratory of the director’s common law right. According to
the cases, a director’s right to inspect accounting and financial records is
a concomitant of the fiduciary duties of good faith, care, skill and
diligence which the director owes to the company, and as such, like other
rights and powers, must be exercised for the benefit of the company.
[41] Thus, the obligation of the company to allow inspection by its director is
regarded as mandatory. And, being an “absolute” right, a director is prima
facie entitled to inspection and is not required to demonstrate any
particular ground or ‘need to know’ as a basis. As such, the right to inspect
remains extant so long as the right is exercised for the proper
performance of the director’s duties to the company and not with a view
to causing any detriment to the company.
[42] According to established jurisprudence, there is no residual discretion in
the court to refuse inspection. The principle is that where the court bars a
director from exercising his right of inspection, it is not in fact exercising
a residual discretion, but is in such an event, satisfied on the basis of the
evidence before it that the director’s intention is to use the information
obtained for ulterior purposes such as with a view to causing detriment to
the company and that the director is thus abusing the confidence reposed
in him. Thus, in those circumstances, the right will be lost where it is
exercised not to advance the interests of the company but some other
ulterior purpose to injure the company.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26 | P a g e
[43] We agree with the submissions that were made by counsel for the
Appellant that the commencement of the Oppression Suit and the lodging
of the police report (pertaining to the unlawful assignment of the trade
mark to SNE-G) which led to LCT and his daughter being charged for
CBT cannot be construed as an ulterior or improper motive on the part of
the Appellant against the Respondent itself. The Appellant may well have
had ulterior motives against others e.g. directors and shareholders, but not
the Respondent itself.
[44] Indeed, on the issue of the unlawful assignment of the Respondent’s
trademark to SNE-G, the Appellant was quite obviously vindicated by
virtue of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (see: [2023] 2 CLJ 19 at
paragraph [35]).
[45] In the circumstances, it appears to be the case that the Learned Judicial
Commissioner did not properly appreciate that the ulterior or improper
motive referred to in the case of Dato’ Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan
Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 527 (CA) or Liaw Yeou
Huah v Wong Kee Kian & Ors [2016] MLJU 1589 (HC) are confined
to motives against the company, not others like directors or shareholders
of the company.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27 | P a g e
[46] As correctly pointed out by Counsel for the Appellant, the Oppression
Suit and the CBT charge merely demonstrate hostility towards the other
directors and shareholders of the Respondent and not the Respondent
itself. But, it was contended by the Respondent in its affidavits that the
Appellant was seeking to obtain the Respondent’s financial records and
documents so as to launch further attacks and was a launch-pad to injure
the Respondent. With respect, we see no evidence of intention by the
Appellant to injure the Respondent. She may well have an intention to
commence other legal proceedings against the directors and shareholders
but that is her right. The germane question here is whether there was any
evidence that she was intending to injure the Respondent. The answer is
– no.
[47] Here, it is important to emphasize that it requires a strong case to
disentitle a director from the statutory right of inspection under s.245 of
the Companies Act 2016 and the burden is on the Respondent to establish
positively by convincing evidence (and not just by making bald assertions
or speculation) that in making the application under s.245 of the
Companies Act 2016 the Appellant was actuated by improper motives vis-
à-vis the Respondent.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28 | P a g e
[48] Clearly, it is unlikely that the Appellant will sit still. She will possibly
continue her crusade against the other directors and shareholders. But the
key point here is that the Appellant cannot be precluded from exercising
her statutory right of inspection of the Documents as a director of the
Respondent, even if there is a possibility that future litigation may ensue
from the inspection of the documents in furtherance of the ongoing
hostility between the directors and shareholders of the Respondent. See:
Mirza Mohamed Tariq Beg Mirza HH Beg v Perunding Pakarmedia
Sdn Bhd [2009] 10 CLJ 273 (HC) at paragraph [11].
[49] Thus, applying the principles of law that are derived from the cases that
were read to us, we are satisfied that the Learned Judicial Commissioner
had misdirected herself in holding at [26] that “the failure to provide
reasons and to provide the undertaking, together with the plaintiff's
previous action in using the defendant's documents to which she was
given access, to lodge a police report against [LCT] and to initiate the
Oppression [Suit], have led the court to find that the defendant has proven
that the plaintiff's request for inspection of the Documents is made in bad
faith and with an ulterior, improper or collateral purpose.”.
[50] Having due regard to the factual matrix of facts and the conduct of the
parties and the exchange of correspondence and affidavits, we are of the
considered view that the Respondent’s position in refusing to allow the
Appellant to inspect the Documents was untenable, to say the Least.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29 | P a g e
[51] It is important to emphasize that a director’s non-participation of the day-
to-day affairs of the company does not extinguish the director’s right to
inspect the company’s documents. In Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v.
Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 CLJ 103 (HC), the Court
said at [54]:
“[54] As such, the defendant's suggestion that the plaintiff is not
entitled to encl. 1 because he is a foreign national who resides
overseas, or that the plaintiff is non-executive and also merely a
corporate representative of NSSB is entirely devoid of merit.
The law, as so clearly encapsulated in ss. 131B and 132 of the
CA does not make a distinction on the powers and duties of
company directors on the basis of nationality, residence, or
whether the director is performing an executive role or
otherwise, or whether the director is a nominee or a corporate
representative of a shareholder. It is a fundamental principle of
company law that the right to inspect emanates from the
plaintiff's office as a director of the defendant company.
Directors of a company enjoy the same right of inspection under
the law. The law admits of no distinction between the statutory
and fiduciary duties owed by different categories of directors.”
[52] The same point was also made to the case of Ho Yee Chin v Ho Min Hao
& Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 728 (HC), where the Court held that,
“There was no merit in the contention by the first and second
defendants that the fact that the plaintiff had never run or managed
the business from the day it was incorporated until this application
was made suggested that the plaintiff sought inspection, not to
discharge her duties as director. The right of inspection by a director
is an inalienable right and is not restricted in any way.”
[53] We are therefore unable to agree with the Learned Judicial Commissioner
who opined that the Appellant’s actions in lodging the police report and
the Oppression Suit and the fact that she was not actively involved in the
management of the Respondent, can be construed as suggesting that the
Appellant was actuated by improper motives, or that she was likely to
injure the Respondent, or that she had no need for the Documents.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30 | P a g e
[54] The Appellant’s past actions in lodging the police report which resulted
in LCT and his daughter being prosecuted and in filing the Oppression
Suit are in our view, manifestations of the Appellant’s right as a
shareholder/director of the Respondent to protect and preserve the assets
of the Respondent – the trade mark which LCT had assigned to his
daughter’s company for a mere RM10.00. As we said earlier, the
Appellant was justified in mounting the Oppression Suit as the Court of
Appeal found in her favour and granted the requisite reliefs.
[55] As for the Appellant’s hostility towards her co-directors, we do not see
this as a disqualification for an application under s.245 of the Companies
Act 2016. The fact that the Appellant is an inactive director is also
irrelevant. In fact, her hostility towards her co-directors and her
passiveness as a director of the Respondent makes it all the more
compelling that she should be given the right to inspect the Documents,
which in law, is an “absolute right”. We are thus satisfied that the
decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner in refusing to make the
order under s.245 of the Companies Act 2016 was in all the
circumstances, plainly wrong and warranted appellate intervention on our
part.
[56] As such, we are constrained to hold that the Learned Judicial
Commissioner erred in dismissing the Originating Summons. Thus,
appellate intervention is warranted. Ordinarily we would have allowed the
appeal. However, is necessary for us to consider the impact of the post
High Court event, namely, the Appellant’s removal as director.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31 | P a g e
[57] The next part of our judgment deals with the Appellant’s removal as a
director of the Respondent with effect from 9 December 2021. It may be
noted here that when the Originating Summons was filed on 7 April 2021,
and later dismissed on 28 September 2021, the Appellant was still a
director of the Respondent. The Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal on
14 October 2021. She was a director as at the date of filing of the Notice
of Appeal. However, by a directors’ resolution dated 9 December 2021,
the Appellant was removed as a director of the Respondent.
[58] As such, we now proceed to deal with the next issue – whether the
Appellant is entitled to obtain an order for inspection in light of the
decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Haw Par Bros (Pte) Ltd v
Dato Aw Kow [1973] 2 MLJ 169 (SGCA) (“Haw Par”). The question
before the Singapore Court of Appeal was – whether an order for
inspection which had been made by a court under s.167(5) of the
Companies Act continues in full force and effect after the director of a
company ceases to be a director? The case is highly relevant as s.167(5)
of the Singapore Companies Act is in pari materia with our previous
s.167(6) of the Companies Act 1965 and the present s.245(8) of the
Companies Act 2016.
[59] In that case, on 17 December 1971, the respondent director (Dato Aw
Kow) filed an Originating Summons (“the OS”) under s. 167(5) of the
Singapore Companies Act seeking an order to inspect the accounting and
other records of the company by his auditor, a Mr Curran. On 22
December 1971, the order was made by the Singapore High Court (“the
Inspection Order”).
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32 | P a g e
[60] The Inspection Order did not appear to specify a time limit during which
the accounting and other records of the company should be kept open for
the inspection of Mr Curran, nor also the period of the accounting and
other records to be inspected, including whether it related to the period
within which the respondent was a director. The company did not appeal
the Inspection Order. Mr Curran commenced inspection of the accounting
and other records of the company shortly after the Inspection Order and
continued until 22 June 1972, approximately six months into the
Inspection Order, when he (Mr Curran) left Singapore on leave. On 20
July 1972, the respondent was removed as a director of the company.
On 17 August 1972, the solicitors for the company informed the solicitors
for the respondent that the Inspection Order had lapsed upon the
respondent ceasing to be a director and hence Mr Curran was no longer
free to inspect the accounting and other records of the company.
[61] Thereafter, the respondent commenced a fresh civil suit on 18 August
1972, at a time when he was no longer a director of the company, claiming
a declaration that the Inspection Order remained in full force and for
orders to restrain the company from preventing or obstructing Mr Curran
from inspecting, and pending the same obtained an ex parte interim
injunction in those terms, which was upheld by Choor Singh J inter partes
(“Injunction Order”) on the basis that the respondent had made out a
strong prima facie case for his inspection to continue and the balance of
convenience lay in favour of the Injunction Order to continue. (See:
[1972] 2 MLJ 225).
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33 | P a g e
[62] Justice Choor Singh was of the opinion that the right expressly conferred
by s.167(3) on a director to inspect the accounts and other records of a
company would be illusory and would lead to unreasonableness and
injustice if s. 167(3) were to be construed to confer the right to inspect
on a director only so long as he is and continues to remain a director
of the company. We may add that the same point was made here by
Counsel for the Appellant. For completeness, we reproduce here the
relevant passage from Justice Choor Singh’s judgment (230 MLJ) where
he said,
“Parliament having conferred on a director the right to inspect, the
court ought not so to construe the statute as to make the right
conferred illusory, for that would be the result if the court were to
hold that the inspection must cease upon removal of the director. On
such an interpretation the court would in effect be rendering the
statute of no avail in the case of an honest director who obtains an
inspection order under section 167(5), if his fellow directors, who
are dishonest, can by causing him to be removed the very next day,
nullify the said order. In my opinion the right of a director, who has
obtained an inspection order under section 167(5), to continue to
inspect after he ceases to be a director, cannot be denied without
examining what his interest is in such inspection and whether further
inspection is reasonably necessary for the protection of that interest.
To deny him further inspection without such enquiry would render
the right to inspect practically useless. In my opinion, the
interpretation which the defendants have put forward, would lead to
unreasonableness and injustice, and must therefore be rejected
because the court must presume against any intention on the part of
the Legislature to cause injustice. For these reasons I hold that an
inspection order obtained by a director under section 167(5) of the
Act does not, ipso facto, lapse upon his ceasing to be director. It
remains in full force until it is discharged, rescinded or varied by the
court upon the application of either party. On such application, the
court has a discretion to allow the inspection to continue,
notwithstanding the fact that the director has been removed, if the
circumstances of the case so warrant. If further inspection is
reasonably necessary for the protection of the applicant's legitimate
interest, the court must do justice in the matter and allow further
inspection, for a reasonable period, of the accounts and other records
of the company for the period during which the applicant was a
director.”
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34 | P a g e
[63] On appeal by the company against the Injunction Order, the Singapore
Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set-aside the Injunction Order
holding that (a) an ex-director cannot successfully invoke the right of
inspection under s. 167 of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap 185); (b)
the director’s right of inspection granted by the Inspection Order ceases
once he is no longer a director, unless there was a prima facie case that
the shareholders had no power to remove the said director to support the
injunction applied for, of which there was none in that case; and (c) the
Inspection Order in that case did not amount to a true injunction either
interim or perpetual as it did not specify any time limit within which the
accounting and other records of the company were to be open for
inspection.
[64] According to Haw Par, a director’s right to inspect and, if necessary, take
copies of documents belonging to a company are due to “the nature of a
director's duties and to enable him to properly perform his duties as a
director”. The Singapore Court of Appeal disagreed with Justice Choor
Singh’s interpretation of the statutory provision and were very much
influenced by the decision of Jacobs J. in Funerals of Distinction Pty
Ltd [1963] NSWR 614 where the Learned Judge had referred to the
almost equivalent Australian statutory provision and said that once a
director ceases to hold that office, then the statutory right of inspection
also ceases.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35 | P a g e
[65] The Singapore Court of Appeal then went on to state the principle at p.170
MLJ as follows:
It seems to us clear that section 167(3) gives an absolute right to inspect
the accounting and other records required to be kept by a company and
its directors under section 167(1) only to persons who are the then
directors of the company. It is clear that section 167(3) cannot be
successfully invoked by an ex-director. In our opinion where an ex-
director wishes to inspect such accounting and other records of a
company he cannot rely on section 167(3) and must rely on other
grounds because it is clear law that an ex-director, as such, has no
proprietary, managerial or other similar interest in the accounting and
other records of a company.
It seems to us clear also that section 167(5) is in aid of the right to
inspection which is given to a director by section 167(3) and therefore
the court has no power under section 167(5) to order that the accounting
and other records of a company should be open for inspection on behalf
of an ex-director of that company.
[66] Since the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Haw Par, the
Courts in Malaysia have consistently applied the principle alluded to
earlier (p.170 MLJ) - an ex-director is not entitled to seek the aid of the
court for an order of inspection. It was argued for the Appellant that in this
case, the Appellant was a director of the Respondent when she moved the
High Court, and also when she filed her Notice of Appeal. It was also
argued that the Appellant is only seeking to inspect the accounting and
financial records of the Respondent for the period from 2015-2019 and
this was well within the period when she was a director of the Respondent.
It was also argued that the Appellant’s removal was not valid as she was
here removed by a director’s resolution whereas under the Respondent’s
Constitution and pursuant to s.206(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016, she
can only be removed by a resolution of the shareholders at a general
meeting.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36 | P a g e
[67] In our view, the present appeal is not the proper forum to deal with the
issue of the alleged invalidity of the Appellant’s removal as a director of
the Respondent. That has to be taken up by way of separate proceedings.
If and when the Appellant succeeds in impugning her removal as a director
of the Respondent, then she can make a fresh application under s.245(8)
of the Companies Act 2016 for inspection. But until that happens, as far
as we are concerned, the Haw Par principle applies to the facts of the
present case, with the result that the appeal fails. We must add that but for
the Appellant’s removal as a director, and the Haw Par principle, we
would have allowed the appeal and granted order in terms of the
Originating Summons. We conclude by stating that s.245 of the
Companies Act 2016 exists for the benefit of a director in the performance
of his/her duties as a director.
[68] Hence, as the Court of Appeal had clearly enunciated in Tan Kim Hor &
Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 527 (CA), at
paragraph [16](4), “the right of a director to inspect the books and
records of the company flows from his office as a director and enables
him to perform his duties as a director …”. As such, upon the Appellant
ceasing to be a director, she is no longer entitled to seek relief under s.245
of the Companies Act 2016. It is also relevant for us to refer to Walter
Woon on Company Law (3rd ed.) at page 415 (paragraph 10.47) where
the learned authors had opined that, “This right of inspection may be
exercised only by directors and not ex-directors, and any order of court
authorising an auditor to inspect such records on behalf of a director will
be ineffective after the director’s removal”.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37 | P a g e
[69] For completeness we would add that the same view was articulated by the
learned authors, Lau Zhong Yan and Sebastian Liew Tzen Jue in their
Article, “A Director’s Absolute and Unqualified Right to Inspection:
Section 245 of the Companies Act 2016, a Statutory Mandate” - [2021]
3 MLJ clxix, where the issue at hand is discussed at p. clxxii under the
heading “Do retired or former directors retain the right to inspect the
accounting or other records of a company?”.
[70] We now deal with costs. The following matters are relevant to the issue
of costs of this appeal. In this regard, we take cognisance of the fact that
the issue of the Appellant’s removal as a director and the Haw Par
principle were not taken up in the Respondent’s original submissions
before this Court. These matters came up during the course of oral
submissions and questions posed by this Court on 16 August 2023. In the
circumstances, although the appeal stands dismissed, it is necessary to
note that the Respondent failed in so far as the merits of the appeal are
concerned. The outcome of this appeal is based on the Appellant’s
removal and the application of the Haw Par principle.
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38 | P a g e
Outcome
[71] The appeal is dismissed. We did not think that the Respondent should be
granted any costs. As such, we exercised our discretion under Order 59
r.2(2) Rules of Court 2012 and declined to award costs to the Respondent.
As such, the order of this Court is that for the reasons mentioned above,
the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. We also order that the
costs awarded by the High Court be set aside, and if it has been paid, to be
refunded to the Appellant.
S. Nantha Balan,
Judge,
Court of Appeal,
Putrajaya, Malaysia
Date: 25 October 2023
Legal Representation
For the Appellant:
Conrad Young Wye King
Alfred Lai Choong Wui
Cheng Xin Yan
Messrs Alfred Lai & Partners
36-2, Jalan 1/116B
Sri Desa Entrepreneurs Park
58200 Kuala Lumpur
[Ref No: ALF/278/2021]
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39 | P a g e
For the Respondent:
Arjan Pursumal
Vasdev G Bakshani
Messrs Vasdev Bakhsani & Associates
35-5, The Boulevard
Mid Valley City, Lingkaran Syed Putra
59200 Kuala Lumpur
[Ref: VBA/AP/L/4857/20/SNEMSB]
Legislation:
Order 59 Rule 2 (2) Rules of Court 2012
Section 167(6) Companies Act 1965
Section 206(1)(a) Companies Act 2016
Section 245 Companies Act 2016
Section 245(1) Companies Act 2016
Section 245(4) Companies Act 2016
Section 245(8) Companies Act 2016
Section 245(9) Companies Act 2016
Section 167 Singapore Companies Act (Cap 185)
Reference Material
Walter Woon on Company Law (3rd ed.), p. 415 (paragraph 10.47)
Article by Lau Zhong Yan and Sebastian Liew Tzen Jue - A Director’s Absolute
and Unqualified Right to Inspection: Section 245 of the Companies Act 2016, a
Statutory Mandate - [2021] 3 MLJ clxix
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40 | P a g e
Cases:
Low Ean Nee v SNE Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 4 AMR 843, [2022] MLJU 1002,
[2022] 1 LNS 981 (HC)
Dato’ Tan Kim Hor & Ors v Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ
527 (CA)
Mirza Mohamed Tariq Beg Mirza HH Beg v Perunding Pakarmedia Sdn Bhd
[2009] 10 CLJ 273 (HC)
Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 CLJ
103 (HC)
Ho Yee Chin v Ho Min Hao & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 728 (HC)
Liaw Yeou Huah v Wong Kee Kian & Ors [2016] MLJU 1589 (HC)
Loh Teck Wah v Lim Pang Kiam & Ors [2022] 6 CLJ 549 (HC),
Welch v Britannia Industries Pte Ltd [1992] 3 SLR (R) 64
Haw Par Bros (Pte) Ltd v Dato Aw Kow [1973] 2 MLJ 169 (SGCA)
Funerals of Distinction Pty Ltd [1963] NSWR 614
S/N yZEv7dbfmk62D7FqSQARjg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 73,954 | Tika 2.6.0 |
K-01(A)-697-11/2021 | PERAYU Yusri Bin Ahmad RESPONDEN PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KOTA SETAR | -land acquisition -Land Acquisition Act 1960 -compensation -land injury -compensation -built structure -concrete drain -objection -Land Administrator -Form N -objection reasons -Court permission -strict legal requirements -hardware business - business licensing - Local Government Act - premises and business affairs - land use categories and conditions -pengambilan tanah -Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 -pampasan -kecederaan tanah -ganti rugi -struktur binaan -longkang konkrit -bantahan -Pentadbir Tanah -Borang N -alasan-alasan bantahan -kebenaran Mahkamah -kehendak ketat undang-undang -perniagaan ‘hardware’ -pelesenan perniagaan -Akta Kerajaan Tempatan -premis dan hal ehwal perniagaan -kategori dan syarat penggunaan tanah | 16/11/2023 | YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin GhazaliKorumYA Dato' Has Zanah Binti MehatYA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin GhazaliYA Datuk See Mee Chun | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=61b8eb13-156b-4415-8d9c-954e1600b417&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN SIVIL NO: K-01(A)-697-11/2021
ANTARA
YUSRI BIN AHMAD
(NO. K/P: 641105-02-5379) … PERAYU
DAN
PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KOTA SETAR … RESPONDEN
(Dalam Perkara Mengenai Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Alor Setar
Rujukan Tanah No.: KA-15-16-07/2020
Antara
Yusri Bin Ahmad
(No. K/P: 641105-02-5379) ... Pemohon
Dan
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kota Setar ... Responden)
KORAM
HAS ZANAH BINTI MEHAT, HMR
CHE MOHD RUZIMA BIN GHAZALI, HMR
SEE MEE CHUN, HMR
16/11/2023 14:58:52
K-01(A)-697-11/2021 Kand. 26
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Yusri bin Ahmad (perayu), telah terkilan dengan sebahagian
daripada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (HMT) yang diputuskan
pada 25.10.2021 berbangkit daripada satu bantahan dalam prosiding
Rujukan Tanah. Secara spesifiknya, rayuan yang difailkan perayu adalah
terhadap keputusan HMT yang memutuskan untuk menolak tuntutan
pampasan ke atas sebuah bangunan kepunyaannya (Bangunan tersebut)
yang didakwa turut terlibat dalam pengambilan tanah milik perayu.
Jumlah pampasan yang munasabah menurut perayu untuk Bangunan
tersebut adalah dianggarkan sebanyak RM1,890,795.00.
Latar Belakang Bantahan
[2] Perayu memiliki 1/3 bahagian tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 1250,
GM 129 Pekan Gunung, Daerah Kota Setar, Negeri Kedah (tanah Lot
1250). Pemilik 2/3 bahagian tanah Lot 1250 ialah Hamdan bin Ismail.
Sebahagian daripada tanah Lot 1250 terlibat dengan pengambilan tanah
di bawah perenggan 3(1)(a) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (APT 1960)
untuk tujuan pembinaan Projek Rancangan Tebatan Banjir Sungai
Kedah/Anak Bukit (Lencongan Banjir Sungai Baharu) Tambahan 4,
Mukim Gunung, Pekan Gunung, Daerah Kota Setar.
[3] Tanah Lot 1250 berkeluasan 0.1836 hektar (19,762 kaki persegi)
dan sebahagian 0.0404 hektar (4,348.62 kaki persegi) terlibat dengan
pengambilan tanah meninggalkan baki seluas 0.1432 hektar (15,413.92
kaki persegi). Setelah satu inkuiri penuh diadakan di bawah s 12 APT
1960 pada 2.2.2020, Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kota Setar (responden)
memutuskan bahawa nilaian tanah Lot 1250 adalah RM1,540,000.00
sehektar (RM14.79 sekaki persegi) dan jumlah award bagi 1/3 bahagian
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
perayu adalah sebanyak RM20,738.67. Responden juga membenarkan
pampasan lain kepada perayu, iaitu pampasan bagi kecederaan tanah
bagi baki tanah Lot 1250 berjumlah RM5,880.75, kos pengukuran semula
sebanyak RM1,500.00 dan ganti rugi untuk struktur binaan, iaitu longkang
konkrit, bernilai RM500.00.
[4] Tidak berpuas hati dengan award yang diberikan responden, perayu
memfailkan bantahan bertarikh 11.3.2020 melalui Borang N, APT 1960,
untuk meminta responden merujuk bantahan perayu ke Mahkamah
Tinggi. Alasan bantahan yang dikemukakan perayu dalam Borang N
adalah, “Jumlah pampasan sepertimana Borang H bertarikh 2.2.2020
adalah tidak mencukupi”. Responden telah merujuk bantahan perayu ke
Mahkamah Tinggi melalui Borang O, APT 1960, bertarikh 28.6.2020.
Keputusan HMT
[5] Subseksyen 38(1) dan (2) APT 1960 menetapkan bahawa setiap
bantahan terhadap award yang diberikan hendaklah dibuat secara
bertulis kepada Pentadbir Tanah melalui Borang N dan Pentadbir Tanah
kemudiannya akan merujuk bantahan tersebut kepada Mahkamah untuk
penentuan. Dalam Borang N tersebut hendaklah dinyatakan secara
spesifik alasan bantahan. Peruntukan subseksyen 38(1) dan (2) APT
1960 bersifat mandatori dan perlulah dipatuhi secara ketat kerana
penggunaan perkataan “shall”. Sekiranya kehendak peruntukan tersebut
tidak dipatuhi, maka Mahkamah tidak boleh mempertimbangkan
bantahan yang dibuat dan jika hendak dibangkitkan sebarang alasan
bantahan yang baharu semasa perbicaraan, kebenaran daripada
Mahkamah seharusnya diperolehi terlebih dahulu. Permohonan untuk
mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah tersebut boleh dibuat melalui suatu
notis permohonan yang disokong oleh suatu afidavit dan pihak yang satu
lagi bolehlah memfailkan suatu afidavit jawapan, jika perlu.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[6] Dalam rujukan tanah ini, perayu hanya menyatakan satu alasan
bantahan sahaja dalam Borang N iaitu “Jumlah pampasan sepertimana
Borang H bertarikh 2.2.2020 adalah tidak mencukupi.” Sedangkan award
yang diberikan oleh Pentadbir Tanah hanyalah berkenaan dengan
pampasan bagi nilai tanah, kecederaan tanah, kos pengukuran dan
struktur binaan, iaitu longkang konkrit, sahaja. Tiada disebut mengenai
pampasan bagi Bangunan tersebut. Memandangkan perayu gagal
mematuhi kehendak mandatori di bawah undang-undang, maka tuntutan
perayu untuk mendapatkan pampasan bagi Bangunan tersebut tidak
bermerit.
Rayuan Perayu
[7] Perayu menyenaraikan lima alasan rayuan sepertimana berikut
dalam Memorandum Rayuan:
1. Bahawa Memorandum Rayuan ini disediakan tanpa Perayu
mendapatkan manfaat untuk merujuk kepada Alasan Penghakiman dan
Perayu merizabkan hak untuk memfailkan Memorandum Rayuan
Terpinda setelah Alasan Penghakiman diperolehi.
2. Yang Arif Hakim yang terpelajar telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang
apabila memutuskan permohonan Perayu bagi tuntutan pampasan
terhadap Bangunan sebanyak RM1,890,795.00 juta yang terkandung
dalam Lot 1250, GM129, Pekan Gunung, Daerah Kota Setar, Negeri
Kedah Darul Aman tidak (“Bangunan tersebut”) dibenarkan.
3. Yang Arif Hakim yang terpelajar telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang
apabila gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa tuntutan pampasan terhadap
Bangunan tersebut adalah termasuk struktur kediaman.
4. Yang Arif Hakim yang terpelajar telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang
apabila memutuskan tuntutan pampasan terhadap Bangunan tersebut
tidak diplidkan di dalam Borang N.
5. Oleh yang sedemikian Perayu dengan rendah diri memohon supaya
Rayuan ini dibenarkan dan keputusan Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah
Tinggi di Alor Setar yang tidak membenarkan Pampasan bagi Bangunan
sebanyak RM1,890,795.00 diketepikan.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
Tiada sebarang Memorandum Rayuan Terpinda dikemukakan walaupun
setelah perayu menerima alasan penghakiman daripada HMT. Dengan
itu, alasan rayuan perayu kekal sepertimana dalam Memorandum
Rayuan sedia ada yang mana fokusnya adalah terhadap isu penolakan
tuntutan pampasan bagi Bangunan tersebut oleh HMT. Semasa berhujah
di hadapan kami sama ada dalam hujahan bertulis mahupun hujahan
secara lisan, peguam perayu juga hanya fokus kepada satu isu sahaja
iaitu berkaitan dengan hak perayu ke atas pampasan bagi Bangunan
tersebut di bawah APT 1960.
Pertimbangan Kami
[8] Persoalan permulaan yang perlu diberikan pertimbangan adalah,
sama ada satu-satunya isu yang dibangkitkan perayu berhubung dengan
tuntutan pampasan Bangunan tersebut merupakan persoalan undang-
undang yang dibenarkan di bawah subseksyen 40D(3) dan subseksyen
49(1) APT 1960. Ini kerana, peruntukan undang-undang tersebut
menghalang rayuan ke atas jumlah pampasan yang diputuskan
Mahkamah Tinggi di peringkat Rujukan Tanah. Keputusan duluan
Mahkamah tertinggi juga menunjukkan bahawa Mahkamah perlulah
mengambil pendekatan yang ketat ke atas persoalan undang-undang
yang boleh dibawa perayu ke peringkat rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan.
Lihat perbahasan undang-undang yang diutarakan Mahkamah
Persekutuan dalam kes Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah
Daerah Hulu Langat and another case [2017] 3 MLJ 561; Amitabha Guha
(as beneficiary for the estate of Madhabendra Mohan Guha) v Pentadbir
Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2021] 4 MLJ 1 dan Pentadbir Tanah Daerah
Johor v Nusantara Daya Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 MLJ 570.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[9] Setelah diteliti, kami mendapati bahawa rayuan perayu tidak
terhalang di bawah subseksyen 40D(3) dan subseksyen 49(1) APT 1960.
Persoalan undang-undang yang dibangkitkan adalah mengenai hak
perayu untuk mendapatkan pampasan ke atas Bangunan tersebut yang
mana dinafikan oleh responden di peringkat siasatan di bawah s 12 APT
1960. HMT kemudiannya telah mengesahkan keputusan responden di
peringkat Bantahan Rujukan Tanah di bawah s 40D APT 1960. Justeru
itu, isu undang-undang yang perlu diputuskan di peringkat rayuan adalah,
sama ada perayu berhak dipampas berdasarkan fakta yang menunjukkan
bahawa Bangunan tersebut turut terlibat dalam pengambilan tanah Lot
1250. Isu tersebut melibatkan persoalan undang-undang yang perlu
diputuskan di peringkat rayuan dan ianya tidak tergolong dalam
keputusan berkenaan jumlah pampasan yang dihalang di bawah
subseksyen 40D(3) APT 1960 sepertimana diputuskan oleh Mahkamah
Persekutuan dalam kes Calamas Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Batang
Padang [2011] 5 CLJ 125 dan Syed Hussain Syed Junid & Ors v.
Pentadbir Tanah Negeri Perlis [2013] 9 CLJ 152; [2013] 6 MLJ 626.
Dapatan Kami
[10] Hak untuk memiliki harta, termasuklah tanah, adalah hak asasi yang
memberikan pemilikan dan kenikmatan kepada pemilik harta. Perkara
kecil 13(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa tiada
seorang pun boleh dilucutkan hartanya kecuali mengikut undang-undang.
Sementara itu, Perkara kecil 13(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan pula
memperuntukkan bahawa tiada undang-undang boleh memperuntukkan
pengambilan atau penggunaan harta dengan paksa tanpa pampasan
yang memadai. Dengan itu, hak untuk memiliki tanah tidaklah mutlak
kerana ia tertakluk kepada kuasa pihak berkuasa negeri untuk mengambil
tanah milik persendirian di bawah undang-undang, iaitu APT 1960.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
Pengambilan tanah, seperti yang dinyatakan pada istilahnya, adalah
kuasa yang diberikan kepada pihak berkuasa negeri untuk mengambil
mana-mana tanah milik persendirian bagi tujuan tertentu sepertimana
yang diperuntukkan di bawah subseksyen 3(1) APT 1960. Pengambilan
tanah tersebut perlulah dipampas dengan pampasan yang mencukupi,
selaras dengan peruntukan Perkara kecil 13(2) Perlembagaan
Persekutuan.
[11] Bagi tuan tanah ataupun pihak yang membuat pengambilan yang
tidak berpuas hati dengan perkara-perkara tertentu berkaitan dengan
pengambilan tanah, bolehlah mengemukakan bantahan ke Mahkamah
Tinggi. Bantahan bolehlah dibuat di bawah s 37 APT 1960 yang mana
peruntukannya adalah sepertimana berikut:
Application to Court
37. (1) Any person interested in any scheduled land who, pursuant to any notice
under section 10 or 11, has made a claim to the Land Administrator in due time
and who has not accepted the Land Administrator’s award thereon, or has
accepted payment of the amount of such award under protest as to the
sufficiency thereof, may, subject to this section, make objection to -
(a) the measurement of the land;
(b) the amount of the compensation;
(c) the persons to whom it is payable;
(d) the apportionment of the compensation.
(2) Where the total amount awarded in compensation in respect of any
interest in any scheduled land does not exceed three thousand ringgit the
written award of the Land Administrator shall be final with regard to both the
measurement of the land and the amount of compensation awarded, and no
objection may be made under subsection (1) in respect thereof.
(3) Where the total amount of any award in respect of any scheduled land
exceeds fifteen thousand ringgit any Government or any person or corporation
undertaking a work which in the opinion of the State Authority is of public utility,
and on whose behalf such land was acquired pursuant to section 3, shall be
deemed to be a person interested in any scheduled land under subsection (1),
and may make objections on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1).
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Namun begitu, pihak yang membuat bantahan perlulah mematuhi
prosedur yang telah ditetapkan undang-undang sepertimana tertera di
bawah s 38 APT 1960. Antara perkara yang perlu dipatuhi adalah seperti
berikut:
Form and content of application, etc.
38. (1) Any objection made under section 37 shall be made by a written
application in Form N to the Land Administrator requiring that he refer the matter
to the Court for its determination, and a copy thereof shall be forwarded by the
Land Administrator to the Registrar of the Court.
(2) Every application under subsection (1) shall state fully the grounds on
which objection to the award is taken, and at any hearing in Court no other
grounds shall be given in argument, without leave of the Court.
...
[12] Jelasnya, sebarang bantahan yang dikemukakan dalam bentuk
permohonan kepada Pentadbir Tanah hendaklah menggunakan Borang
N dan setiap permohonan hendaklah menyatakan secara penuh alasan-
alasan bantahan. Semasa pendengaran bantahan di Mahkamah Tinggi,
tiada sebarang alasan lain yang boleh dibangkitkan selain daripada apa
yang dinyatakan dalam Borang N kecuali dengan kebenaran Mahkamah.
[13] Berbalik kepada rayuan di hadapan kami, HMT telah mendapati dan
memutuskan bahawa perayu gagal mematuhi kehendak ketat undang-
undang apabila tidak dinyatakan secara jelas alasan untuk menuntut
pampasan ke atas Bangunan tersebut dalam Borang N. Ini adalah satu-
satunya alasan yang diberikan oleh HMT untuk menolak bantahan perayu
dalam Rujukan Tanah. Sandaran kuat HMT adalah ke atas keputusan
Mahkamah Agong dalam kes Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pemungut
Hasil Tanah Petaling [1992] 4 CLJ 2208; [1992] 2 MLJ 660 dan keputusan
majoriti Mahkamah ini dalam kes Pentadbir Tanah Seremban V. Inisiatif
Jaya Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2017] 9 CLJ 1.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[14] Dalam keputusannya, HMT melihat kepada alasan yang diberikan
perayu di Borang N yang hanya menyatakan “Jumlah pampasan
sepertimana Borang H bertarikh 2.2.2020 adalah tidak mencukupi”. HMT
kemudiannya merujuk kepada award yang diberikan Pentadbir Tanah
dalam Borang H lalu membuat pemerhatian bahawa award yang
diberikan adalah berkenaan dengan pampasan untuk nilai tanah,
kecederaan tanah, kos pengukuran dan struktur binaan iaitu untuk
longkang konkrit sahaja, dan tidak ada sebarang pampasan yang
diberikan untuk Bangunan tersebut. HMT seterusnya memutuskan:
[23] Berdasarkan nas-nas undang-undang di atas adalah menjadi dapatan
Mahkamah ini bahawa peruntukan seksyen 38(2) Akta Pengambilan Tanah
adalah bersifat mandatori kerana terdapat penggunaan perkataan "shall' dalam
peruntukan itu. Oleh itu, kegagalan Pemohon dalam kes ini menyatakan alasan
bantahan bagi bangunan tersebut secara spesifik dan nyata dalam Borang N
KTN tersebut dan kegagalan Pemohon memohon kebenaran Mahkamah ini,
untuk memasukkan alasan bantahan baharu mengenai pampasan bagi
bangunan tersebut semasa perbicaraan di Mahkamah menyebabkan bantahan
Pemohon terhadap award yang diberikan oleh Pentadbir Tanah tersebut tidak
bermerit dan tidak teratur dari segi undang-undang, dan hendaklah ditolak oleh
Mahkamah ini.
[15] Setelah diteliti alasan bantahan perayu yang dinyatakan dalam
Borang N yang mana diasaskan kepada award Pentadbir Tanah dalam
Borang H, kami mendapati bahawa tiada silapnya dapatan yang dicapai
HMT. Nyatanya, dalam award Borang H, Pentadbir Tanah tidak
memberikan sebarang award untuk Bangunan tersebut. Oleh itu, perayu
perlulah menyatakan secara jelas dalam Borang N bantahannya terhadap
award Pentadbir Tanah bagi mematuhi peruntukan jelas undang-undang
yang menyatakan perayu “shall state fully the grounds on which objection
to the award is taken”.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
[16] Pada pandangan kami, rasionalnya mudah. Perayu sepatutnya
memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah dan juga pihak yang satu lagi akan
alasan bantahannya melalui bantahan di Borang N. Namun begitu, pintu
untuk perayu mengemukakan alasan lain selain yang dinyatakan dalam
Borang N tidaklah tertutup rapat. Perayu masih boleh memohon
kebenaran Mahkamah di bawah subseksyen 38(2) APT 1960 dengan
mengemukakan alasan permohonan melalui satu afidavit sokongan yang
mana boleh dijawab oleh pihak yang satu lagi. Dalam tindakan ini, perayu
memilih untuk tidak berbuat demikian dan masih meneruskan
bantahannya untuk mendapatkan pampasan bagi Bangunan tersebut
walaupun alasan rayuan tersebut secara hakikinya tidak ada di hadapan
Mahkamah. Itulah jalan yang dipilih sendiri oleh perayu dan perayu
perlulah menanggung risiko bantahannya ditolak Mahkamah.
[17] Persoalannya, apakah memadai untuk perayu mengemukakan
alasan bantahan secara umum iaitu “Jumlah pampasan sepertimana
Borang H bertarikh 2.2.2020 adalah tidak mencukupi” bagi meminta
Mahkamah mempertimbangkan pampasan tambahan, sedangkan
pampasan bagi Bangunan tersebut tidak dinyatakan dalam award di
Borang H. Kami berpandangan bahawa perayu perlulah menyatakan
alasan yang spesifik dalam Borang N untuk membolehkan Mahkamah
membuat pertimbangan ke atas hasrat perayu untuk menuntut pampasan
ke atas Bangunan tersebut bagi mematuhi kehendak di bawah
subseksyen 38(2) APT 1960. Kegagalan perayu berbuat demikian adalah
memudaratkan. Oleh itu, kami mendapati tiada silapnya keputusan HMT
menolak bantahan perayu.
[18] Walaupun demikian, pertimbangan kami tidak terhenti setakat itu
sahaja. Kami mendapati ada satu lagi perkara lain yang perlu diberikan
pertimbangan bagi mencapai suatu keputusan yang menyeluruh ke atas
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
isu yang sama. Perkara tersebut adalah berpaksikan kepada fakta yang
dinyatakan secara khusus di perenggan kecil 15.2 Laporan Penilaian
yang dikemukakan Pegawai Penilai Kanan, Jabatan Penilaian dan
Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH), Alor Setar, Kedah yang dapat dilihat di muka
surat 48-49 Kandungan 5, Rekod Rayuan (RR) sepertimana berikut:
15.2 Nilai Bangunan
(Perenggan 2(a), Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960)
Terdapat sebuah bangunan kedai 'hardware' separuh kekal dan gerai
sementara yang terlibat di atas harta tanah subjek. Nilaian bangunan
tidak dicadangkan memandangkan nilaian tanah adalah nilaian bagi
tanah potensi bukan tanah pertanian tulen. Nilai tanah potensi adalah
nilaian yang lebih tinggi dari tanah pertanian.
Bangunan kedai 'hardware' dan gerai ini juga tidak diambil kira kerana
melanggar syarat kegunaan tanah yang khusus untuk Pertanian
'Bendang' sahaja. Ini berdasarkan Perenggan 1 3(A) Jadual Pertama,
Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960.
[19] Dalam perkara ini, peguam perayu dan juga Penolong Penasihat
Undang-Undang Negeri (PPUN) yang mewakili responden turut
mengemukakan hujahan masing-masing. Menurut hujah peguam
perayu, Bangunan tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada rumah kediaman
yang secara sah dibina di atas tanah yang diambil dan ianya bertepatan
dengan peruntukan Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN). Oleh itu, perayu
sewajarnya dibayar pampasan kerana kegunaan tanah adalah dikawal di
bawah s 115 KTN yang perlu dibaca bersama dengan peruntukan
subseksyen 53(1) dan (2) KTN. Lagipun, tanah perayu telah diberi milik
pada 13.11.1955, sebelum berkuat kuasanya KTN. Selain itu, pemberian
lesen oleh Majlis Bandaraya Alor Setar kepada perayu untuk berniaga di
Bangunan tersebut menunjukkan adanya ‘implied authorisation’ daripada
pihak berkuasa berkenaan. Ini membuktikan bahawa Bangunan tersebut
adalah sah dan perayu wajar diberikan pampasan.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
[20] Sebaliknya, PPUN berhujah bahawa Bangunan tersebut yang
digunakan sebagai bangunan perniagaan atas nama “Teras Hardware
Sdn Bhd” jelas telah melanggar syarat kegunaan tanah yang
dikategorikan sebagai tanah pertanian. Seksyen 115 KTN hanya
membenarkan bangunan yang berkaitan dengan pertanian serta satu
bangunan kediaman sahaja dibina di atas tanah pertanian. Bersandarkan
keputusan Mahkamah ini dalam kes Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling v
Swee Lin Sdn Bhd [1999] 3 MLJ 489, PPUN berhujah bahawa perayu
tidak berhak diberikan pampasan ke atas Bangunan tersebut.
[21] Sebelum kami meneruskan perbincangan mengenai pematuhan
perayu di bawah s 115 KTN oleh perayu, kami berpandangan bahawa ada
satu fakta lain yang perlu diberikan pertimbangan terlebih dahulu
berkaitan tuntutan pampasan perayu ke atas Bangunan tersebut.
Berasaskan keterangan daripada Laporan Penilaian JPPH, ada fakta
yang menunjukkan bahawa tidak kesemua bahagian Bangunan tersebut
terlibat dengan pengambilan tanah Lot 1250. Kedai ‘hardware’ milik
perayu yang terlibat dalam jajaran pengambilan hanyalah di bahagian
hadapan kedai atau ‘teres’ yang menempatkan stor kayu sahaja dan tidak
melibatkan bahagian utama Bangunan tersebut. Fakta tersebut tidak
dinyatakan dalam dua Laporan Penilaian penilai perayu. Namun begitu,
pihak perayu tidak pernah mempertikaikan fakta yang dinyatakan penilai
JPPH berkaitan dengan jajaran pengambilan tanah Lot 1250 tersebut.
Dengan itu, pernyataan oleh penilai JPPH dalam laporan penilaiannya
berhubung fakta tersebut perlulah diterima sebagai keterangan yang tidak
dipertikaikan.
[22] Keterangan berkaitan jajaran pengambilan sebahagian Bangunan
tersebut bertentangan sama sekali dengan apa yang dituntut perayu
dalam bantahannya. Perayu telah menuntut sejumlah RM1,890,795.00
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
yang didakwa sebagai suatu pampasan yang munasabah. Hakikatnya,
jumlah tersebut adalah nilaian bagi keseluruhan Bangunan tersebut yang
mana termasuklah tuntutan ke atas struktur yang tidak terlibat dalam
pengambilan. Selain itu, perayu juga menuntut kerosakan/susut nilai
barang perniagaan, ganti rugi bagi pekerja seramai 10 orang termasuk
perayu, kos untuk mencari premis perniagaan alternatif dan juga kos
pindah. Lihat tuntutan perayu dalam Jadual di perenggan 14 Laporan
Penilaian Kedua penilai perayu di muka surat 92-93 Kandungan 5 RR.
[23] Persoalannya, apakah tuntutan perayu sebanyak RM1,890,795.00
tersebut wajar dan munasabah? Kami berpandangan bahawa
jawapannya sudah tentulah negatif. Ini kerana, perkara yang boleh
diambil kira dalam menentukan jumlah pampasan telah ditetapkan
undang-undang. Perenggan 2(d) Jadual Pertama APT 1960 jelas
memperuntukkan bahawa hanya kerosakan kepada harta lain pemilik
tanah akibat daripada pengambilan tanah sahaja sekiranya ada, yang
boleh dipampas. Berkaitan tuntutan yang dikemukakan perayu, tiada
keterangan dalam dua Laporan Penilaian perayu menyangkal fakta yang
menunjukkan hanya bahagian hadapan Bangunan tersebut yang
menempatkan stor kayu sahaja terlibat dalam pengambilan.
Berhubungan dengan kehilangan keseluruhan perniagaan perayu akibat
pengambilan tanah Lot 1250 pula, tiada sekelumit keterangan yang
dikemukakan perayu berkaitan dengan perkara tersebut. Perayu tidak
memfailkan sebarang afidavit untuk menyatakan bahawa perniagaan
‘hardware’ yang dijalankannya perlu ditutup dan berpindah ke premis lain.
Natijahnya, perayu gagal menunjukkan bahawa jumlah kerugian yang
dituntut sebanyak RM1,890,795.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah.
[24] Sekiranya dilihat kepada Jadual Tuntutan Pampasan dalam
Laporan Penilaian Kedua perayu di muka surat 93 Kandungan 5 RR, ada
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
dinyatakan bahawa “Bangunan Ansilari – Teres” seluas 2,437 kaki persegi
nilainya adalah sebanyak RM182,775.00. Itulah jumlah yang sepatutnya
dituntut perayu sekiranya perayu layak menuntut pampasan ke atas
Bangunan tersebut. Kami mendapati bahawa tiada sebarang asas atau
justifikasi untuk perayu menuntut nilaian keseluruhan Bangunan tersebut
ataupun apa-apa kehilangan berkaitan perniagaan perayu. Atas alasan
tersebut sahaja tuntutan perayu bagi mendapatkan pampasan berjumlah
RM1,890,795.00 seharusnya ditolak.
[25] Persoalan seterusnya, wajarkah perayu dibayar pampasan
sebanyak RM182,775.00 sepertimana dinilai penilai perayu untuk
sebahagian Bangunan tersebut yang terlibat dengan pengambilan? Kami
berpandangan bahawa jawapan kami masih lagi negatif. Walaupun tiada
nilaian lain yang dikemukakan pihak responden bagi menyangkal
penilaian penilai perayu dan nilaian tersebut seharusnya diterima
Mahkamah, kewujudan dan keberadaan Bangunan tersebut yang
bertentangan dengan peruntukan perenggan 115(1)(a) dan perenggan
115(4)(a) atau (b) KTN menimbulkan persoalan sama ada perayu berhak
ke atas pampasan akibat daripada pengambilan tanah Lot 1250.
[26] Bagi membuat pertimbangan ke atas persoalan yang berbangkit
tersebut, kami mulakannya dengan melihat kepada status tanah Lot 1250.
Tidak dipertikaikan bahawa kategori kegunaan tanah untuk tanah Lot
1250 adalah ‘Pertanian’ dan syarat nyata yang tertera di atas dokumen
hak milik adalah ‘Bendang’ atau sawah padi. Daripada status tanah Lot
1250 yang jelas tersebut, kami berpandangan bahawa tiada lagi
keperluan untuk merujuk kepada peruntukan di bawah s 53 KTN. Ini
kerana, ketetapan kategori pengunaan dan syarat nyata tanah bagi tanah
Lot 1250 telah pun dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam dokumen hak milik.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Oleh itu, hujahan peguam perayu berkaitan dengan perkara tersebut
perlulah kami tolak.
[27] Selain itu, fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan juga menunjukkan bahawa
ada rumah kediaman, kedai ‘hardware’ dan gerai makan di atas tanah Lot
1250. Berdasarkan maklumat yang diterima daripada Jabatan
Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Negeri Kedah, tanah Lot 1250 telah
dizonkan untuk kegunaan Institusi dan rekod menunjukkan bahawa tiada
sebarang permohonan dibuat untuk membangunkan tanah Lot 1250.
Lihat keterangan di perenggan 8 dan 10 Laporan Penilaian penilai JPPH
di muka surat 41-42 Kandungan 5 dan di perenggan 9 Laporan Penilaian
Pertama penilai perayu bertarikh 15.1.2020 di muka surat 59, juga di
Kandungan 5.
[28] Berhubung dengan keterangan yang diberikan mengenai Bangunan
tersebut, penilai JPPH dalam Laporan Penilaian ada menyatakan
sepertimana berikut:
8.3 Bangunan
Terdapat sebuah kedai binaan separuh kekal ‘Teras Hardware Sdn Bhd’
yang menjalankan perniagaan bahan binaan, kepunyaan En. Yusri bin
Ahmad dan Gerai makan sementara kepunyaan En. Hamdan bin Ismail
yang terlibat dengan pengambilan ini.
Berdasarkan jajaran pengambilan, bahagian kedai ‘hardware’ yang
terlibat adalah bahagian hadapan kedai (teres) yang menempatkan stor
kayu sahaja dan tidak melibatkan bahagian bangunan utama. Bagi gerai
makan pula, bahagian yang terlibat adalah sebahagian gerai yang
berhadapan jalan.
Sementara itu, penilai perayu dalam Laporan Penilaian Kedua bertarikh
24.1.2020 telah menyatakan sepertimana berikut:
10.0 STATUS PENDUDUK
Bangunan dan struktur-struktur lain yang terlibat diduduki oleh Encik Yusri bin
Ahmad mengusahakan kedai bahan/barangan binaan dan berniaga atas nama
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
‘Teras Hardware Sdn Bhd’ bersama isteri serta pekerja-pekerja dan dilesenkan
oleh pihak Majlis Bandaraya Alor Setar.
[29] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan tersebut, tidak boleh dinafikan
bahawa tanah Lot 1250 adalah tanah pertanian dengan syarat nyatanya
adalah untuk bendang atau sawah padi. Tidak juga boleh dinafikan
bahawa perayu menjalankan perniagaan ‘hardware’ di Bangunan tersebut
tanpa dibuat ubah syarat ke atas syarat penggunaan tanah dan tidak ada
keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan perayu diberikan kebenaran untuk
mendirikan Bangunan tersebut untuk tujuan perniagaan ‘hardware’.
[30] Undang-undang berhubung dengan pembinaan bangunan atas
tanah pertanian adalah jelas. Perenggan 115(1)(a) KTN
memperuntukkan:
Implied conditions affecting land subject to the category "agriculture"
115 (1) Where any alienated land is subject by virtue of any provision of this Act
to the category "agriculture", the following implied conditions shall, subject to
subsection (3), apply thereto:
(a) that no building shall be erected on the land other than a building
or buildings to be used for one or more of the purposes specified
or referred to in subsection (4);
...
(4) The purposes referred to in paragraph (1)(a) are the following:
(a) the purposes of a dwelling house for the proprietor of the land or
any other person lawfully in occupation thereof; or for the servants
of, or any persons employed for agricultural purposes by, the
proprietor or any other such person:
Provided that the dwelling house for the proprietor of the land or
any other person lawfully in occupation thereof shall not occupy
more than one-fifth of the whole area of the land or two hectares,
whichever is the lesser;
(b) the purposes of agriculture;
(c) the purpose of extracting or processing raw material from any
agricultural produce of such land;
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
(d) the purpose of preparing for distribution any such material or
produce, or any honey-bees, livestock or reptiles kept or bred on
such land, or the produce of such livestock or aquaculture on such
land;
(e) the purposes of providing educational, medical, sanitary or other
welfare facilities, including (so far as they are provided primarily
for use by persons employed on the land) facilities for the
purchase of goods and other commodities;
(f) any purpose which the State Authority may prescribe for the
purposes of this section by rules under section 14;
(g) any purpose which the State Authority may think fit to authorize in
the circumstances of any particular case;
(h) any purpose incidental to a purpose falling within any of the
preceding paragraphs.
Berdasarkan peruntukan perenggan 115(1)(a) KTN, tidak dibenarkan
dibina bangunan atas tanah pertanian melainkan ianya dibenarkan di
bawah subseksyen 115(4) KTN.
[31] Sepertimana keterangan, tanah Lot 1250 adalah tanah pertanian
dengan syarat nyatanya adalah untuk bendang atau sawah padi. Hanya
sebuah bangunan kediaman yang didiami perayu atau pekerjanya yang
mengerjakan bendang ataupun bangunan yang ada kaitan dengan kerja-
kerja di bendang sahaja dibenarkan didirikan dan Bangunan tersebut
tidaklah boleh meliputi lebih daripada satu perlima keseluruhan keluasan
tanah itu menurut peruntukan proviso di perenggan 115(4)(a) KTN. Tidak
juga dipertikaikan bahawa keterangan menunjukkan perayu menjalankan
perniagaan ‘hardware’ di Bangunan tersebut. Premis perniagaan sudah
tentulah bukan premis kediaman dan perniagaan ‘hardware’ tidaklah ada
kaitan dengan kerja-kerja di sawah padi. Penggunaan Bangunan tersebut
sebagai tempat perniagaan ‘hardware’ jelas bercanggah dengan kategori
kegunaan tanah Lot 1250 iaitu ‘Pertanian’ dan juga syarat nyata tanah,
iaitu ‘Bendang’.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
[32] Berhubung dengan tuntutan pampasan oleh perayu ke atas
Bangunan tersebut pula, perenggan 1(3A) Jadual Pertama APT 1960
secara spesifiknya memperuntukkan:
(3A) The value of any building on any land to be acquired shall be
disregarded if that building is not permitted by virtue of -
(a) the category of land use; or
(b) an express or implied condition or restriction,
to which the land is subject or deemed to be subject under the State land law.
Daripada penggunaan perkataan yang sangat jelas dalam peruntukan
tersebut, iaitu “The value of any building on any land to be acquired shall
be disregarded”, maka perayu dihalang daripada membuat tuntutan bagi
mendapatkan pampasan ke atas Bangunan tersebut yang nyata telah
melanggar bukan sahaja kategori kegunaan tanah, malahan juga syarat
nyata tanah. Dalam hal ini, kami merujuk kepada keputusan terkini
Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes MMC Tepat Teknik Sdn Bhd v
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang & Anor and other appeals [2023] 5 MLJ
520. Semasa mempertimbangkan isu yang sama, Mahkamah
Persekutuan telah membuat ketetapan sepertimana berikut:
[44] It is evident from para 1(3A) that while the existence of buildings on any
acquired land is acknowledged, their value however shall be disregarded where
the buildings are not permitted to be on those lands in the circumstances set
out in para 1(3A) (a) and (b). In such cases, the clear intent of Act 486 is that
there will be no compensation for such buildings and by necessary extension,
any losses related to the use of these same buildings. In our opinion, this must
be correct under the principle of adequate compensation, that compensation is
only fairly and reasonably ordered for the proper and valid use of the lands
acquired. Surely, it cannot be awarded for a wrongful or invalid use as that
would be encouraging furtherance of wrongdoings; quite contrary to principles
of justice.
[33] Walaupun ada keterangan dalam Laporan Penilaian Kedua perayu
yang menyebut bahawa perniagaan ‘hardware’ perayu telah dilesenkan
oleh pihak Majlis Bandaraya Alor Setar, kami berpandangan bahawa isu
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
pelesenan perniagaan dan isu perlanggaran syarat kategori penggunaan
tanah adalah dua isu yang berbeza di bawah dua undang-undang yang
berbeza. Pemerolehan lesen perniagaan oleh perayu adalah bagi
mematuhi kehendak pelesenan perniagaan di bawah s 70 Akta Kerajaan
Tempatan dan juga undang-undang kecil yang digubal bagi mengawal
premis dan hal ehwal perniagaan. Pelesenan perniagaan tersebut tidak
sekali-kali mengatasi keperluan perayu untuk mematuhi kehendak KTN
berkaitan dengan kategori dan syarat penggunaan tanah. Dengan kata
lain, lesen perniagaan yang diperoleh perayu tidak dapat mengesahkan
perlanggaran syarat penggunaan tanah Lot 1250 di bawah s 115 KTN.
[34] Hakikatnya, pembinaan atau penggunaan Bangunan tersebut
sebagai premis perniagaan ‘hardware’ oleh perayu adalah berlawanan
dengan kategori serta syarat penggunaan tanah Lot 1250 di bawah s 115
KTN. Natijahnya, pembinaan atau penggunaan Bangunan tersebut
adalah berlawanan dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang. Oleh itu, tiada
pampasan yang boleh dipertimbangkan untuk diberikan kepada perayu
selaras dengan kehendak perenggan 1(3A) Jadual Pertama APT 1960.
Kesimpulan
[35] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan tersebut, kami sebulat
suara mendapati dan seterusnya memutuskan bahawa tiada merit dalam
rayuan yang dikemukakan perayu. Rayuan perayu ditolak dan keputusan
Mahkamah Tinggi dikekalkan. Kami menggunakan budi bicara untuk
tidak membuat sebarang perintah ke atas kos. Pihak-pihak menanggung
kos masing-masing.
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
Tarikh: 15 November 2023
t.t.
CHE MOHD RUZIMA BIN GHAZALI
Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan
Malaysia
Peguamcara bagi pihak Perayu : Muhammad Irham bin Redzuan
[M.S Nizam & Co]
Peguamcara bagi pihak Responden : Norhayati binti Ibrahim
[Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang
Negeri Kedah]
S/N Eu4YWsVFUSNnJVOFgC0Fw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 37,434 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-23CY-50-10/2018 | PLAINTIF 1. ) THIAGARAJAN A/L S. RENGASAMY 2. ) K-PINTAR SDN BHD 3. ) TALENT DEVELOPMENT (M) SDN BHD 4. ) ASIAN RAIL ACADEMY SDN BHD DEFENDAN Sri Ganes a/l Palaniapan | Defamation – four of the Facebook postings alleged to be defamatory were classified as Part A documents and therefore are deemed to be true as to their contents and therefore justified Defamation – action dismissed as several of the offending statements were not pleaded ad verbatim with all not referring to any of the plaintiffs and no independent evidence was led to prove that persons acquainted with the claimant could identify any of the words used when read referred to the plaintiffs Civil procedure – although the action was dismissed, nominal costs was awarded to the defendant for having lied on oath | 15/11/2023 | YA Tuan Su Tiang Joo | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7cb93218-eeec-47c4-a5cb-3b9cc2466fe5&Inline=true |
15/11/2023 14:09:40
WA-23CY-50-10/2018 Kand. 62
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N GDK5fOzuxEelyzucwkZv5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
HA—23CY—5D—1D/2018 Kand. 52
15/11/2023 Jazas-an
IN THE HIGH COURT IN IMLAVA A'r KUALA LUMFUR
IN THE sTATE or WILAVAN PERSEKUTUAN
BETWEEN
1. THIAGARAJAN AIL s. RENGASAMY
[IC No.: 711z14.n1-5575]
2. K-PINTAR SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO. u1:us»x]
3. TALENT DEVELOPMENT (M) SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO. 14299-w]
4. ASIAN RAIL ACADEMY SDN EHD
[COMFANV NO. 210310-vv] PLAINTIFFS
AND
SRI GAMES A/L FALANIAPAN
[Ic Mo.: 781206-055111] DEFENDANT
Q ggupggr LJDGMENT
(Enclosure!)
A document classified as a Fan A docmmnt is admitted as lo its
-um-nvcny -nu conhnls resulllrlg in ma unnn am: conlenfs being
conceded, and mus an aclion for defamation growvdod on such
cements ls like a writ on wam.
sw Guwsiuxuxisyxupmzvsa
mg an.‘ ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
INTRODUCTION
[:1 Tms .s an almon mmated by me plamlms sgamst Ihe aecenosnc
gmunded on devanumon.
[2] The «net plamm was at the relevann me a board member av me
Human Resources Devekwmenl Fund (“HRDF') wnmn 15 managed by ane
Humln Resources Deverepmenc Corpovauun which H: mm 15 an Igancy
under me purview of the Mlmslly 0! Human Resauroes Malaysa The
HRDF Is governed by me Pembangunan Sumber Manusua aemau Act
2001.
[3] The wet plavmlfl we also the chued Execulwe oafiuer (CEO) av the
second, mm: and vounn plavmffs The second‘ third and leunh plmnmis
um prwale nnncen companies Incorporated m Mahayana
[4] The dedendsnl on me other hand Is a lacebook user who has
ansamte we and ounlml uvav ms Mo accounts under me names 01 “SH
Ganes“ and ‘Data’ Sn Garles“
m GDK5IDzuxEI'yxwmZv5Q
“Nun: sum ...n.mn .. med u may he nrW\ruH|Y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
/1 IS necessary to {aim mlo cansxdermion, not only the
actual words used, nu: (he wnzexr ol the words I!
renew: from the fact that the context and umumezsnces
of me Dub/[canon must be taken mlu account, ma: the
Appellant cenner pmk and choose pans of me
puencermn wmcrv, standmg alone, wuum be aeremetary
ms or that sentence may he cansrdered defamatory.
but (here may be ether pussnges wmcn take away the
slmg '
[13] It \s, mus, selllad law that to succeed m an amen var defarnatwurl‘
the pnammvs have to wave the rollawmg 3 elements‘ namely that
(I) me enenmng slatemems are delamalmy‘
on me aflendlng statemems refer Io me p\amlMs; and
my that me urrenamg statements have been puenenea
wnemer me alleged olfulding suumonu Ire aennmory
[191 This com takes note mm all the offendmg sevamatory smemems
contained In I719 Fanebnck posts have been clasmfied II Part A
documems (see Bundle an ppt I013)
u
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvso
«we. sen-1 lunhnrwm .. H... e may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
my When azssnyung dncumenls tn pmparan-on our Inal M I! emctat Var a
unganx to lake min accuunl mg prams-ans of cum :4 rule 2(1) (:1) Ind
(e) onne Rules 4:! com 2012 men I5 (epmduoed beta»:
'2 Pm-mm case management when auscrad by the Com! (0
34: 2)
(a) the contents ottne bundre of the documents referred to In
subparsgraph (0) shall be mud on mm-n nu plrtlet 1:
hr aspasslblc and lhl: bundlo orngrood uocmnems shall
be filed by [he plainm and matted as A.-
(e) nmepani-s am unable to Agree on cemin documents,
those docurmmls on wmcn sgraemam‘ cannot be reaclvsd
shall be Included In ups/aka bun-ilas and each such bundle
slva/lbs Wed by Ina pratnrnranu marked as Inflows
n) Fun 5 - dncumenls mm. rm aulntntlclly I: nut
disputed bill me contents are dtsputed,
nu Part C - dacumnnts when on aumenllclly Ind
contents are displnod,
[Emphasis Dddad)
IN Guxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsu
«mm. s.n.t ...n.mm .. U... M my me nrW\ruU|Y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
[21] The quesrian Ihen anssa, what rs me lega¥ efled when a urmumenr
Is classvfiad as a Part A aacurnenw ms was decuiad rn "flow wnng
Thaong v Mallwangl san an-1[2n1s]2 cu 555 (‘mm Weng Theong")
where the Court of Apnea! speaking through Nallrni Pammanathan JCA
(nuw FCJ) at paragrapns [as], [:49] and [731 mu.
73a] What then rs me consuucrron m be placed on a Pen A
document’ /I follows Iogrcalry Ma! rf Far! 5 duals mm a
snuatron when; the contsnl onhe ducument IS 77! drspule and
Pan c dssls w/th a snuanun where both me aurnenrmry and
umlenf are In dispute, than 018! can only leave F!!! A II
zamprlalng document: what: no!!! nu numonllclfy and
the content A)! 0!: documenl Ire Mal In dlsputa Any arner
cvlvsrructron would render Ills categonsahun awarded (0
Fans 5 and c nugslory.
/39} What rs ms meaning to be aflurded lo we phrase me
wnzenr omre document is agreed ornor In dispute’ 1: mam:
lhll MI word: comprixing tho cunlunl ufl dazumlnl nu
ma! disputed. It mans 01:! me words comprising ma
camurr ol tho dacumenr an: agreed
1:
m Guxsmzuxiiyxwmzvsa
“Nana s.n.r ...n.mm .. U... m may r... mruu-r mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max
I76]Forlhs reasons med abava, we conclude Mal ms learned
judge and m holding mar ma aacumsms Ill Plan A raqulmd
pmolol ms lmlll cl me conlenls o/the clocumems As we
have concluded that no such ploolis necessary, in rollows me:
me dslsrlca onusllllcallon ls made out In mm: want: my
megonmlan al the email In Part A eirccvivcly moans
mar lha cant-ms an not in dispute ar are ngreed. As the
column in squad to ay (M pl.lmll-l he llhclivuly
iccopts win! I: slnled in the amlll. Agreeing and
ncceptlnfl the convent: oi on -mails mans mat ma
plainfifl accepts the truth of the mm. nus In mm can
only load (9 the legal ccnsoqutnco mar /unlllcallun ls
made our "
rEmlallasls added)
[221 The declswon or me Court cl Appeal In new Wang Tlwonq was
Vateroverlumed by me Fsdeval com, see Melzwmgl sun arm v Tlnw
Wang Thong [2u2u14 cu 1 However, n IS v\la\ Io nuls mat n was
ovsrlurned on the ground Iha\ me Conn 01 Appeal hadla::1uaHy erred In
huldvng mac me lingaling party had agreed for the oflendmg statement m
an emafl (0 he mated m Pan A man the mgaung pany had repeatedly
sougm hr .1 ta be moved In Pan 3 To laclmanc reading, I set out
:4
m Guxsluzuxi-tyxwmzvsa
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa Wm!
hereunder the lullowlng passages 0! the tuctgment of me Feoerel coun
dehvered by Hts Lnrdshlp. Azahar Monlmed CJ (Mllaya)
-122} Prmcipally, me decision or tne Caun ol Appeal was
prumlsed on me Issue ol the /egat effect or consequence of
tnduatng the e~ma1I tn F-en A or me agrued ounctte of
documents rne Cour! ol Appeal nald tnet tne Htgn com
enea tn raw and tact wnen nokttng me: document in Part A (in
ms instant cuss the wnntt dlled 13 octooer 2006) rsquneot
plan! or me llulh onne contents al tne otocument The Court
of Appea/ hefid me: (Its empteoement of me emett In Part A
rastmeci III the oerenoe onusnfioauon being made out In one
word: ottne coutt oIAppea/
[75] For the masons ctted above, we conclude met me
Ieamedfudge erred tn notamg tnet the documents m Part
A rsqutred pmof or [he tnnn ol the contents at me
dtwumsnls As we nave conctuaea met no such prool A:
necessary, tt Io/mws tnez the delanoe ol tusmtcanon Is
made out In olherwnrds, me categonsatton of me omettin
PM A olfocnvlfy means that the contents in not In drspule
or are agreed As the oontents ere agraed to by me ptemttrt
IN Gnxfimzuxiliyxuvmzvfifl
«we. s.n.t nmhnrwm .. med u my t... nflmnnflly mum: flnuamnl VI muue vmm
ts
he elrecmely accept: what 75 sleredln the smell Agreeing
and aocspllng me mrlmnls of me email means that me
plammlaceepls me truth olrne same ms ln (um can only
lead to me legelconeequenee rnequslulcelmn IS made oul
[25] ll is mslenal In porn! out at ”7ISjllIPC1ll!$ Ihal me Coull af
Appeal anchorad ne /udgmerl! on me pnmnry gruund me: me
plemmnea agreed in place me 9-mafl m Part A allhe agreed
bundle oldocumems As we shall see later me has a Isl-
rsachlng lmpllcarioll As a consequence, ll was marked In me
course 0! evldenm wlmoll! reservallon and summed mm
evidence. me ls made dear by me folfnwlng exoerpl ul me
judgment or me cuun Appea/'
(241 me IS me pnmaly gmund 0! me appeal ll relates la
the enyecwal m law m relation to me classfllcaflorl cl
documenls mm separate calsgonss, now usually
uemnoea m plume as Part: A, a and c or pamcule:
concern here 15 the meaning 1:: be ascrmed Ia, and the
legal consequences afplaclng documents In Peru!
m Guxslnzuxi-tyxuamzvsa
«we. Smul nmhnrwm .. med e may he mm-y MIMI flnuamnl VI .mla vtmxl
[25] In tnls context, If is nut 77! dlsplne that Ms lmganng
palms agrsad (0 plane the amlsl/ m Pal! A cl [he Agreed
Bundle ol Documents As a wnsequenoe, It was marked
ln tns course ofsvldence wllnout reset-/anon and allnmted
mla svldencs
[25] As I! was so marked /eamed counsel fnrthe delenclanl
malrlfalned mar it amounted m elect to [he plainlllr
udmifling or concedlng that
U] The ematl sxlstau andwas not lluerelore rabncaled.
tn) The Smell had bsan autnonza by me maker stated
m the Email. and
(m) The plumlill admitted mar me mntants of lne
documents were true
/27) lr IS the last ol the three pmposirtons that gave nse to
annoy: dtspula In [his and am.’ appeals By admitting that
tn. cnnlsnls of the documents were true, mete would
efieclrvs/y be 5 mncasslon mar me very slalements that
the plalnmr had challenged as being delumatary were m
lacl tnla. nus In tum would have me legal wllsequerrce
m Guxsluzuxi-tyxuamzvsa
«mu. mu ...m.mm .. med u may t... mmuu mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
that me dc/snce al ,usnrcamn had been pmven or
conceded lo by me plamml The p/ammv would mm/am
have no funherbasxs for us clam: m deramaoon.
Crucmlly, at snollwrp/Me ohrs/uclgmsnl‘ the com al/Ippea!
anserved
125} I: Is imparts!!! In pom! an! that (ha option was given to
(he plaml/II (mmugn /ts counsel) to IEIIEDI or Is/nova ms
Ie)eI/amdocumant mm the category krwwn as Pam and
for rt m be placed m Pan 5 during ms course 0/ ms mm
Hawevsr, ms plamull mlused was any and msrsred on me
small mmammg m Parr A
(an) Evldcnrly, mo judqmnm at cm cam ol Applal
Impllld mu m pmnun lgreed in plus: the 0-mall In Pun
A and max :1 was the nlaintifl who insimd ma 0-mlil to
rvmain in Pm A. This pm of thijudqmtntul the Cum! 0!‘
Appeal Is not in: (mm dlfflculty; ll rllus sarluus
prublems. Was the coun o!Appoal comet in concmaing
war the I yuing puma: agreed to place um mail in Part
A of mo ngnsd bundln L1! :.1acumInl.l7
m Guxsmzuxintyxwmzvso
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
[27] In me cirrumsllncos, an: own koy quoslions for us
to umnnlnn I: mam-r me plnlnml Ind tweed nu pm:
me emau In Fan A n! ma agmd bundle nrdocumcnns.
/251 The answer to rms racmal question mus! be approached
on me basrs or what was precisely agnsa In by me rmgaung
pames All rm: came out durmg me proceedings berore me
/eamed ./C and meticulously rsoomsd m me notes of
pmceemngs that formed part aims sppeallacurds ('AR‘) At
an healing won us, In responding 20 the quasfiuns
posed by us, Ieamed counsel for the plainfifl tank us
rimzugh mo rllovlnlplrts‘ of mo mm: olpmct dlnas to
support III: contention am the plaintiff mm «mud to
place we e-mail in Part A and am in mun ma plninrirr
wumd lo mnaw the rmzil hum Fun A and tr: man it
to Part 5 0! lln lgnod nundln oldocumenm On the basis
or the teams: msmx «n ma present case, In our opmmn, this
/me olaryumenrhas men"!
[29] W9 mslelore need (0 mm aw ansnmzn to ma notes or
proceedings and look more wisely and carerulty smmmse
what actually franswsd mmng me course oi the Mg): Court
m Guwsmxuxintyxwmzvso
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
proceedings To (ms and, we have rsad ll-vs AR In rls entirety
In Ims regard, we Iulevanl pages wmch have a slmng baanng
on me maner can be seen at pp 17010 175 uf ./md 2(2)
Eahagnan B 0! me AR These re/ale In nolss olpmceedmgs
at my sum ollhe Ina! oeiona me mam/realism us wrmsss The
maven: parts are sel out belaw
nun (courull Ior an p:.:nw).~... m m nowpmpaulng
thedocummtln PanA m be movodto Puts. msym
objecting. So Inumhly requestlly Lonrs ruling on war
It to Vlhclhel no may Ill pormillldtu mavl it to PURE
bonus: 1: bus rial sun. The Mal nun‘! slannd. rm
witnesses are here. The makerol an documsnl is also
him. So if WE In allowod I0 do Iflll, My Lord, (hell I
will humbly nquosr Io! cm: to mow lo Fm 5.
VA Procrssry what document”
DNR' My Lord ms document at page 75 m 79 ll! /kalan
Dokumen Belsama Bund/s B Page 73, My Lord
YA An emar/, ngm’ DNR vss, My Loni
no) 1: must be med um die e-mail relarrwd to by the
lnmodlc is (Ila um. I-mlil lhutis an subjnctmnflor of
2a
m Guwsmxuxi-iyxwmzvsu
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
BACKGROUND FACTS
[51 Fouv Faoeboak pubbcallons rm poets“) men were punnsnea an
anverem umes were reriea upnn by me eremmrsm ground men aevameuon
aclmn and m :21 out below
[51 The mm; posl was made an 36 May 2017‘ whereby me aevenaam
through ms Fieebook account nzmsd “Sn Gauss‘ pooled the fouowlng
auegea defamalmy statemem m me form as ytesuea In paragraph 9 of
me saecemem of Claim (-soc") mea by me plalntrfls and Is sea om
hereunder
‘1Dfl§ nl mnhuns cl pubhc «mus mlshantfled so easily"
‘. Th! exchange 01 gflw are ‘us! not about handbnga or
watches. n has a\so mvewea nmeuueusny expenswe
Iangxble assets (or clasmg mg unvaur deaxsfl
every evidence I gamer Is slmngly pmmmg to me
obvious mmhnndhngs wn many ways‘.
. m Vooks like 1 was uemea my ngms lav Val! busmess
because some unetrucar deavs ov me pames emruscea to
penmm Ihevr fiduciary dunes‘ and
m Gnxsnuzuxi-tyxumaz-450
«we. mu nmhnrwm s. med e mm s. nflmnlflly -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-ms!
ma pnstnt appeal. subsequently, nnemsaring submissions
imm both sides, 5! p 177 ms mgr: court made me Ioi/owing
older
VA Pages 73 and 7y driven A IS maintained But parties
are allawsd Ia cmssexamme
[:11 in whiclvcvur way on. were to look at it. it is not
-ccunta In any that ma migaung panm agmd to pin:
me email in Pan A of the agreed bundle of documents.
More significant still, and most pmblomalically, in our
opinion, cm oimmdon 4:! ma Court at App--I mat on
plaintiff "ln.IIsled on ma e-mall remaining In Pan A” is a
mismen reading at live we stand men by me pllintifl
mmugn his counui The key point rim is ma; as m
II-V: seen eafllor, mo pi-inmnii aiang wnmad Io nnmva
ma 9-Innilfmm me canegoiyknown as PanA andlorit to
no placed in Pan 5. mi: is inlfut-M2.
(.121 rna mare closely m Iookod .1 ma non» of
pmcudinqs the more lpparenl It became maia principal
arm! of ma Cour! al Appual was its finding um um
phlnllfl agmd to pile: mo unaii in Put A. mm was
IN GDK5IuxuxEI'yxw4mZv5Q
mm. an.‘ ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
lailuu on am pm of ms com o! Appeal to spplscms
Ind cansldtl ms: «nu plllnlilf dispufod ln. plnslng n! m.
mail in Pan A. rnls rnllm led the court of Appeal rm
em». The calm oIAppoaI should luvs clllsmd in mind
to rlu mm mm: men by tin plairlfiflat trial in relsllon to
ma pllcing of ma e-mail ln Pm A. rm com o! Appul
filled to accord ma sland of tho pl-Ilnllff me lmponnnce
it dasmscl. The [udgmenr or the calm of Aupeal was
mmlm basod upon - wrung pmniso of hens. nu
being the use. Eh: undedylng lmls Io! ma Calm or
Appeal to /uszily lls zppollnle Inlenreutlan ms, mm
nspocl, wnolly unlennble. nus is in itself sllflicienl‘ ta
wzrnnt nppollma irlllrvnrltian on our pm nnd dispou of
me pruonl lppenl. "
lsmphasls added)
[23] Yhevelove, the law remalns sewed mat a document classmed as a
Part A document I5 summed as In as allmemlcny and contents resulmg
in me mun pl ns contents bemg amended, and mus an achun [or
devamanm grounded on such mnlems ls hke a mu on water
m GDK5IuxuxEI'yxw4mZv5Q
«mm. s.n.l lnmhnrwm s. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl wa AFMNG pm
[14] Unlike me rams In Tiow w-ug Theo:-g, m me pveient me If one
maaa lmough the nmes av pvoceedmg m as emery. in cm on onmma
um mere were no altempts nor roquask by learned coumel for the
plaintiffs to hmnhe slloqm ofllndinu delamawry shumunh in ma
Facubook put: much nu bun cluuiuud on Part A ducumunu
moved from PanA to Pan 5 Instead‘ seamen munsel for the puamms
had [only] sought «or the Part C uocumems to be re-classified as Pan 5
uacumems (see names of proceeding (snclasuva 52; ex page 402 Hues 26
Ind 36, and page ma lines 1710 19; whom any attempt made to have
the onenumg Faeebouk posts m Part A racwassmea as Pan E documems
[251 In fact, when PW1 was me: Iled as a mess on 2 May 2023, lime
was xaken so have me documents referved to by PW1 marked as exvubrts
Despfle that, It the nsk ol rapeulmn‘ no allempl was made by Vearned
euunse\ In! the plalnmfls to have an me alleged defamatory statements
dassmed as Pan A documems redassvfied as Pan 5 documems.
[25] Anmher opponunny presented nsau car the redassvficaonn at the
impugned Funebuak posts when Veamsd munse\ In! the defendant
opened the defannanrs case ny reamng om ms Opening Slalement (F)
filed on |4ApVI| 2023 wherevn an paragraph 15 mereot, he specifically sand
23
m Guxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsu
«mm. Sum! nmhnrwm .. U... a may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-ma!
that as the iour nllemmg [Faoeboak paanngs] statements are praced m
Pan A of ma Gammon Bundle av Documents (-caon“), me aonxenxs
cannot be taken as being defamatory The defenuams Iearncd caunsel
had even referred to the court oi Appeal case of Tlow weng Theong
Daspna Khrs red nag nawng been hoIs|ed‘ learned counsel lovlha phinnfls
an nor allempl In nave these rrnpugnaa documents recrmmaa
[27] Yet another nppurtumty presemed nseli when «ms was also rarsed
In the dosing wrmen submvsslans or raarnea counsel car the aarenaanc
(Enclnsuve 49; bmalasr Igam no mamm wla made to have me offending
statements rn me FarlA category maven to Part B We what was done m
1'low Wang Theong
[25] Thererora, me plamxms are my much aware that me Illeged
aetamamry svacemems ave slassmed as Part A documents from an eany
axaga onna aazan right up to dosing subrnrssuons but made no anernvts
to have me aocumarns re-chssfited as Pan 8 uocurnanra so that marr
contents can be mallenged
[29] Tnus, under me dacmne ofstare deasrs_ lhrs Ccurl Is mum by me
pnncrpm 94 law ammea and I
dawn by mm the Cuurl n1Appeal and ms
24
r~ Guxsmzuxi-Iyxumazvsa
«mm. sanaw nanharwm .. U... a my r... mm-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum war
Federal court tn Tiow wnng thong as elaborated above‘ tnat ts, Pan A
document: nre agreed as to men extstenee, atnttenttcny and contents
[301 Wherefore. prerrttsed upon the factual tnalnx altltts case, on lhts
graund Ilonet tne Fanebnnk busts alleged lo contatn allendtrtg
delsrnatbry slalemenls hflvlng been deesmen as Pan A docurneme are
deemed H) be true as lo ttrett cnntenls, and by law, an actton lbr
delernatton pterntsed on wltat ts true smnds dlsrrttssed
sutmtents m-do nl In: Town H-ll ulurtlng and me umcc utadls
conlerertee
[31] With regards to me alleged cffanlilrlg delatnatery slllemerlls made
dunng ttte Town Hell Meeltng, a copy wflhe statement lvanscribed tmrn a
med taken dunng tne event, can be leund in the bundle of dneuntents
marked as as and elesstfied es 3 Fan E document The alleged
detematoty statement ts reproduced as lnllaws
are you wave that one at your Board Members ts a
lre ng nrmllder as well and desertbe tttmselt as e
represternattve et mlrty tretntrtg provlders which I am
no| ‘me pusniarl epperently eonltta el tntetest allmos me
25
ru GDK5IDzuxEI'yxuvmZv5Q
“Nair s.tt.t narthnrwlll .. med e may t... bnnlnullly MVMI m.t.n. vn .nutta vtmxl
Board Member to cnannet wntmms in NI! awn mmpantes.
you know It I! not an unknown ttnng Everyone knows about
t You know rum can a board Member gel 3 contract, you
know? Board membet can form oemparttes and get contract ~
[32] Am: the tnctdentaune MACC Medta cuntztsnu on 12 June 2018‘
a cow Mme statement ttanssnbed tvotn the Video taken during tne event
can be tcuna tn the I:und\e of documents marked as S5 and classtfted as
2 Pan B document The alleged defamatory statement is repvodueed as
touows
'Adakih ceo HRDF W max mehhal bahawa palanlikan ant.
Lembaga pangslah lersebul sudan semslmw membuka
pemang untuk penyetewengan Kenn tetan menevlka saatkn
makturnut bihawa ahll pengirlh lersabm dart can telah pun
mengumumkan swat yawatan la Saya ma bebelapa sakst
yang lam akan menyevahluan dokumen pettllng unluk
merupakan buklt penyelewengan meltbalkan Iebttt dari sun
dam kerttlangan. Rmaoa tuna dana HRDF tan yang
kahanyakannya dana yang hllang, Ida Lernbega psngavah
yang tenmat din sebagalnya '
m Guxstnzuxi-tyxwmzvso
“Nair s.n.t ...n.mn .. U... n my t... nnnu-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum vtmxt
[33] The defendznl assened that «he alleged defamatury statements
made by Ina delendanl al me Town Han Meeung and me MACC Medvl
Conference wev5.hcwevev,no1p\eaded ad vemanm m me pla|nmfs' soc
‘nus wesdmg palm will he mseussed In delafl beluw
Pleading point
[34] The Vaw has been eemea that m e 0! paramount unponanoe man «or
an amen grounded on defameuen to be pmpeny deflermmed‘ the whale
slatemem and me em: wards alleged Io be ewenswa and defamatory
must he pleaded, see Keluavgi Commumcaman sen arm (supra) Hus
Lordshvp Gunalan Mumandy JCA smmg m me Cowl onxppeal m the case
of Clww Hock .nn v Lim Jlnn Shiah [2021] 1 LNS 114 Much us a
deremauon adnon‘ expressed Ims pilnclpb as ceuoms
‘[49] Mavmg on to the Fl? Posts me crumaliacr to as natedts
met the whole FE Posts and me exact words sun: In be
ollenslvs were nol pleaded On nus pc-mt, we have duly noted
the aoservermns and Imdmgs aims LHC.I m Appeal No 210
wan wmcn we assocrale nursah/as me LNCJ had m our wow.
eon-act/y pm caraful anennun to me words actually uttered
and mose that were plssdsd In essence, me LHCJ ngmly
27
m eexsmmz-ummsa
«me. am ...m.mm .. H... e may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
took mm account the Iacr me: ms word: D/ended were only
part a! ma stulamlnts pubIAshsd1n me Manaann Language
on 2.09 2015 and v 12 2015 wnrcn me Harnms cnaea nut to
plaaam rota Hence, the Calm, In confimlvg rrsemo me words
pleaded, was not In a position la aezemrma the context In
wmcn may wara uttered
[50] Lrkemsa, me LHCJ was no! salislrsd wnn accuracy or ma
translation wnrch was nor creamed in its anr-rezy and mo
expressed doubts as to wnemer ma trans/anon rn Iacr gave an
accwulfl picrm or what was pub/rshsd m Manaann rn ma FE
Posts
[51] Hrs Lordship was enurery correct rn explassmg me posmon
under me /aw al defsmabon to be that In order to properly
aerarmina wnamer the words are defamatory or ntllerwnse and
vmeznar they refer ra rna F'(ainli!I, ma exact words and ma whole
anrcra must be p/eaaaa
(521 In ma msmnl case, me whole rranuanan ol me impugned :5
Amcle was mu preaaaa as summed ny PW 1, the Interpreter
[asked with translating me arridc hum Mandarin lo 5 Malaysia.
PW.1 saidtnal sh: merely braked and chosdpans onna amcle
2a
r~ Gnxsmzuxi-tyxuarazvsa
«ma. snn-w nmhnrwm a. U... a may he mm-r mm. flnunmnl VI mum v-max
as mstmcted by me /awyer ior me Ptamulr whmas some
rmpominl pans m Iavour ol ma Appefllnr wars not manslarad.
Hence, the uansranon was In doubt and mud nol nn me
swdenca before mm sustam the Pramrmmr. chews dawn
(531 /n suppon of the pnnmp/9 that m a daramanan suit me
actual wants used and the mnlaxl ul me words are al
palamaunl Importance, me Respondent MI. um med me
Court omapeal case oIKeIuarga cammumcanon v Nolmala
samsudm (200612 CL! 45, 1200612 ML] 700 wmch held that
“[15] Al fhfi outset. we wamd slsfe Ihal Ills tefl ta be
applied when cmmdanng wnsma: a statement I3
defamatory of a plamml Is well sell/ed In that II is an
on/ectrve one m winch a must be men 3 meaning a
Isasonslz/e man wowd understand if and my lhataulpass,
ME! 15. V7 oonsrdermg whether Ills wonis complamsd of
contained any defamatory rmputatiarv, n rs necessary to
aansuenne whole article Gs!/sy on Libel A SIander(1Drh
Ed) on Mrs palm 8! pp 105 and 110, mm! aim, slates as
Iduows
m Guxsmzuxi-Oyxuamzvsa
«mm. smuw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
29
1: rs necessary In take mm consrderatiarn rial only me
actual words used, but me aamaxr om» words
It lo!/ows from me ram [hat the context and
c/Icumslsncvs or me pubncsnan musk bu fakan mla
aocnunl. that the Flainmfcannol wok and choose pan of
me puolicanon wmcn, slandmg alone, would be
defamatory ms or my sentence may be considered
defamatory, but [here may be other passages wmcn
take away me smug (Emphasis added )-
[351 In the pvesen! case, from a perusal at me aflendlng stmarnems -s
pleaded In the sat: in me aunme of Pleading my wow-) and me
documenn themselves m me Common Eund\e01Documenls (marked as
31 |, mm Conn: mum mat the aHagad delamnlnry Faaeboak posts daled
31 May 2917 (soc paragraph 9) and 9 June 2015 (soc paragmpn 17),
and me afleged datamamry smemems made durmg the Town Hall
Meeung on 7 June zma and the MACC Media Conlaranoa held an :2
June 201a were run pleaded ad vemaum Hence, wwmuul pbading me
exam words and an we statements auegea to be defamatory m mu, ems
Ooun cannot pmpeny datarmine whether ma smamsms am Indeed
aeumscmy On this gmurld, the aa-on premised on me afleged raeexmk
so
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxuamzvsa
«mm. smuw ...m.mm .. U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
‘so CALL SECTORIAL COMMTTEES AND THE EOARD
MEMBER (ULTIMATE FROXV AND GATE KEEPER)
mechanisms In swindle m Ions memes which was
supposed to be used to bmld powerful workforce which
wmfld he me many pillar a1awnomy"7‘
m The second In post was made onIheda1sndarn'sFawbook amount
“Sn Games" on 6 June 2018. whare the delendanl shared in alleged
defamatory past made by another Faeexmox user by me name av ‘David
Marshel' The post as pleaded m paragrapn 12 Dflhe soc Is repruduwd
as (allows
'Pawer abuse" covmpm
Salzh salu Ann Iambiga HRDF korup menelnn mum. um:
nnggfl dengan mengunakan pevsaluan yang dnubuhkan
hanya umuk mene\an dun rakyanv Dengan kuasa Iembaga
pengarah konhk valusan Juli dan HRDF dltelan Tweak cakut
«spam Kalanya asarkan oagu menlen EN manang xax.
kcrup inl holeh nemanarqelav Slapalnan dalang
awmtar
rralam atuexus
Swapa Arm Lembnga HDRF ma’
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsu
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w my me mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
posts ol 31 May mm and 9 June zuls. and the alleged delamalnry
slalemenls made durlng me Tuwn Hall Meenng on 7 June zols and ma
MACC Media conlererrce held on l2 June 2015 slands dismissed as well
[36] Although me Faoebnnk posts dated 6 June 201:! aan 1 June 2015
wave pleaded ad verbaumr nus Court llnas lrm me statamems do me
make any relerenee to any mule plalnlrlls On the need for there lo be a
relerence to me plalnnlls, «ms element will be dealt mm in greitev delail
below
Referenu In mo pllinlllfs
[37] As menlloned above, lorlhe p|alrmfVs' clarmlu sunoeed, me plalnmls
must prove mal me alleged statements made by me aelenclnnl are
defamatory wllh relarence II.) we plamllrls
[38] In Knalrul Azwan bin Harun v Maud Rafzi bin Ramli [2017] 9
MLJ 2u5 (HC)‘ Hls Lurdsmp s Nanllra Bal-rl J (now JCA) stated.
"[95] The issue flare is wnemar ma plal/llm‘ was delenled by
lne press release on ma MARA property purchase scandal
that was Issued by the defendant on 6 July 2015. The firs!
task at hand is {or this court to deeermlne whether me
31
m Guxsluzuxi-tyxuamzvsu
“Nana Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. U... a may r... nflnlrullly -mm: mm. VI .mla ml
impugnod wants In cupablo at buriny . dolnmnory
muning lndlfso mmnu mag In In In: an-mmg or
lhc pl WI(as psrpa/s 9 ofms slalemsnl alclatm) As may
be g/eaned /mm me varmus case autlvorirres referred to above.
the gurdmg prmc/p/as (0 [he determmallon of (he meaning to
be ascnbed to M8 impugned Wallis are, inter Alla, an
tntarpretallan (ha! IS reasonable and not smamea orpervevse
ovurrerfy unreasonable The wlpugned amc/e has ta be read
as .3 whole and anything contained wilhm the amcle which
m/was DI neulna/rsas any dslsmaluly suggestion is to be
taken We account as WEN Last but I10! Ieasl, an over
elaborate ans/yxrs is to be avoided ~
(Emphasrs added;
[391 Themore‘ the -mponam quesnm Is whethev me s1aI.emenIs made
by the devendsm at me Tawn Hall Meenng and the MACC Mama
canmenee bear any defamatory Impuvzlinns mm rafarenca to ma
plammfs.
[AD] Azumah Omar JCA m Abdul Ann Bin Abdul Rmim v Gum
Eng [2023] MLJU 1349 (CA7 appned me Chase Lama o1 imputation lo
dassfly defamatory sulemenhs Her Ladysmp sealed
:2
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsu
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
'13:} In brief n is nor unconmmn m deran-anon emu-s lha!
me oerenaenr wauhi slnvs Ia nnpmss upon me Cnun that [ha
defamatory statements are capab)e of: veseer and more
"rrmowous" Lucas-box meaning man that ol me higher and
mom ssnaus meamng me: me P/amml nngm suppose And :1
me Dalandanl were successful (0 do so, men he needs only
pmve me Derenee ol/ustrlmarran to me lnreshwd of/ushfymg
the publrcatlon 0! me lame! Lucas-Bax meaning or me
defamatory slalsmsnls
1:41 This Lucas-Box pnnclp/a was Iunhar expanded and
given more clarity by me England and Wales coun ol
Appulrn the case nlchass 1/ News Group Newspapers
Lm[2au2] EWCA ON 1772 by c/ass!/ymg delamaroly
statements mm 3 ‘Chase Leve/s"ohInp4Itatron'
[:7] Under modem nae/pr-acme a derenaanx must set out
In ms/her slsremsnl ol case we flefamalmy msamng
he/she soaks mprovs 10 as assermally alsubslarmally (ms
nu: rs now known as me Lucas- Box meamng, lollowmg
me leading case olumas Bax v News Gmun LM(19B6]
ANER 177. 1 [1986] 1 WLR 147 Ey mm mauns ma
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxuamzvsa
«mm. snn nmhnrwm .. H... e my me nflmnnflly MIMI flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
o/armarvl (and the caur!) wr/I know urlellurvocally wiva! ms
derendam IS saskmg Io/usmy
145171» sfing or. libel maybe capable nlmeanlng that
a clamlant hasin Iutcommmcdsamo suious act such
as murder Altemafivsgy, u may be suggested Ina! me
words mean (natmere are msamm ggundi lg
sugflnname/we has ccmmilladsucll an act A mini
gssibilig is (M! may may mean man (here are grounds
Iorlnv/arm‘ sling wnemenwm has been rssponsmlslar
sum an act (Emphasrs added )
[35] Crow 10 hams, ms mad-unatron of [hrs classfcalmn
was recently digested by (he Hgh Com m the case
o!MoIIamedApam11 bm An v um K1! Slang [2a22111 MLJ 655
For ease of reference, the relevant excerpts or ma! decision
are reproduced below
‘I361 The colounbh and mam mun: arm ‘sting of
nudr ms bun nddrulod In an I-ndmuk
commonwoaltn dcclulon olchase v Newsgmup
Newspapers Lld[2002] EWCA Crv 1772(‘Chase1In
m GDK5IGxuxEiyxuvdmZv5Q
«mm. Sum! ...m.mm .. d... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
wnich ms com-2 (here has pmpoundsd the Chase Levels
pnncrple me court m Chase assenaa//y propoundsd mar
a aslsmalory slalemenl may cany mm rt rmee oelamalory
unpmaoans or vnrymg dsgrsss Level 1 being me
exlrame Imgutallnn that me gt-mm hu lndood
commllled 2 serious act Level 2 being me milder
i ' ‘us ' I nds
su§ge_ct um the gllintlfl nu commltud um um. Act
and my Level 1 my me mu: Imgulallon mm
mm are gmunds mg; mg glam" my" gym; [Q [E
I.
[37] The mnmcauon of me pmpar Chase Level /5
pemnem as amsrsnz Chase Levels w:II /am an ms sacond
my ollhe exercrse) determme the degree ur rmesnam ar
lush/matron Vsquuvd lor ms defendant to succeed In a
dele/vce or /us!/Ircatmn me anlrre pmmple and
macnmamn orme Chase Level pnncrple has been astute/y
mgsszad by s Nanlha Balarv J {now ./ca) m me case
11/ Khalrul Azwan mn Halun 1/ Mohd Ralrzt hm Rsml: 12m 71
9 ML] 205
m Guwsmxuxi-iyxwmzvsu
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
195/ Followlng ma case L7! Chase rt :5 now settled ma:
1a)wan.1s may be capable al moanlrlg me claimant
has rrr fact commmed some serrous act (‘Chase /eve]
1 rns.arrmg'),
(nmemarlve/y. ms word: may mean (ha! Mere are
reasonable grounds to suspect me: me claimant has
oorllmlttad such an acr (‘Chase level 2 meamrlg‘),
and
(c)a mrru possiormy ls that me wold: may mean me:
[here are grounds for lnvestlgatmg wnerrrer ms
clarmarrz is responsible lar such an (Chase level 3
msanlng), " (Emphasls added)
[411 Axlmah Omar (now JCA) when Her Ladyship salt In me Hugh com
m rammed Apm Ali v Lim Klt Slang [2022] 11 MLJ 655 also
exprema the lollowlng
“[471 Slmllll to an prison! an, en. pl-mu ms
spazmcnlly nnmed ma bockonod to mu Illmsoll to
explain his disposilion And his zlleged cave!-up ol the
was scandal am as Kllarly ./amsluddin was specrllcally
as
r~ Gnxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsu
«mm. Sum nmhnrwm .. U... m may r... mmuny mm: dnuamnl VI nF\uNa mm
called out loi an explanaiion or ms allegeq pioxlinny and
mvn/vsmsnl in a scandal ilivo/Why uwvo) ‘Mus, li I:
equally possible no ascribe the Issuer munlng um men
an rusanlhle grounds my investigations is be
curidllctod and to: in. pl-inliiv lo coml ronli and gin his
uplnnarlon on ma in-mi
[43] 0! 0011759 INS calm is niiimoo llial ii AS exlromely
ilnsavoiiiy to a person’: consrilinion and iepliiaxion to merely
be /inked lo me gioiesquo mos scandal, laul not all
zoininenui-y In that arm: lutomflicllly com/uys ma
ermine manning um me person so llnked Is gullly onn
afience aigiiiny arm: 52! so alleged. Alemier iiiiouldsiicii
coinnioninry lulomlficllly In an miannlaln doflmnion.
Espcclnlly in cases what: im summon: calls for and
gives iooni lot on explanation, than me mreniem is not
or all In urlshaknlbl: an unwavering srarunioni 47! fact.
and Iquully cln bu u all for inqiiliy OI Vnvutlgnlon.
1491 rims, wiin ine ‘ac!’ llsell appmprialely idelvll/led and me
appropriate ciiase Level imputation deiennineit this oauir is
IN Guwsluxuxinimmmzvsa
“Nair s.i.i I-uvihnrwm be LAIQ4 m min i... niwiiinflly mi. mm. VII nF\uNG Wm!
or the Dre/Immany findmg ma: ma impugned stalsmenf rs at
most capabla or me Iassar delzimatoly meaning 5!
There are reasonable grounds for me p/amnw to be
mvasngazea /07 ms schons or msctruns mmng m [cm as
Attorney General, which may have pmvtdsd a can/ar—up Iar
me mus scandal and me suspsaedpersons involved in
me same scandal
[50] Is me lesser meanmg ascnbed above defamatory 50/]?
ms mun answsls nu ma posnrvelhamls aeramamry Indeed
ms slatemsnrsh//names wtfmrahbsllaus my albertalssssr
one (although dollmls/y nu! ma cammtsston nr gum cl 5
cnmmal offence me plaimirnnsists if to be) " (Emphasis aoded)
[42] Thus, based on me law derived tram me anlhanues and me
evidence adduced by the ma-nmls, (ms coun finds that Ihe alleged
defamatory sulemerus made al In: Tawn Hall Meeting and the MACC
Media Conference. are aanabse oHJ1e Veaser aeaamamry meamng 1 e a
Chase level 3 meamng for mvesmganons In be earned am on mac person
.n.g.a In he . board member 01 HRDF and a training pmvlfler who Is
charwelmg commas Io ms own companies mm were being
33
m scum“:-mumzvsa
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
misapprapnahon ormnes af RM300 mlllmn Hnwever‘ unlrke me varxs mat
omlm rn Morrnrnoa Ar-anal eirr Ali (supra) none or me plarmnrs In mrs
case were emrer named m the Tawn Han Meetrng or at me MACC Medra
Conference Ir was me fim prermrn himself who look :1 upon mmself to
inform (ha euarence present artrre MACC Medra Conference that he was
me person mar was bemg referred no In me Irghl or me above has Ind
arrrnurnies, me prermms have larled to prove me seoono rrrenaarory
element M defamation, whrcn rs. met me statements made dunng me
Town Hair Meexrng and MACC Media conrerenoe referred to any onrrenr
[43] Alrnougn the Faoebook pests eeteo 6 June 2013 den 7 June 2018
were preaaea no veroatrnr. «hrs coun finds Ihat me smemenrs rravnrg
been classmed as FanA documents‘ are meretore nm oeranrutory ano rn
any even: they do not make any reverence In any cl me prernrms
[44] The test an wnerner a aerarrrexory slalemenl rafurs lo . prarnrrrr Is
an abpclrve one we sraremenr rnusr be grven a meamng rner wnen rr re
prrorrsnear a reasonable man ro whom cne pubhcalrun was made would
he likely to understand rr In a libelous sense egeinn rne p4aInnfls ms Is
sum rn Ayorl s-uu (Iup1I),lndlhe ordlnlry and nerurar manning may
39
m Guxsruzuxi-tyxwmzvsa
“None snnur mnmrwm .. med e may r... anmneuly mm: dnuamnl VI .rruNa WM
mcmde by wmpllcannn or Inference max win Vead a reasuname reader wnh
ganeul knowiadga to understand me words In a defamatory sense
[45] His Lordsmp Syed Ahmad Helmy B Syed Ahmad .1 in cum: saw
Khlnn @ Chi-w Hun sung v sunnbocy Mona lsmlll [20:72] 1 LNS 333
(HO) a| page 6, stated 2 ways to pmve me nmsclwe tsp name\y
‘me »ssue on whether or not me rmpugned amue refers In
Me Pier:-Mfrs a quastnzn oilaw
Ins (ma law live: an esssnlm/Ingredient la lound an swan lor
dslamanan Is that me was mmattercomplamed chefs! to
me ptainmr Unless n rs al/sged and puma Ina! Ins subpct
matter 0/ the semen was publrsned or and concammg ma
Plamlrfl Me 6660!‘! IS bound (0 fall - Cans!-Ruck on Libel and
Slander - page 54 In derervnmmg Me Assue ohdenmy, me test
IS an objectrvaomz As was stated oy Lord Guest m Morgan v,
Odhams Press ua 1137111 wm 1239 at pugs 1251»
"In my waw, a somewhat more exacmg test should be
predrcatsd where me question rs one of rdenmy n Is not
sumclsnt Inllhs nzadsrm say "I wandorifme ammo Ialurs
m Johnny Morgan’ nor rs pure specuranon slmcrent. Nor
m scum“:-mumzvsa
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
40
[:1 The thvrd 1:: past was made on 7 June 2018 by me defendlnl
ma upnoaeea a men on ms Faueboek aoeaunn, ‘Dale’ Sn Ganes“
wmcn me plammfs puaauea m paragraph 14 thew soc as cnmamlng
the fouowing iHaged devamancry statement
“Daspna a legal name much was darned m a pubhc verum and
mums alhamte I managed to rarse my concerns me Mlmslev
VB Kura Segamn behaves rn IranspalenI:y' we have me ngm
man «or the raw HRDF — Human Resources Development
Fund."
[91 For Ihe lourlh and final lb pas: made on 9 June 2915, me aeoenaam
using his Fzcabook account ‘SH Gangs’ mafia another alleged
aevamamry svalemem wmm rs pueaaea m paragraph 17 m ma soc aa
volluws
'. .Meanwh\ler me head :11 K—Prmar sun arm, RA
Thiigaram resrgnea from me HRDF buard on Fndzy morning
— nevore me man: be removed as pmmised by the mmsver
There were wmpxarms man ms appointment was a conduct of
mtareec because he was also a lvammg pmvraer ..
m Guxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsu
“Nana Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e met! a may r... aflmnuflly -mm: dnuamnl VI mum war
is N sulficfanl that a raasonama person be/raves M3! the
words refer to [I19 Plamltll‘ The test rs an obpcllve one. The
ordinary reader must be ran nunaea and not avrd for
scandal He must nor be unduly suspacmus ms onimary
reader must have ranonsl grounds fat ms as/ml ms: ma
words me; lo ms p(am!rfl. ‘
Than Ma Ma ways olpmvmg ntannry namely’
a) by M: cnmng of wflnouu lo many mu rudon of
0!: Impugned Irllclo would undusmod ms word:
apunring themin Ia ruler lo the Flalntm; or
n) nn on.1lmry mud-r rulding lhu arficlo would
rouonnbly understand me mm to refer lo Mm "
(Erflflhasls added}
[46] In mus Present use, no wmesses were caued by me plaintiffs to
usury that readers cl cne Impugned smernems as M11 is any persons
having heard me aatemencs made aunng me Town Hall Meeting and me
MACC Modll Conference would Imdershnd the words In the offending
statements In refer to any cf me plamllffs Thus, «ms coun 15 tasked m
lake on the role of me ominary reader readmg me amcie to ascertain
41
m Guxsmzuxinfiyxupmzvsu
«mu. sun-1 nmhnrwm .. med u may he nrwhuflly -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
wnemer lne amcle would reasonably understand me Fauebtmk posts, the
lmpuwned elnervlants made at me Town Hall Meerrng, and at me MACC
Medla cunlerenee In relerro any onhe plalnnlls.
[471 The emsenoe auduueu Item the sole wrmess cl me plalmlfis, PWI,
who ls me firs! plammr, was man at me Ilme me allegatlans were made
agalnst hlm, he was oocupylng a fiduclaly posmnn In the HRDF
carporalrun and mature alleged delamalory s1al.ernenls had inrured ms
credit and repmeuon, causing his buslnese operatrane lo be enacted Ind
Ihls had caused lhe buslness cl ms other companies nlmeiy lne secom,
mud and lnunh plamtllla to slow amrn (see Plarntllls‘ submresrnne at
Enclosure sa paragraphs 26 and 29)
[45] Ana: havlng gone through me emence lea wrtn uare. mus Ccun ls
unable In (rm any impugned statement trrat made reference to the
plalnnfls by name lns1eaa, ll was PW1‘ who look In upon himself durmg
the mac Madlz cunlerenua on 12 June zols la say «no impugned
statement wmcn was pleaded ln an ealtea term m paragraph 22 of me
soc was m reference to him I agree wrnn me submission made by me
delendent that the impugned statements am not expressly name or refer
to any al the plalnnffs‘ ena ln pamcular, me nrsr plamtrll
42
IN Guxsluzuxi-Oyxuamzvsc
“Nana sen-l luvlhnrwm be met! a my r... nflnlnullly mum: dnunvlnnl VI mum p-mxl
[49] Proof that adelamatury statement nes made relerenoeloa clarnanc
must be clear mm the statement Ilse" av from anyone aoquuinled wrm
me clamram wnu wu\d idenmy nun lvam me words used n Is nm for me
clmmanl In essen mar n re4ers in mm wmhnuc any wndependenl evxdenoe.
me I: e manner a! logic and mmlnun sense If n weve olherwnse, anyone
can dawn man a ueremeuery statement revere (0 mm even if mere Is no
reference to me dalmam at an See Galley on Libel And Slander
(zxevemh Ednmn pamglaph 7 3 page 214 wnere me wearnea ‘arm editors
earu
'5IaIamenIcnD£ib)e one/emng to me uennent
The Issue 0/ iden!/ficahon rs Ia be dsadsd on the same
pnncopras as those which govern the questron urwnemerzna
words a/B capaore ofa dslamalory meaning (mrenea Imm ma
spaeenes In Morgan v odnerns Press [1571] 1 WLR 12.19 at
up V243, 1264, 1269 to 1270; where me clsrmsnl is
exprass/y /denfified by name, :1 rs not nscescary tn produce
ewdsncs that anyone whom me statement was publrsned ma
rdenrify me claimant rna qusslion is no! wnemar anyone did
mnlfiy M5 clarmant but wivathsl M9 person who wars
acquainted Will! the olamvant cuu/dldenli/yhim /mm NIB warns
used (cfFreer yzen [2008] EWHC 212 QED st (471) "
43
m Guxsmzuxi-iyxumazvsa
“Nana sen-1 lunhnrwm .. H... e my r... nflmnnflly mum: flnunmnl VI mum em
[50] On Ihe face 07 the statements In the Farmbook posts. illhuugh
Ipmtar, and ¢Ha\efll ware used‘ bu! If both the wovds nre liken on their
mm, they are not summent In speomcally refer to any parly. In my
mnsmerea mew, “pmcar is a Ma\ay adjeclive for smarn crewer or
fBSD|Jll1MU|‘%EF6IS"lQWG7'd '1aIent"Ls a noun for nihflll lphlude orskvll
None of these wnms by thelmewes can be sand to pmnl uuewy ov veler
lathe second and mud plammis respectwew
[51] Learned amuse! vonne plamml aunng me man med In link me mum
p4sinmv thmugh us mmolvemem wnh a pruiecl called "nexus", However,
from Ihe evidence lad. I find that the plainmfs have filled to prove such a
Imk on a balance 0! pmhanumes In clher warns, «mm me ofleudlng
statements as mended. in my ounsneuea mew, any reasananxe reader wm
not be able to unaerscanu men (he warns refened In the (cum! p\amfIW al
[521 Tnetefove, by me reascnlnps set out ahme, I ma that the wamlifis
huve tuned (0 MW: um case on a hnlanoe ul pmhabllmas
[53] Although the plaimms sansfied the lasl element «at the \aw ol
dafamalion 1 a that ofpublscanan bacausa the respective sulemenls were
punnenea mmugh social media ma Faoebuok as wen as navmg been
44
m scum“:-mumzvsa
«mm. Snr1I\nanhnrw\HI>e H... e may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
uttered during the Town Han Meeling and me MACC Media conierenca
respeawely, however, szhslying «his element alone IS msu1fc4enl «or me
plamllfls‘ dawn to succeed
[54] For me masons slalsd above, xrus claim Is devem 01 men!
Aocovdmgly, me p1amttffs‘cla\m1s dismissed
[551 To ocvav every aspect, this wan notes man there was anmhev msue
mused m Ihe gflawnulfs‘ suumussuans, mat is, wnema: nww who Is me
aetenaam mmsen uughl (a be impeached as ms Iesumony on main
eonlradlas the evldenca In the farm at an axchanga DI WharsApp
messages «enaerea by PW1
[551 The testimony of aw: as per the notes of proceeding Is sex om
hereunder
45
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxuamzvso
«mm. sm-1 ...m.mm .. U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
502
1 m uuw-vuwm
. IV! w»..,,.ua..,.m.~.u..n..m....q..4.»...1. .«
- so ».,...u.mq~n
1 mix ltvnuwl-:uI‘nII4mnmxIzulynuar:nna-mwsnc-‘M!
- »..,m...»n.y.....,u....n......w.._«...».».....;.n
2 ncnmsmsnmn
., 14: novanwm
;; wx new m.v.mr...w.m....m..,.u....,..‘,w
4; am yxvuL\mu<v=pe&AI>1:undvu«AIndiywwInIvw n...
.. mzoynvlzncunusurfl
.. ........w...‘... . M... ....w. .......m.. .‘..«....a ...‘..
505
n.m.‘...,.¢¢..m¢c..»«.».~.,.v-.7 zvmmyvuna vu-man
;zdm7 .,»..m.,,
m m.
4::
sm Guxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsa
mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
2, war mew... ».-.......m.....e...ae~.m.mn...
26 m..u..~¢e..:.e»...mwn.e;..,e.~..eu...e.em
xv PnnImmdIr¢Kyuena4c1unnt\!v'IlVY'>HyVu~|n-ygnl
2; as Nnimnvanuhw
)1 m ‘...m....,wu..«...e...m».w»..4.,.=...~....M...
;; mannumrmzfirun-vuvnnnwzmvan-mnemwsvuu
xx Wuhan-
;4
)5 n \nmnmn.aemlw:YIngMW
[57] Here, DW1 claimed me: ha had new eommumcaled norhld pnor
daahngs mm me lwsl plaimm, Thlaglrajan own. However, ewaenee
fmm me WhatsApp messages between DW1 and pm at Enclosure As
Much was lalov admmed Ind marked as P1 shnwad mharwvsa P1 shows
me WhatsApp Iexl meseegee exchanged belween raw: and am on Mar
plan to meet up we was mm to me alleged defamatory Salements
being puhhshed
[53] This cuun accepted PW1‘s ewdence that after the exmange ov
WhalsApp messages, he and DW1 and meet up at me Dame Restaurant
at Eangsar Showing came In Kunla Lumpur pnor Io me aHaged
deaamauon. whe<e4me, we Court at the end av man lound max DW1, Sri
Ganes AIL Palamapan had had on oath. Tme findmg dues not aesm me
plemms‘ defumauen sun In any way ms demsuan was made in show me
41
m Guxsmzuxi-tyxuamzvsa
«we. smuw ...m.mm be H... e may he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI .r\uNa Wm!
cums dlspleasuve Mm parties who came to court to perm: me due
admmlslmliun cl wince despwe navmg taken me mm In (ail the mm, the
wVIc\e truth, and nmmng but me mm:
[55] By Vymg. me act of me delendanl pervens the due admnvslratnon of
juslma and amounts in contempt m the lace M me coun. Pursuant lo me
pmwsmns oforder 52A rules (1) and (2) Rule: oIcnun2n1zDw1 was
grven an oppmunny to purge his contempt This he dud an 27 September
2023 when he luck we wurness stand and under cam, apologized
unraservsdly our havmg nea that he had nevev wmmuniunted wum Pwt
and had never me! mm pevare ‘rm: caun aoeemea ms unraerved
apology and excused mm
[so] Be that as u may, we parly aflecled may wish to take me mailer
further premised upon me guxdante gwen by me comm Appeal m Shim
V|li GIII V Dlylnfl Mnturlh BtSIhIli [2023] MLJU 2262 at paragraphs
[117] and [1 13] where Hus Lordship Lee swee sang JCA sad
-my Genera//y sfalslmznts made m [udmrsl pmceedings
cannot be a marlerala separate ran ovirwnous ralssnooa or
delamarmn /n dsssrwng cases where much of ccmrs {me
has been dlsslpaled Itstemng to allegations that muld not be
m sumpmz-,m.msa
«mu. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e med u may he mm-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-NM
subslarmnled or supported by raczs, the cam shall not
has/(ale Io mum a party mm costs
/1151». . use lluatjuslilles pmsncullon for pojury thc
Com! Wllllld diner the parfies lffecled ta make a police
upon at fumlsh .1 copy 1:! ma nabs alpmcoldings to
ma Attorney General as the Public Fmsoculor '
(Empnasrs added)
[61] In me upshot, me pmnmrs‘ dam .5 msnussed
1 Under normal wcumszances, me ddemant augm to be enlmed to
sulmnnual coals‘ See Khllld Bln Abd Slmld V Dato Slfl Yljudfllll
Abdul Rallman [2023] 1 ms 2131 where Hts Lomsmp s Nanlna Balan
JCA aflar rewewmg the jurisprudence on casts cued mm appmvaw 3
palsaga from the Malayswa Civil Pluusduru (2021) (Vol 1) (El 855) «rm I
suooesslul patty VS always enmled I0 c0515 exoept where I! Is shawn Ihaf
me successful pany had nusmnauctea mmself av was neglvgenl ov gmky
at maternal mmssmn.
A9
m Guxsmzuxintyxwmzvso
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
[53] As xhus court has laund ms! the deoendunt has expressty had on
mm. a nommal sum olccss av RM5,ooo.oo subject In aflanalor fees >3
awarded to me defendant (0 be pawd by me plaumms to me defendant,
Dan : 15 Novambel 2013
su TIA
Judicial Comm ssionlr
High Court Kunla Lnmpur
For Plamliffs amaneswary Knshnamoenhy together um
Ramesh Sivakumar NL Ramavelco and Calvm
Lum Sin Guan
Messrs Goik Ramesh & Lon
For Defendant . Harvmdar Slngh AIL Saran smgn
Messrs Harvmdav Slngh 5. Co
[Nome' ms Gmunds or Judgment IS subjeclsd lo amoral sdttarralmwslonj
m Guxsmzuxi-iyxwmzvsu
«mm. smm nmhnrwm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
[10] All me (our lb pvsls above wvll hereinafter be referred to mngawely
as “me F-uh-oak Dosh”
[11] aesmesche Fauebouk posts, the plimmfs have also wounded thew
aclmn (or daramu n on the defendlm havmg on Me other Inslanms
made dedamatory statements agamst the p1ammvs The ms: msanue was
said to have been made dunng a Town Han Meehng on 7 June 2018,
caflod by the then Mmmer 01 Human Resources ('1ho ‘lawn mu
Meeting‘) Trus Instance Va pleaded Vfl paragvaph 2a of the soc The
second unaanee was lhal M a media eunverenoe heki on 12 June 2015 In
«mm av the once hulldmg oi the Malaysia Anti-Cormpllnn Commissxan or
MAC!) In shun, and hevemzflev referred In as ‘III: uIAcc Medi-
oohcerency The aneged aehmexory statements made during the Town
Han Meehng and at the MACC Mema Conference are meaded m
paragraphs 20 In 22 ohm soc es «allows.
“Z0 Tambahan Yigl. pad: 07D620|E pmak HRDF lellh
mengsmurkan satu mesyuarat Dewan Eandar (‘Town
Han Meeting‘) yang dlhadm nleh Manleri Sumber
Msnusua. VB Tuan M Kul-eegernn um Kelua
Seilausaha Sumner Manusxa‘ Damk Dr Mohd Gazah
Abas, dvmana Defendan telah melnbual kenyataan-
m Grzxsmzuxi-tyxumaz-450
«mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI aF\uNa v-max
Headnnkcs
Defamanun — lour av me Faoebonk postings aneged ca be defamatory
were clissfied as Fan A mcuments and therefore are deemed It: be true
:5 to [hair ocmlan|s and mamave wsufied
Defamation — aamn dismxssed as several of the aflendmg statements
were not pleased -a verbatim wm. an not ravamng in any of me plamllfls
and nu Independent emanoe was wed lu move that persons aequaumad
wnn me claimanl could idaumy any al the worn: used when read referred
In the mamnws
cwu pmaeaure — although the aaoon was dismissed‘ numIrIa\ costs was
awarded to the uevendam var hawlg \ed on cam
m Guxsmzuxi-Iyxuamzvsa
«mm. Snr1|\nanhnrwH\I>e U... a may a. nrwhuflly -mm: dnuamnl VI mum am
kenyataan Fflnah Ierhadap Plalnni Panama, Plamm
Kedue Flamlw Kenya dan Pnamm Keumpal mkhalnyak
orang ramax danlatau pmak-pmak yang mempunyax
hubungan dengan HRDF Defendan (elah membual
kenyllaln ylng d|lu]ukan kapada vnamuv Panama
bahawa peVan!\kan Plalnui Panama sebagal ahh
Lembaga HRDF mempakan sam komllk kepermngan
(canon: 01 Newest‘) kemna Phmm Panama jugi
merupakan cso kepada Plamlif Kedua‘ Plamlfl Keuga
dan Plaunm Keempat yang rnerupakan syankabsyarlkal
yam mambekaxkan kursus din/alau seminar lanhan
danlalau mempakan penyedla Lanhan (‘Training
Prowder)
2: Lebm-lemh lagl, Delendan Juga mengsynmaman
denaan kenyilasn yang amum olen behau flu mesyuaral
1-menu: banawa mmm Panama Ielah menyamrkan
kanln »konlrak dan mans kepada syankal-syankatnya
sendln (Plalmif Keaua, Keliga flan Keempan dan
Marvlan Sumner Manusla hams memculkan dan/alau
mengaluarkun P\a|nu1Penama sebagai Ahln Lembaga
HRDF. Inl merupakan satu Fnnah yang hdak berasas
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsu
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
kavana Va man «must alas saiu andalan Sahqa tanpa
sebarang bukln yang bemax
22 Sslain danpadu nu. pm 12 06 mm, Deranaan telah
menyadakan sam persxdangan mama dw nanapan
bangunan pe]abat Suruharuaya Penuegih Rasuah
(Malaysian Arm-Carruvtwon Cnmmlssxanj (moo; dv
mana Delendan man memhuat xenyaxaamcenyacaan
Fnnah dengan membemahu pmak mema baham salah
seorana Ahli Lembaga HRDF yang Isiah maletakkan
]awnIan bannaaru Im sebagll Ann Lsmblgl HRDF
mempunyal kaltan dengan penyelswengan wang
sebanyak RM 3uo.cuu.mm an (Rmggot Malaysia figs
Ram: Juli) aun din: HRDF Kanyataan levsabut
dengan [ems lerang henkanan dengan Plalnm Perlama
Kerana pada masa nu, Plaxmif Panama mampakan Ahli
Lembani HRDF yang baru sum: mebtak fiwalan -
[121 Aggneved by the Faoebook pass, me stalemems made during the
Town Hall Meeting and at me wxcc Medva Dunlerenue all saw to have
been made by me amendlnl as Hated above‘ the p\aIn|Ifls cummenrnd
«ms acuon agamst the defendant (or devamaliun
m Gnxsmzuxi-tyxwmzvsa
«mm. Snr1I\nauhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI nF\uNa Wm!
[13] The defendant admmed lhalsucll statements were made However,
he dentes tnet tne statements were detamatmy er tetened to I11: pla-nttns
[14] During the course at tner, tne ptatnms canted only ene wttneee
namety, Tntagaman -11 s Rengasamy‘ wne ls me firs! ptatmnt himself
(Pwt) The defendant, Sn Genes e/1 Pelantapan tnwty, was the sale
wvlness for tne deienee PWI gave emdent=e—IrH;me4 by way of two
wttness statements morxed as FWS1lA)& (at and DWI gave evtdenee-
In-chvef vta one witness statement marked as Dwst Beth o1 tne
wllnesses were Subjecled td cvossexemtnatton
uw nn defamation
[15] Hntstzurye uw 01 England wt ed) gwes the den tidn as to what
amounts to a detematmy statement as lulluws
“A defamatory sfalemenf Is a statement wnien tends to lower
5 person M the ssfrm-Brion ofnghr rhmkmg members Dfsoclely
generally ar to cause him [0 be shunned or avotood 0! IO
sxposs mm to hatred, contempt or name, or In convsy an
tmputanon on m dlspalagmg ur mjullnlls ta ms ameet
pmfessron, car/mg, made tzrbusinvss '
m Guxstuzuxi-tyxtmmzvsa
«mm. s.n.t ...n.mn .. tn... e may he nrwtnuflly mum: dnuavtml VI mum Wm!
[us] In Ayah sand n. rs Sambunmamunhi [1999] 1 cu 152, 1 cu
1Rep)321‘ [19a9]MLJ 315) (HO) His Lordship, Mohamed Dzalddlnl (Vale!
DJ) set out succmuly me e\emenLs anne Ian M aetamanm as loflows
‘In our/aw on libel, wmch IS govemsd by me Delamabon Act
1957. ma Dunian arpnmlnas on ma [1/BIHIIWIII show (1) ma
words are delamatory, (2; me words rslsno me plaintiff, and
(3) the words wan: punusnau "
m] In xamarga Cmnmunlcallon Sdn and v. Normlll Sumsudln A
Anonner Appeal [2006] 2 cm as (CA) ms Lordsmp zmuam Maklnudm
JCA (later PCAL held
‘A: the W159! we would stale mar ma tssrla be appnsa wnan
aonsmenng wnamar a statement rs aeramamry ol an
Apps//an! Is weusamad m the! rt rs an objective me In much
n must be given a rnaanmg a rsasonable man would
understand rt and lot mar pulpose, (ha! IS, in aonsmerrng
wnamer me wards cnrnprarrred afconramed any defamatory
nnnmanon, n Is necessary to consfderrhe wnola arm:/e Galley
on Lrbel L s/anaor, mm adrv on (ms pom! at pp ms and no
mcar a/la states as fullaws
rn Guxsmzuxi-tyxuamzvso
«mm. sanaw nmhnrwm a. U... a my a. nrW\n|U|y am. dnuamnl vn mum v-max
| 6,613 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
CB-A52NCvC-7-06/2021 | PLAINTIF BORHAN BIN MOHAMAD DEFENDAN MEGABINA TRADING | Permohonan Plaintif di bawah Aturan 52 Kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012-Perintah Komital-Perlanggaran kepada terma-terma persetujuan di dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan -Kegagalan Defendan membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap adakah merupakan penghinaan Mahkamah kerana tidak termasuk dalam terma Penghakiman Persetujuan-Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut juga tidak diendorskan dengan Notis Keseksaan-Adakah menjadi ketidakpatuhan kepada Aturan 45 Kaedah 7 (4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 | 15/11/2023 | Tuan Ahmad Rizki Bin Abdul Jalil | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a987f31-ecc7-4d80-a8b6-1673a5d8fbe3&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI TEMERLOH
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: CB-A52NCvC-7-06/2021
ANTARA
BORHAN BIN MOHAMAD
(NO. K/P: 670217-06-5001) .......PLAINTIF
DAN
MEGABINA TRADING
(No. Syarikat: CA0126634-H) .....DEFENDAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
1. Pada 9 Ogos 2023, Mahkamah ini setelah membaca Notis
Permohonan Plaintif (Lampiran 42), afidavit-afidavit yang difailkan
oleh Plaintif dan Defendan serta setelah mempertimbangkan hujahan-
hujahan yang dikenukakan oleh pihak-pihak, Mahkamah ini menolak
permohonan Plaintif di Lampiran 42. Lampiran 42 adalah permohonan
Plaintif di bawah Aturan 52 Kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah
2012 untuk perintah-perintah berikut:
a. Perintah pengkomitan diberikan terhadap Megabina Trading (No.
Syarikat: CA0126634-H) kerana menghina Mahkamah;
b. Megabina Trading (No. Syarikat: CA0126634-H) diperintahkan
untuk membayar denda secara serta merta untuk suatu jumlah
15/11/2023 09:49:32
CB-A52NCvC-7-06/2021 Kand. 69
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
yang difikirkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah kerana menghina
Mahkamah;
c. Kos permohonan dibayar oleh Megabina Trading (No. Syarikat:
CA0126634-H);
d. Suatu perintah pengkomitan diberikan terhadap Izyan Balqis binti
Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 890401-11-5392) iaitu salah seorang rakan
kongsi kepada Defendan;
e. Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 890401-11-5392)
diperintahkan untuk membayar denda secara serta merta untuk
suatu jumlah yang difikirkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah kerana
menghina Mahkamah;
f. Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 890401-11-5392)
dipenjarakan untuk tempoh masa yang difikirkan sesuai oleh
Mahkamah kerana menghina Mahkamah;
g. Kos permohonan ini dibayar oleh Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab
(No. K/P: 890401-11-5392) kepada Plaintif;
h. Suatu perintah pengkomitan diberikan terhadap Siti Noriddayu binti
Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 910924-06-5326) iaitu salah seorang rakan
kongsi kepada Defendan dengan alamat rumah di No. 861, Lorong
Bentong Makmur 22, Taman Bentong Makmur, 28700 Bentong,
Pahang;
i. Siti Noriddayu binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 910924-06-5326)
diperintahkan untuk membayar denda secara serta merta untuk
suatu jumlah yang difikirkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah kerana
menghina Mahkamah.
j. Siti Noriddayu binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 910924-06-5326)
dipenjarakan untuk tempoh masa yang difikirkan sesuai oleh
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Mahkamah kerana menghina Mahkamah;
k. Kos permohonan ini dibayar oleh Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab
(No. K/P: 890401-11-5392) kepada Plaintif; dan
l. Perintah-perintah untuk manfaat Plaintif yang difikirkan sesuai oleh
Mahkamah.
KERTAS-KERTAS KAUSA YANG BERKAITAN BAGI PERMOHONAN DI
LAMPIRAN 42
2.Kertas-kertas kausa yang berkaitan dengan permohonan di Lampiran 42:
i. Penghakiman Persetujuan bertarikh 30.3.2022;
ii. Pernyataan menurut Aturan 52 Kaedah 3 (2), Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012 bertarikh 16.1.2023;
iii. Notis Permohonan (Ex-Parte) bertarikh 18.1.2023 yang difailkan oleh
Plaintif bagi mendapatkan kebenaran untuk memfailkan permohonan
bagi suatu perintah pengkomitan terhadap Defendan;
iv. Afidavit bagi menentusahkan fakta yang telah diikrarkan oleh Borhan
bin Mohamad pada 17.1.2023;
v. Perintah bertarikh 20.2.2023 yang membenarkan Plaintif untuk
memfailkan permohonan bagi suatu perinth pengkomitan terhadap
Defendan;
vi. Notis Permohonan bertarikh 9.3.2023 yang difailkan oleh Plaintif;
vii. Afidavit Sokongan Plaintif yang diikrrakan oleh Borhan bin Mohamad
pada 9.3.2023;
viii. Afidavit Jawapan Defendan yang diikrarkan oleh Siti Noriddayu binti
Abdul Wahab pada 27.3.2023;
ix. Afidavit balasan Plaintif yang diikrarkan oleh Borhan bin Mohamad
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
pada 11.4.2023;
3.Mahkamah meneliti beberapa perkara di dalam menentukan sama ada
Defendan telah melakukan perlanggaran kepada terma-terma persetujuan
di dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan yang telah direkodkan pada 30.3.2022.
Adalah jelas bahawa terma-terma yang perlu diteliti oleh Mahkamah adalah
seperti di dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan adalah seperti berikut:
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI TEMERLOH
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: CB-A52NCVC-7-06/2021
ANTARA
BORHAN BIN MOHAMAD
(No. K/P: 670217-06-5001) … PLAINTIF
DAN
MEGABINA TRADING
(No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: CA0126634-H) … DEFENDAN
DI HADAPAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN
DATO' CHE WAN ZAIDI BIN CHE WAN IBRAHIM
PADA 30 MAC 2022 MAHKAMAH TERBUKA
(TELEKOMUNIKASI JARAK JAUH SECARA E-REVIEW)
PENGHAKIMAN PERSETUJUAN
TINDAKAN INI setelah ditetapkan pada hari ini untuk bicara di hadapan Dato' Che Wan Zaidi Bin
Che Wan Ibrahim, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Temerloh, dalam kehadiran Dato’ Zailan bin
Mohamed dan Nur Amyra binti Zailan, peguamcara bagi Plaintif dan dalam kehadiran
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
peguamcara Defendan, Shamin binti Shahril Ridzwan Wan dan Najwa Wajihah binti Husin, MAKA
ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIHAKIMI SECARA PENGHAKIMAN PERSETUJUAN bahawa:-
1. Plaintif dan Defendan bersetuju bahawa Agihan Keuntungan dan Kerugian adalah sebanyak
80% kepada Defendan dan 20% kepada Plaintif.
2. Plaintif dan Defendan perlu melantik auditor bebas di mana hasil audit yang dipersetujui
bersama tersebut akan mengikat kedua-dua pihak.
3. Plaintif dan Defendan perlu bertanggungjawab ke atas keuntungan atau kerugian mengikut
kadar 80% dan 20% seperti yang dipersetujui.
Bertarikh pada 30 Mac 2022
tt.
..………………...........………
Penolong Pendaftar
Mahkamah Sesyen
Temerloh
4.Setelah mempertimbangkan Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 42 , afidavit-
afidavit yang difailkan dan hujahan-hujahan kedua-dua belah pihak,
Mahkamah ini pada 9 Ogos 2023 telah menolak permohonan Plaintif bagi
perintah komital terhadap Defendan.
ALASAN-ALASAN MAHKAMAH
5.Berikut adalah alasan-alasan Mahkamah dalam menolak permohonan
Plaintif di Lampiran 42:
5.1 Berdasarkan kepada perenggan 2 Penghakiman tersebut, Mahkamah
mendapati bahawa kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan perlu melantik auditor
bebas di mana hasil audit yang dipersetujui bersama tersebut akan mengikat
kedua-dua pihak. Mahkamah setelah meneliti afidavit-afidavit yang difailkan
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
oleh Plaintif dan Defendan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa auditor bebas
yang dilantik adalah secara berasingan atau sepihak seperti yang
dinyatakan dalam afidavit jawapan Defendan. Tiada pelantikan auditor
bebas secara bersesama di antara pihak-pihak.
5.2. Selain itu, berdasarkan afidavit sokongan Plaintif menyatakan bahawa
Defendan telah gagal membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap
berkaitan projek, telah mengakibatkan Plaintif tidak dapat melantik juruaudit
bebas yang lain untuk semakan ke atas penyata akaun projek. Plaintif
menyatakan kegagalan Defendan membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang
lengkap merupakan penghinaan Mahkamah dan pemecahan Penghakiman
Persetujuan. Mahkamah mendapati keperluan untuk membekalkan
dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap berkaitan projek bukanlah terma dalam
Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut. Maka dengan itu, Mahkamah
mendapati adalah tidak selamat bagi Mahkamah mengenakan Perintah
Komital kerana penghinaan Mahkamah terhadap Defendan kerana
membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap berkaitan projek ianya
bukan terma yang dipersetujui dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut
5.3. Selain itu, Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut tidak menyatakan
sebarang tempoh masa bagi pematuhan terma-terma Penghakiman
tersebut. Mahkamah juga mengambil kira, langkah-langkah yang telah
diambil oleh Defendan dengan memberikan Laporan Audit Pertama kepada
Plaintif. Namun begitu, Plaintif telah menolak Laporan Audit Pertama atas
alasan ianya tidak disahkan oleh juruaudit yang bertauliah. Selanjutnya
Defendan telah melantik auditor yang kedua untuk menyediakan Laporan
Audit tersebut. Defendan juga telah melantik firma Zambran & Associates
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
yang telah mengeluarkan sesalinan Penyata Untung Rugi dan ianya telah
diserahkan kepada peguamcara Plaintif. Namun begitu, ianya telah ditolak
oleh Plaintif. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa, Penghakiman Persetujuan
tersebut tidak memperuntukkan jangka masa untuk Laporan Akaun tersebut
perlu disiapkan. Di peringkat ini, Mahkamah tidak dapat menentukan
sebarang bentuk perlanggaran kepada terma Penghakiman Persetujuan
memandangkan tiadanya sebarang tempoh masa ditetapkan oleh pihak-
pihak untuk Laporan Akaun tersebut perlu disiapkan.
4.2 Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut juga tidak diendorskan dengan Notis
Keseksaan. Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut tidak mengandungi Notis
Keseksaan bagi tujuan memaklumkan kepada Defendan-Defendan
berkenaan kesan ketidakpatuhan terhadap Penghakiman tersebut.
Mahkamah merujuk Aturan 45 Kaedah 7 (4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah
2012 :
(4) Maka hendaklah diendorskan pada salinan suatu perintah yang
disampaikan di bawah kaedah ini suatu notis dalam Borang 83
memberitahu orang yang kepadanya salinan itu disampaikan-
(a) dalam hal penyampaian di bawah perenggan (2), sekiranya dia
abai dalam mematuhi perintah itu dalam masa yang dinyatakan di
dalamnya, atau, sekiranya perintah itu bertujuan menjauhi daripada
melakukan suatu perbuatan, bahawa sekiranya dia tidak mematuhi
perintah itu, dia boleh dikenakan proses pelaksanaan bagi
memaksanya mematuhi perintah itu; dan
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
(b) dalam hal penyampaian di bawah perenggan (3), bahawa
sekiranya pertubuhan perbadanan abai mematuhi perintah itu dalam
masa yang dinyatakan sedemikian atau, sekiranya perintah itu adalah
untuk menjauhi daripada melakukan suatu perbuatan, bahawa
sekiranya pertubuhan perbadanan itu tidak mematuhi perintah itu,
pertubuhan itu boleh dikenakan proses pelaksanaan bagi memaksa
pertubuhan tersebut mematuhi perintah itu.
Mahkamah juga merujuk kes OSSG Management Sdn Bhd. V Platinum
Eden Asset Management Sdn. Bhd & Anor; Platinum Eden Asset
Management Sdn Bhd & Ors (Respondents) [2021] 7 CLJ 809:
[54] Penal indorsement in the consent judgment is a mandatory
precondition as the same requires the parties to do certain act within a
specified time. In Loh Eng Leong & Anor v. Lo Mun Sen & Sons Sdn
Bhd & Anor [2003] 4 CLJ 743, the Court of Appeal ruled, inter alia, the
followings:
Rule 7(4) provides that it is only where the order of court is one that
must specify the time period within which an act must be done that can
be indorsed with the penal notice. Rule 7(2)(b) provides that an order
shall not be enforced under r. 5 unless a copy of the order requiring a
person to do an act has been served on him before the expiration of
the time within which he was required to do the act. Rule 7(4) deals
with the indorsement of the penal notice in the case of service under r.
7(2) informing the person on whom the order is served that if he
neglects to obey the order within the time specified therein then he is
liable to process of execution to compel him to obey it.
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
It is therefore clear that where an order of court to do an act must
specify the time within which an act is to be done then such time must
be specified. It is only in such cases that there can be indorsement with
the penal notice. As the indorsement with the penal notice is a
prerequisite to the making of a committal order which involves the
liberty of the subject it is particularly important that the relevant rules
are duly complied with (see Nicholls v. Nicholls [1977] 147 NLJ 61;
Allport Alfred James v. Wong Soon Lan [1989] 1 CLJ 271; [1989] 2 CLJ
(Rep) 852).
(emphasis added)
5. Maka, atas alasan-alasan yang di atas, Mahkamah ini menolak
permohonan Defendan di Lampiran 42 dengan kos RM3000.00
AHMAD RIZKI BIN ABDUL JALIL
Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen 2 Temerloh
Pahang.
6 November 2023.
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
Peguam Plaintif:
Zailan Hj Mohamed, Nur Nadjwa Amiera Binti Azman & Amyra binti Zailan
Tetuan Zailan & Associates
Peguam Defendan:
Megat Abdul Munir & Mohd Shahir Bin Md Tahir
Tetuan Zain Megat & Murad
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 13,634 | Tika 2.6.0 |
CB-A52NCvC-7-06/2021 | PLAINTIF BORHAN BIN MOHAMAD DEFENDAN MEGABINA TRADING | Permohonan Plaintif di bawah Aturan 52 Kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012-Perintah Komital-Perlanggaran kepada terma-terma persetujuan di dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan -Kegagalan Defendan membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap adakah merupakan penghinaan Mahkamah kerana tidak termasuk dalam terma Penghakiman Persetujuan-Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut juga tidak diendorskan dengan Notis Keseksaan-Adakah menjadi ketidakpatuhan kepada Aturan 45 Kaedah 7 (4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 | 15/11/2023 | Tuan Ahmad Rizki Bin Abdul Jalil | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a987f31-ecc7-4d80-a8b6-1673a5d8fbe3&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI TEMERLOH
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: CB-A52NCvC-7-06/2021
ANTARA
BORHAN BIN MOHAMAD
(NO. K/P: 670217-06-5001) .......PLAINTIF
DAN
MEGABINA TRADING
(No. Syarikat: CA0126634-H) .....DEFENDAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
1. Pada 9 Ogos 2023, Mahkamah ini setelah membaca Notis
Permohonan Plaintif (Lampiran 42), afidavit-afidavit yang difailkan
oleh Plaintif dan Defendan serta setelah mempertimbangkan hujahan-
hujahan yang dikenukakan oleh pihak-pihak, Mahkamah ini menolak
permohonan Plaintif di Lampiran 42. Lampiran 42 adalah permohonan
Plaintif di bawah Aturan 52 Kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah
2012 untuk perintah-perintah berikut:
a. Perintah pengkomitan diberikan terhadap Megabina Trading (No.
Syarikat: CA0126634-H) kerana menghina Mahkamah;
b. Megabina Trading (No. Syarikat: CA0126634-H) diperintahkan
untuk membayar denda secara serta merta untuk suatu jumlah
15/11/2023 09:49:32
CB-A52NCvC-7-06/2021 Kand. 69
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
yang difikirkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah kerana menghina
Mahkamah;
c. Kos permohonan dibayar oleh Megabina Trading (No. Syarikat:
CA0126634-H);
d. Suatu perintah pengkomitan diberikan terhadap Izyan Balqis binti
Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 890401-11-5392) iaitu salah seorang rakan
kongsi kepada Defendan;
e. Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 890401-11-5392)
diperintahkan untuk membayar denda secara serta merta untuk
suatu jumlah yang difikirkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah kerana
menghina Mahkamah;
f. Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 890401-11-5392)
dipenjarakan untuk tempoh masa yang difikirkan sesuai oleh
Mahkamah kerana menghina Mahkamah;
g. Kos permohonan ini dibayar oleh Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab
(No. K/P: 890401-11-5392) kepada Plaintif;
h. Suatu perintah pengkomitan diberikan terhadap Siti Noriddayu binti
Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 910924-06-5326) iaitu salah seorang rakan
kongsi kepada Defendan dengan alamat rumah di No. 861, Lorong
Bentong Makmur 22, Taman Bentong Makmur, 28700 Bentong,
Pahang;
i. Siti Noriddayu binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 910924-06-5326)
diperintahkan untuk membayar denda secara serta merta untuk
suatu jumlah yang difikirkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah kerana
menghina Mahkamah.
j. Siti Noriddayu binti Abdul Wahab (No. K/P: 910924-06-5326)
dipenjarakan untuk tempoh masa yang difikirkan sesuai oleh
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Mahkamah kerana menghina Mahkamah;
k. Kos permohonan ini dibayar oleh Izyan Balqis binti Abdul Wahab
(No. K/P: 890401-11-5392) kepada Plaintif; dan
l. Perintah-perintah untuk manfaat Plaintif yang difikirkan sesuai oleh
Mahkamah.
KERTAS-KERTAS KAUSA YANG BERKAITAN BAGI PERMOHONAN DI
LAMPIRAN 42
2.Kertas-kertas kausa yang berkaitan dengan permohonan di Lampiran 42:
i. Penghakiman Persetujuan bertarikh 30.3.2022;
ii. Pernyataan menurut Aturan 52 Kaedah 3 (2), Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012 bertarikh 16.1.2023;
iii. Notis Permohonan (Ex-Parte) bertarikh 18.1.2023 yang difailkan oleh
Plaintif bagi mendapatkan kebenaran untuk memfailkan permohonan
bagi suatu perintah pengkomitan terhadap Defendan;
iv. Afidavit bagi menentusahkan fakta yang telah diikrarkan oleh Borhan
bin Mohamad pada 17.1.2023;
v. Perintah bertarikh 20.2.2023 yang membenarkan Plaintif untuk
memfailkan permohonan bagi suatu perinth pengkomitan terhadap
Defendan;
vi. Notis Permohonan bertarikh 9.3.2023 yang difailkan oleh Plaintif;
vii. Afidavit Sokongan Plaintif yang diikrrakan oleh Borhan bin Mohamad
pada 9.3.2023;
viii. Afidavit Jawapan Defendan yang diikrarkan oleh Siti Noriddayu binti
Abdul Wahab pada 27.3.2023;
ix. Afidavit balasan Plaintif yang diikrarkan oleh Borhan bin Mohamad
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
pada 11.4.2023;
3.Mahkamah meneliti beberapa perkara di dalam menentukan sama ada
Defendan telah melakukan perlanggaran kepada terma-terma persetujuan
di dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan yang telah direkodkan pada 30.3.2022.
Adalah jelas bahawa terma-terma yang perlu diteliti oleh Mahkamah adalah
seperti di dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan adalah seperti berikut:
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI TEMERLOH
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: CB-A52NCVC-7-06/2021
ANTARA
BORHAN BIN MOHAMAD
(No. K/P: 670217-06-5001) … PLAINTIF
DAN
MEGABINA TRADING
(No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: CA0126634-H) … DEFENDAN
DI HADAPAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN
DATO' CHE WAN ZAIDI BIN CHE WAN IBRAHIM
PADA 30 MAC 2022 MAHKAMAH TERBUKA
(TELEKOMUNIKASI JARAK JAUH SECARA E-REVIEW)
PENGHAKIMAN PERSETUJUAN
TINDAKAN INI setelah ditetapkan pada hari ini untuk bicara di hadapan Dato' Che Wan Zaidi Bin
Che Wan Ibrahim, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Temerloh, dalam kehadiran Dato’ Zailan bin
Mohamed dan Nur Amyra binti Zailan, peguamcara bagi Plaintif dan dalam kehadiran
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
peguamcara Defendan, Shamin binti Shahril Ridzwan Wan dan Najwa Wajihah binti Husin, MAKA
ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIHAKIMI SECARA PENGHAKIMAN PERSETUJUAN bahawa:-
1. Plaintif dan Defendan bersetuju bahawa Agihan Keuntungan dan Kerugian adalah sebanyak
80% kepada Defendan dan 20% kepada Plaintif.
2. Plaintif dan Defendan perlu melantik auditor bebas di mana hasil audit yang dipersetujui
bersama tersebut akan mengikat kedua-dua pihak.
3. Plaintif dan Defendan perlu bertanggungjawab ke atas keuntungan atau kerugian mengikut
kadar 80% dan 20% seperti yang dipersetujui.
Bertarikh pada 30 Mac 2022
tt.
..………………...........………
Penolong Pendaftar
Mahkamah Sesyen
Temerloh
4.Setelah mempertimbangkan Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 42 , afidavit-
afidavit yang difailkan dan hujahan-hujahan kedua-dua belah pihak,
Mahkamah ini pada 9 Ogos 2023 telah menolak permohonan Plaintif bagi
perintah komital terhadap Defendan.
ALASAN-ALASAN MAHKAMAH
5.Berikut adalah alasan-alasan Mahkamah dalam menolak permohonan
Plaintif di Lampiran 42:
5.1 Berdasarkan kepada perenggan 2 Penghakiman tersebut, Mahkamah
mendapati bahawa kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan perlu melantik auditor
bebas di mana hasil audit yang dipersetujui bersama tersebut akan mengikat
kedua-dua pihak. Mahkamah setelah meneliti afidavit-afidavit yang difailkan
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
oleh Plaintif dan Defendan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa auditor bebas
yang dilantik adalah secara berasingan atau sepihak seperti yang
dinyatakan dalam afidavit jawapan Defendan. Tiada pelantikan auditor
bebas secara bersesama di antara pihak-pihak.
5.2. Selain itu, berdasarkan afidavit sokongan Plaintif menyatakan bahawa
Defendan telah gagal membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap
berkaitan projek, telah mengakibatkan Plaintif tidak dapat melantik juruaudit
bebas yang lain untuk semakan ke atas penyata akaun projek. Plaintif
menyatakan kegagalan Defendan membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang
lengkap merupakan penghinaan Mahkamah dan pemecahan Penghakiman
Persetujuan. Mahkamah mendapati keperluan untuk membekalkan
dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap berkaitan projek bukanlah terma dalam
Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut. Maka dengan itu, Mahkamah
mendapati adalah tidak selamat bagi Mahkamah mengenakan Perintah
Komital kerana penghinaan Mahkamah terhadap Defendan kerana
membekalkan dokumen-dokumen yang lengkap berkaitan projek ianya
bukan terma yang dipersetujui dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut
5.3. Selain itu, Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut tidak menyatakan
sebarang tempoh masa bagi pematuhan terma-terma Penghakiman
tersebut. Mahkamah juga mengambil kira, langkah-langkah yang telah
diambil oleh Defendan dengan memberikan Laporan Audit Pertama kepada
Plaintif. Namun begitu, Plaintif telah menolak Laporan Audit Pertama atas
alasan ianya tidak disahkan oleh juruaudit yang bertauliah. Selanjutnya
Defendan telah melantik auditor yang kedua untuk menyediakan Laporan
Audit tersebut. Defendan juga telah melantik firma Zambran & Associates
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
yang telah mengeluarkan sesalinan Penyata Untung Rugi dan ianya telah
diserahkan kepada peguamcara Plaintif. Namun begitu, ianya telah ditolak
oleh Plaintif. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa, Penghakiman Persetujuan
tersebut tidak memperuntukkan jangka masa untuk Laporan Akaun tersebut
perlu disiapkan. Di peringkat ini, Mahkamah tidak dapat menentukan
sebarang bentuk perlanggaran kepada terma Penghakiman Persetujuan
memandangkan tiadanya sebarang tempoh masa ditetapkan oleh pihak-
pihak untuk Laporan Akaun tersebut perlu disiapkan.
4.2 Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut juga tidak diendorskan dengan Notis
Keseksaan. Penghakiman Persetujuan tersebut tidak mengandungi Notis
Keseksaan bagi tujuan memaklumkan kepada Defendan-Defendan
berkenaan kesan ketidakpatuhan terhadap Penghakiman tersebut.
Mahkamah merujuk Aturan 45 Kaedah 7 (4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah
2012 :
(4) Maka hendaklah diendorskan pada salinan suatu perintah yang
disampaikan di bawah kaedah ini suatu notis dalam Borang 83
memberitahu orang yang kepadanya salinan itu disampaikan-
(a) dalam hal penyampaian di bawah perenggan (2), sekiranya dia
abai dalam mematuhi perintah itu dalam masa yang dinyatakan di
dalamnya, atau, sekiranya perintah itu bertujuan menjauhi daripada
melakukan suatu perbuatan, bahawa sekiranya dia tidak mematuhi
perintah itu, dia boleh dikenakan proses pelaksanaan bagi
memaksanya mematuhi perintah itu; dan
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
(b) dalam hal penyampaian di bawah perenggan (3), bahawa
sekiranya pertubuhan perbadanan abai mematuhi perintah itu dalam
masa yang dinyatakan sedemikian atau, sekiranya perintah itu adalah
untuk menjauhi daripada melakukan suatu perbuatan, bahawa
sekiranya pertubuhan perbadanan itu tidak mematuhi perintah itu,
pertubuhan itu boleh dikenakan proses pelaksanaan bagi memaksa
pertubuhan tersebut mematuhi perintah itu.
Mahkamah juga merujuk kes OSSG Management Sdn Bhd. V Platinum
Eden Asset Management Sdn. Bhd & Anor; Platinum Eden Asset
Management Sdn Bhd & Ors (Respondents) [2021] 7 CLJ 809:
[54] Penal indorsement in the consent judgment is a mandatory
precondition as the same requires the parties to do certain act within a
specified time. In Loh Eng Leong & Anor v. Lo Mun Sen & Sons Sdn
Bhd & Anor [2003] 4 CLJ 743, the Court of Appeal ruled, inter alia, the
followings:
Rule 7(4) provides that it is only where the order of court is one that
must specify the time period within which an act must be done that can
be indorsed with the penal notice. Rule 7(2)(b) provides that an order
shall not be enforced under r. 5 unless a copy of the order requiring a
person to do an act has been served on him before the expiration of
the time within which he was required to do the act. Rule 7(4) deals
with the indorsement of the penal notice in the case of service under r.
7(2) informing the person on whom the order is served that if he
neglects to obey the order within the time specified therein then he is
liable to process of execution to compel him to obey it.
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
It is therefore clear that where an order of court to do an act must
specify the time within which an act is to be done then such time must
be specified. It is only in such cases that there can be indorsement with
the penal notice. As the indorsement with the penal notice is a
prerequisite to the making of a committal order which involves the
liberty of the subject it is particularly important that the relevant rules
are duly complied with (see Nicholls v. Nicholls [1977] 147 NLJ 61;
Allport Alfred James v. Wong Soon Lan [1989] 1 CLJ 271; [1989] 2 CLJ
(Rep) 852).
(emphasis added)
5. Maka, atas alasan-alasan yang di atas, Mahkamah ini menolak
permohonan Defendan di Lampiran 42 dengan kos RM3000.00
AHMAD RIZKI BIN ABDUL JALIL
Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen 2 Temerloh
Pahang.
6 November 2023.
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
Peguam Plaintif:
Zailan Hj Mohamed, Nur Nadjwa Amiera Binti Azman & Amyra binti Zailan
Tetuan Zailan & Associates
Peguam Defendan:
Megat Abdul Munir & Mohd Shahir Bin Md Tahir
Tetuan Zain Megat & Murad
S/N MXYSsfsgE2othZzpdj74w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 13,634 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) KHONG YOON LOONG 2. ) AGNES LEE LAI HENG 3. ) NG CHEE SIEW 4. ) IRENE HARTANTO @ TAN HIAN LIE 5. ) CHAN YIK LONG 6. ) HO YEE KARM 7. ) LIU KWAI LIEN 8. ) KONG CHOONG HON 9. ) LIM KA TIN 10. ) JAMAL MOHAMED PADIYATH11. ) FOONG KIM SEONG1 2. ) KONG KOK SANG1 3. ) KHOR SAW PING1 4. ) KIEW LAI WAH1 5. ) WONG CHEE KEONG1 6. ) LIM MING NEE1 7. ) BONG YUE ZHING1 8. ) TAY THEAN SEONG1 9. ) CHANDRAN T GNANAPPAH20. ) ROHINY S AMBALAVANAR21. ) MAGDALENE TAN MAY LING2 2. ) KEK KEAN AUN2 3. ) CHOONG MEI LI2 4. ) WONG SIEW HONG2 5. ) LIM SAU WEI2 6. ) WONG MAN YEN2 7. ) WONG KIAM TEE2 8. ) LO SHOONG LAI2 9. ) CHOW AI HENG30. ) CHEONG SIEW KIN31. ) WONG YOON LIN3 2. ) WONG YOON YING3 3. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM3 4. ) NOR ANITA BINTI ABU TALIB3 5. ) CHU CHI SING3 6. ) LIOW SIN MOI3 7. ) OOI CHENG KEAT3 8. ) LOO AH BOR3 9. ) LEE MAY FONG40. ) TUEN FOO FAT41. ) WONG BEE MI4 2. ) KANG GET NEE4 3. ) DOMINIC ANANTHARAJ PETER4 4. ) SUBRAMANIAM NACHIMUTHU4 5. ) JELITHA RAMACHANDERAM4 6. ) NG TEIK POH4 7. ) NG GUAT CHU4 8. ) NIK ISMAIL BIN NIK MOHAMED4 9. ) SATHY RAMAKRISHNAN50. ) WONG WAI KAY51. ) LOH YEN LEE5 2. ) WONG SAI YING5 3. ) LEE CHIOU YUN5 4. ) ALISA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 5. ) ALINA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 6. ) LEE HWAI EN5 7. ) EMILIA LIM LEE KHIM5 8. ) LING KEH PING5 9. ) LIM BEE KHIN60. ) YEAP JING YEW61. ) ANDREW NG LOONG ERN6 2. ) GOH SHU YEEN6 3. ) NG TEONG BENG6 4. ) LEE BEE LENG6 5. ) TING PEIK WAN6 6. ) LEONG SOUT WAY6 7. ) LEONG MEE WAH Wakil Peribadi LEONG AH KIM6 8. ) LU HANN CHYANG6 9. ) JAIARAJO A/L LETCHUMANAN70. ) MARIAYEE A/P SINNAPPAN71. ) WONG PHUI PING7 2. ) LOH TECK ANN7 3. ) LIONG SIEW ENG7 4. ) CHEE CHUA KIAN BENG7 5. ) NUR MASDYIANA LEE BINTI ABDULLAH7 6. ) NG JU MEI7 7. ) CHIA PENG KHEONG7 8. ) NG LAI PENG7 9. ) GOH SIEW YING80. ) LEE CHEN LIM81. ) HOO SIEW KUN8 2. ) YIP KAH KUEN8 3. ) TAN LEE KIAK8 4. ) TEE CHING PAU8 5. ) WONG KOOI CHIN8 6. ) LAI JOON FOON8 7. ) SOH AH KHOOI8 8. ) ONG ENG JIN8 9. ) TAI LOO MEE90. ) LIM BEE CHIN91. ) TAN CHAI WEI9 2. ) CHAN KOW BOON9 3. ) THAM SIOW KUEEN9 4. ) CHAN LOY SHENG9 5. ) CHAN SHU HUA9 6. ) BRIAN YAP MING U9 7. ) NG HOON FAI9 8. ) NG LAY FANG9 9. ) CHOK YAM FUNG100. ) VIJAYAN A/L GOPINATHAN101. ) ONG ENG KHONG10 2. ) OH ENG LIM10 3. ) CHOY SIEW KEK10 4. ) WONG KAH MENG10 5. ) TAN LAI FU10 6. ) TOH WENG TUCK10 7. ) KAM KOOI HUA10 8. ) ZULKORNAIN AHMAD10 9. ) TOK YEE PING1 10. ) TIONG LEE EE111. ) NG CHEW HAR11 2. ) AW PHEI SZE11 3. ) PANG JOON SIONG11 4. ) CHEW LEE LEE11 5. ) YOONG KOW @YONG CHIN CHOON11 6. ) TEE CHING HUAT11 7. ) ARNE STAURSETH11 8. ) TEE AH SIM11 9. ) TEE KAU MOI @ TEE LEE HOON120. ) LIM HOCK CHUAN121. ) TOH SWEE TING12 2. ) MOHD KAMAL ARIFIN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN12 3. ) NOR AZILAH AINI BINTI NOOR12 4. ) KOO SIONG KUAN12 5. ) WONG CHOI YING12 6. ) WONG KOK WAI12 7. ) MAK FOOI CHOOI12 8. ) TEE HORNG YU12 9. ) TEE HORNG SHENG130. ) TEE SHI YUN131. ) TEO KING LOONG13 2. ) HIEW SIEW HEONG13 3. ) CHEAH AUN HENG13 4. ) CHEE PEE YANG13 5. ) CHEAH SOON HENG13 6. ) KHONG SHU TSUI13 7. ) TAN TIONG TIN13 8. ) CHUA SIEW LOON13 9. ) PHANG PAO CHUN140. ) RADHA KRISHNAN A/L RAMASAMY141. ) FOO HAN KEONG14 2. ) KOH POH HOON14 3. ) FOO XIANG JIE14 4. ) HO TAT HENG14 5. ) HEW EJIN14 6. ) TAN CHEE CHUNG14 7. ) LEE MEE FOONG14 8. ) ROSELINGE KHOO KWAI LING14 9. ) MAN KEIN SING @ MUN KEIN SING150. ) GOH SOH KIOW151. ) KIEW POH FONG15 2. ) CHUAH GAIK YEON15 3. ) AROKIAMARY A/P PARAMCHOTTI15 4. ) ROSNA BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN15 5. ) R SIVA NATHAN A/L RENGIAH15 6. ) LIM LEE SZE15 7. ) KHOR SAW YEE15 8. ) ISMADI BIN ISMAIL15 9. ) TERENCE CHONG CHOONG DAT160. ) HELLEN RITA JOSEPH161. ) HNG HUEY FEN16 2. ) NAVASURIYA A/P RADHA KRSIHNAN DEFENDAN 1. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD 2. ) AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD 4. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD 6. ) APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD 7. ) FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD 8. ) BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON 9. ) STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS 10. ) MARK RICHARD LAMB11. ) CHOO CHIN THYE1 2. ) LIM SIEW PENG1 3. ) NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS1 4. ) CHONG WAI CHEE1 5. ) KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY1 6. ) NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG1 7. ) TAN SEE SANG1 8. ) LIM SEE FWANG1 9. ) CHONG WEI KIONG20. ) SURAYA BINTI ALI21. ) POH WEE HON2 2. ) SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI2 3. ) TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU JAAFAR YAM2 4. ) CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD2 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED | Civil Procedure - Stay of Proceedings pending Arbitration —Dispute involving numerous third parties who are not party to arbitration agreement — disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another part in court — Whether split litigation should be avoided — legitimate concern of inconsistent decisions — multiplicity of proceedings — Whether dispute ought to be referred to arbitration | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Liza Chan Sow Keng | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a7041d7b-1220-4055-abab-e936f82f5c33&Inline=true |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT No: WA-22NCC-627-11/2022
BETWEEN
KHONG YOON LOONG & 161 OTHERS … PLAINTIFFS
AND
1. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 200923801D]
2. AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA
BERHAD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201041978 (908988-U)]
3. APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201501022437 (1147766-P)]
4. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
CO. LTD
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105555134940]
5. ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 201106988E]
6. APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201011055 (984575-T)]
7. FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201401032121 (1108205-D)]
8. BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 503255583]
9. STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 536667844]
10. MARK RICHARD LAMB
[SINGAPORE NRIC NO.: G5742846K]
15/11/2023 09:33:18
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 Kand. 221
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
11. CHOO CHIN THYE
[NRIC NO.: 620712-10-5159]
12. LIM SIEW PENG
[NRIC NO.: 761106-01-5048]
13. NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS
[NRIC NO.: 710917-10-5135]
14. CHONG WAI CHEE
[NRIC NO.: 790405-14-5574]
15. KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY
[NRIC NO.: 620709-08-5011]
16. NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG
[NRIC NO.: 740510-01-5848]
17. TAN SEE SANG
[NRIC NO.: 500717-06-5065]
18. LIM SEE FWANG
[NRIC NO.: 501020-10-5703]
19. CHONG WEI KIONG
[NRIC NO.: 800520-01-5165]
20. SURAYA BINTI ALI
[NRIC NO.: 780112-14-6312]
21. POH WEE HON
[NRIC NO.: 790911-04-5111]
22. SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI
[NRIC NO.: 780521-01-6041]
23. TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU
JA’AFAR YAM
[NRIC NO.: 470308-05-5259]
24. CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 199501031068 (360274-T)]
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
25. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS
COMPANY LIMITED
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105554054616]
... DEFENDANTS
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There were 9 applications before the Court for stay of proceedings
pending arbitration pursuant to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2005 (“AA
2005”):
1.1 Enclosure (“Enc.”) 18: filed by 2nd Defendant (D2);
1.2 Enc.21: filed by 3rd Defendant (D3)
1.3 Enc. 24: filed by 9th Defendant (D9)
1.4 Enc.26: filed by 23rd Defendant (D23)
1.5 Enc.28: filed by 15th Defendant (D15)
1.6 Enc.37: filed by 5th, 10th and 16th Defendants (D5, D10 and D16)
1.7 Enc.50: filed by 13th Defendant (D13)
1.8 Enc.81: filed by 14th Defendant (D14); and
1.9 Enc.131: filed by 21st Defendant (D21)
[2] On 19.9.2023, I had dismissed all the applications with costs, and
given broad grounds as to why. Out of the 11 applicants who applied for a stay,
5 applicants, D2, D3 D9, D15 and D23 being dissatisfied with my decision, has
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
filed their respective appeals to the Court of Appeal. This judgment contains the
reasons for my decision. As the matters were related and all heard on the same
day, it is convenient to deal with all 5 applications made respectively by D2, D3
D9, D15 and D23 in one judgment.
Background
[3] The background facts are culled from the pleadings, cause papers and
submissions of the parties.
[4] At all material times:
4.1 the 162 Plaintiffs, are members of the public who have
respectively purchased an investment scheme for Agarwood
trees and have entered into various written agreements with the
1st to 4th Defendants (the “Contracting Defendants);
4.2 D1 is a foreign company incorporated in and having its place of
business in Singapore;
4.3 D2 and D3 are Malaysian companies having their place of
business in Malaysia;
4.4 D4 is a foreign company registered in and has its place of
business in Thailand;
4.5 The Contracting Defendants were managed by D8 and D9 who
are both British nationals. D8 whom the Plaintiffs allege to be the
“Ultimate Controller” of the APC Group, has his place of
residence in Thailand;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
4.6 The D2, D5 to D7 (“Recipients”), were appointed by the
Contracting Defendants to receive the Investment Sums from the
Plaintiffs on behalf of the Contracting Defendants;
4.7 D8 to D24 (collectively the “Controllers”), are alleged by the
Plaintiffs to be:
(a) Directors (including shadow directors), officers and/or
controllers of the Contracting Defendants and/or Recipients;
and/or
(b) Organisers, promotors, orchestrators, designers and/or
facilitators of the Investment Scheme.
4.8 D25 is the ultimate holding company of the Contracting
Defendants.
[5] The Plaintiffs claim amongst others that:
5.1 In reliance on the Defendants’ representations, they had
cumulatively invested a sum of RM 24,322,763.00 in the
Agarwood scheme;
5.2 Under the Agreements, the Plaintiffs were allegedly promised
‘Guaranteed’ or ‘Investment’ returns;
5.3 The Defendants had intentionally designed the Agarwood
scheme to amongst others, contravene statutory provisions and
ensure that the Plaintiffs’ returns were channelled beyond their
reach;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
5.4 As at the date of commencement of this action, they have not
received any of their ‘Investment Returns;
5.5 The Plaintiffs discovered inter alia:
(a) that the Investment Schemes sold to the Plaintiffs were in
fact unregistered and not approved by CCM;
(b) D6 has been listed on Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM)
Financial Consumer Alert List since in or around 28.03.2013.
BNM regards D6 as:
(i) an unlicensed entity; or
(ii) an entity which offers an unlicensed scheme in
Malaysia;
5.6 The Plaintiffs are victims of fraud, breach of trust, conspiracy by
unlawful means and unjust enrichment.
[6] The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the following relief:
6.1 A declaration that the Agreements are void ab initio as a result of
the Defendants’ various breaches of statutory and legal
provisions;
6.2 A declaration that the Agreements are voidable on grounds of
fraud and/or misrepresentation;
6.3 A declaration that there has been a total failure of consideration
in so far as the Agreements are concerned; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
6.4 An Order that the Defendants jointly and severally make
restitution to the Plaintiffs for the sum of RM 24,322,763.00.
D2 and D3’s case for a stay pending arbitration.
[7] D2’s stay application cited the following reasons:
7.1 D2 has entered into a Sublease Agreement where clause 14
contains an arbitration agreement and Sale & Purchase
Agreement where clause 15 contains the arbitration agreement
(collectively the “D2 Agreements”) with the Plaintiffs which are
valid and binding whereby the parties have agreed that any
dispute or difference between the parties arising out of or in
connection to the D2 Agreements shall be referred to and finally
resolved by arbitration by the Asian International Arbitration
Centre located at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (“AIAC”) in
accordance with the Rules of the AIAC; the misnomer in
describing the AIAC as, “Malaysia International Arbitration
Centre” is not a proper ground for finding that the arbitration
agreements incapable of being performed. It does not render the
arbitration clauses null and void, inoperative or incapable of
being performed. The main intention of the arbitration clauses is
for disputes to be determined by arbitration in Malaysia which is
none other then the Asian International Arbitration Centre
(“AIAC”); the Court has no discretion, bound by stare decisis and
must stay the action as s. 10 of AA 2005 is couched in mandatory
terms, citing Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd
[2016] 5 MLJ 417 FC in support;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
7.2 The dispute with the Plaintiffs concern matters within the scope
of the arbitration clauses; even if there are third parties who are
not involved in the arbitration agreement ought not to stop the
Court from ordering a stay pending the outcome of the arbitration;
7.3 D2 who was also named in other suits has successfully obtained
a stay of proceedings to refer the disputes to arbitration:
(i) WA-22NCvC-848-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court
on 24/9/2021;
(ii) WA-B52NCVC-485-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022;
(iii) WA-A52NCVC-1009-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022.
[8] D3’s basis for a stay pending arbitration is that the Managing Agent
Agreement entered into with the Plaintiffs contains in clause 48 a valid and
binding arbitration agreement whereby the parties have agreed that any
disputes or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection to the
Managing Agent Agreement shall be referred to and finally resolved by
arbitration by the AIAC in accordance with the Rules of the AIAC.
[9] D2 however candidly admitted that:
(i) “There are difficulties in locating all the D2 Agreements entered
specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the sheer number of
contracts.”;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(ii) “There are possibilities that a certain number of Plaintiffs may not
have entered any agreements with the 2nd Defendant.”;
whilst D3 admits to being able to “extract some of the Managing Agent
Agreements entered with some of the Plaintiffs ranging from 20/9/2016
– 10/5/2018” and “There are difficulties in locating all the Managing
Agent Agreements entered specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the
sheer number of contracts.”
D9, D15 and D23‘s basis for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration
[10] D9, D15 and D23 took a broad-brush approach that the D2 agreements
and Managing Agent Agreements contain valid and binding arbitration
agreements with the Plaintiffs. D9 and D15 are not parties to any of the D2
agreements nor party to any Managing Agent Agreement although D23 did sign
a Lease Agreement dated 18.3.2016 and a Managing Agent agreement of same
date with D3, at enc 27 pg. 75 and 86 respectively. The agreements exhibited
by D9, D15 and D23 DO NOT show any of the Plaintiffs were parties to them.
Plaintiffs’ case in opposing Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[11] The Plaintiffs in essence contend that:
11.1 each applicant failed to discharge the burden that there exists a
valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between them and each
of the Plaintiff pursuant to ss. 9 & 10 of AA 2005;
11.2 even if there exists any arbitration agreements between the
Plaintiffs and the 1st to 4th Defendants (which is denied), D5 to
D25 are third parties to such arbitration agreements and do not
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
have any binding arbitration agreements with the Plaintiffs within
the meaning of ss 9 and 10 of AA 2005; non-parties to an
arbitration agreement may only ventilate claims through civil
proceedings in Court - Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical
Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395.
11.3 Where a dispute involves a party and non-party to the arbitration
agreement (in this case, D5 to D25), and the subject matter of
the claims overlap, it is best that the dispute be dealt with by the
court – Jaya Sudhir at [59].
Findings and decision on Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[12] The burden is on the applicants to show there is a valid arbitration
agreement.
[13] The applicants have relied on ss. 9 and 10 AA 2005 which state:
“9 Definition and form of arbitration agreement
(1) In this Act, ‘arbitration agreement’ means an agreement by the parties to
submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or
not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in an
agreement or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing —
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(a) if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration
agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other
means; or
(b) if it is contained in an exchange of statement of claim and defence in
which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied
by the other.
(4A) The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing is met by any
electronic communication that the parties make by means of data message if
the information contained therein is accessible so as to be useable for
subsequent reference.
(5) A reference in an agreement to a document containing an arbitration clause
shall constitute an arbitration agreement, provided that the agreement is in
writing and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the agreement.
(6) For the purpose of this section, ‘data message’ means information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or similar
means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy.
s 10 Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court
(1) A court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is
the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, where a party makes an application
before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer
the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed.
(2) The court, in granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to subsection (1), may
impose any conditions as it deems fit.
(2A) Where admiralty proceedings are stayed pursuant to subsection (1), the court
granting the stay may, if in those proceedings property has been arrested or bail
or other security has been given to prevent or obtain release from arrest—
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(a) order that the property arrested be retained as security for the satisfaction
of any award given in the arbitration in respect of that dispute; or
(b) order that the stay of those proceedings be conditional on the provision of
equivalent security for the satisfaction of any such award.
(2B) Subject to any rules of court and to any necessary modifications, the same
law and practice shall apply in relation to property retained in pursuance of an order
under subsection (2A) as would apply if it were held for the purposes of
proceedings in the court making the order.
(2C) For the purpose of this section, admiralty proceedings refer to admiralty
proceedings under Order 70 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and proceedings
commenced pursuant to paragraph 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
(3) Where the proceedings referred to in subsection (1) have been brought, arbitral
proceedings may be commenced or continued, and an award may be made, while
the issue is pending before the court.
(4) This section shall also apply in respect of an international arbitration, where the
seat of arbitration is not in Malaysia.”
[14] I begin with D2 and D3’s application. The points discussed are
applicable to the other applicants in so far as they are common issues.
[15] In dealing with the applications, I have considered the case of Protasco
Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU 993,
Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (as she then was) at [90] held:
"… the court is bound to strike a balance between the following considerations:
(a) The plaintiff’s right to choose whom it wants to sue and where;
(b) The court’s desire to prevent a plaintiff from circumventing the operation of
an arbitration clause; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(c) The court’s inherent power to manage its processes to prevent an abuse
of process and ensure the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.
(d) The balance that is achieved should be just in all the circumstances of the
case."
[16] Firstly, on the materials adduced, it can be readily appreciated that D2,
D3 are not able to show that each Plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with
them at the hearing and this was almost 9 months after the suit was filed except
for Sublease Agreements and Sale & Purchase Agreements signed between
P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P17 and P152. D9, D15 and D23 were also
not able to adduce evidence to show each Plaintiff had an arbitration agreement
with each of them. The Plaintiffs in my respectful view are not obliged to assist
the applicants to discharge their burden.
[17] Secondly, the pivotal issue in this case is that D5 to D25 in the Plaintiffs’
suit are non parties to the arbitration agreements. Thus, the arbitration
agreements as well as s.10 AA2005 cannot apply to them.
[18] In this regard, in Protasco’s case (supra), where Tey Por Yee and one
other were not parties to the arbitration agreement, Nallini Pathmanathan JCA
(as she then was) decided as follows:
[6] The crux of these appeals turns on the law governing a stay of proceedings in
relation to non-parties to an arbitration agreement. In the instant case, only
Protasco and PT ASU are bound by the arbitration agreement. The other two
defendants are not so bound. They fall outside the scope of the agreement.
… “
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[19] The decision in Protasco was affirmed by the Federal Court in Jaya
Sudhir (supra):
[74] In its decision, the Court of Appeal in Protasco, held that s 10 of the AA was
inapplicable and did not come into play as the second and third defendants were
non-parties to the arbitration agreement. The court’s power to grant a stay is
derived from its inherent power to stay court proceedings pending arbitration in the
interests of the justice of the case. The decision in Protasco is instructive and the
finding it made that s 10 of the AA is inapplicable to the third parties accords well
with our decision in this appeal.
…
[91] The language of AA in particular ss 8 and 10 is clear and unambiguous. It
does not apply to the third party such as the appellant. … When AA does not
apply to a non-party to arbitral proceedings, a logical proposition that
follows is that it would be manifestly wrong to extend its policy to the said
non-party. … (Emphasis added.)
[20] Following the decisions in Protasco and Jaya Sudhir, D5 to D25
including D2 and D3 cannot rely on s. 10 AA 2005. In any case, as stated earlier,
D2 and D3, D9, D15 and D23 have not discharged the burden to show each of
the 162 Plaintiffs had arbitration agreements with them.
[21] Of legitimate concern to this Court is that the nature of the Plaintiffs
claim is such that it involves similar or substantially similar underlying facts and
issues vis-à-vis the applicants and the other Defendants, so much so that it
would not be possible to segregate or isolate the Plaintiffs’ claim against the
applicants from the Plaintiffs’ claim against the others. Whilst it would not be
possible to compel non parties to the arbitration agreements to take part in
arbitration proceedings involving a breach of the various lease, sale and
purchase and management agreements, it would however be possible for this
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Court to exercise its jurisdiction over all the Defendants in relation to the
Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
[22] In any event, given the nature of the Plaintiffs' claim against the
Defendants, in my view it would, be wrong in law to sever/isolate the Plaintiffs'
claim for breach of the Agreements and have the claim against some
defendants stayed pending arbitration, whilst the same claim continues against
the other defendants in this Court. The stay of the entire claim against D2, D3
and the other applicants pending arbitration would invite the possibility of
conflicting or inconsistent findings and/or decisions being made by the Court
and the arbitrator which is manifestly not desirable.
[23] Granting the stay sought will in my respectful view serve only to
complicate and delay the just, expeditious and economical disposal of this
action.
[24] In the circumstances, as the dispute involves parties and a non-parties
to the arbitration agreements, in my judgment, it is just that the dispute be dealt
with by this Court to avoid split litigation as explained by the Federal Court in
Jaya Sudhir in the following words:
‘[59] We shall next focus on the argument with respect to multiplicity of proceedings
and risk of inconsistent findings. The Court of Appeal held that the issue of
multiplicity of proceedings and possibility of inconsistent findings as expounded in
Bina Jati, supra, are no longer material factors to oust the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator under Act 646 in view of the decision in J. Jarvis. The High Court in J.
Jarvis, we apprehend, said that all of those observations relating to concurrent
proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings were true but it was an inevitable
consequence of the mandatory language of s. 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 that
from time to time there would be concurrent proceedings in court and before an
arbitrator. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the instant action, in our view,
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
effectively sets to naught the principles laid down by the same court in the case of
Bina Jati, supra and as affirmed by the Federal Court in the case of Chase Perdana
Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677 that
where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court and that disputes between
parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another
part in court. In short, what the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in both
cases are trying to emphasise is that the risks inherent in split litigation ought
to be avoided.”
[25] In Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71,
the Court of Appeal on the same issue said this:
‘Where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court. In The 'Eastern Saga'; Oxford
Shipping Co Ltd v Nippon Yusen Kaisha [1984] 3 All ER 835, the court held: Since
arbitration is a private procedure it is an implied term of an arbitration agreement
that strangers to the agreement are excluded from the hearing and conduct of an
arbitration under the agreement. In the absence of the consent of all parties an
arbitrator has no power to order that a dispute referred to arbitration under the
agreement be heard or determined with another dispute involving a stranger which
has been referred to arbitration under a different agreement, even though the two
disputes are closely related and a consolidated hearing would be convenient' (see
also Bauer (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Daewoo Corporation [1999] 4 MLJ 545 at p 561 (CA);
The 'Vimeira'; Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 66 at p
75). Moreover, disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is
dealt with by arbitration and another part in court’.
[26] As alluded to at paragraph 23 of this judgment, Bina Jati was affirmed
by the Federal Court in Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. &
Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677. Bina Jati and Jaya Sudhir on the
principle that there should not be SPLIT LITIGATION was followed by the Court
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
of Appeal recently in IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU
2644 in a judgment delivered by Nordin Hassan JCA (now FCJ).
[27] That is not all. I am of the considered view that if the applicants are
allowed to have their way, there would be multiplicity of proceedings which itself
is an abuse of court process. Case laws on this is legion. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court can exercise the power under its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by refusing a stay and for the suit to be
dealt with by this Court.
[28] I must declare that I have no quarrel with the Press Metal principles
cited by the applicants’ respective counsel. However, Press Metal was decided
before Jaya Sudhir. In addition, Press Metal did not consider the issue of non-
parties to the arbitration agreement.
[29] I note the respective applicants’ counsel have cited in support of their
arguments, Paragraph 17 of the case of Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd &
Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394 where the Court of Appeal held:
“The action as between Inokom, Quasar and the alleged co-conspirators (Tan
Chong & TC Euro, who were not parties to the arbitration clause) can be stayed
pending the outcome of the arbitration.”
[30] However, it is clear to me paragraph [17] of the judgment in Inokom
was rendered per incuriam as there was already the Federal Court decision of
Chase Perdana to be given its due weight. Additionally, Inokom was decided
almost a decade before Jaya Sudhir was determined by the Federal Court.
[31] D2 and D3 have also cited in support of their arguments my decision
in Lineclear Motion Pictures Sdn Bhd V Measat Broadcast Network Systems
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 1826; [2021] 1 LNS 1506. I must at once make clear that
Lineclear was decided by me without considering Jaya Sudhir as unfortunately,
neither the appellant nor the respondent’s counsel had drawn my attention to
the case. The Federal Court decisions of Jaya Sudhir and Chase Perdana Bhd
on no split litigation are binding on this Court.
[32] As for D2’ posit that it has obtained a stay in a few other suits, I will
state that the facts and the arguments raised in those suits are not before this
Court. With all due respect, each case must necessarily be decided on its own
peculiar facts. Further, one was a subordinate court decision whilst the others,
being decisions of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, although deserving the
respect and deference that is due to them, are not binding on this Court. I
decline to follow those decisions.
[33] For reasons given, to avoid split litigation and multiplicity of
proceedings, Enc 18,21,24,26 and 28 are each dismissed with costs of
RM3,000 subject to allocator.
Dated this 5th day of November 2023
- signed -
………………………..
Liza Chan Sow Keng
Judge
High Court of Malaya at
Kuala Lumpur
COUNSEL:
For the Plaintiffs : Shaun Paulian (together with him,
Melvin Ng, Rahul Farhan and Loh Shi
Ying)
Messrs David & Paulian
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
For the 2nd and 3rd Defendants : K F Ee (together with him, Marcus
Chong)
Messrs K.F. Ee & Co.
For the 9th, 15th and 23rd Defendants : Arun Ganesh Boopalan
Messrs Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim
CASES CITED:
Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417
Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1;
[2019] 7 CLJ 395
Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU
993
Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71
Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313;
[2007] 7 MLJ 677
IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU 2644
Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394
STATUTE/LEGISLATION REFERRED:
Section 9, 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 30,295 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) KHONG YOON LOONG 2. ) AGNES LEE LAI HENG 3. ) NG CHEE SIEW 4. ) IRENE HARTANTO @ TAN HIAN LIE 5. ) CHAN YIK LONG 6. ) HO YEE KARM 7. ) LIU KWAI LIEN 8. ) KONG CHOONG HON 9. ) LIM KA TIN 10. ) JAMAL MOHAMED PADIYATH11. ) FOONG KIM SEONG1 2. ) KONG KOK SANG1 3. ) KHOR SAW PING1 4. ) KIEW LAI WAH1 5. ) WONG CHEE KEONG1 6. ) LIM MING NEE1 7. ) BONG YUE ZHING1 8. ) TAY THEAN SEONG1 9. ) CHANDRAN T GNANAPPAH20. ) ROHINY S AMBALAVANAR21. ) MAGDALENE TAN MAY LING2 2. ) KEK KEAN AUN2 3. ) CHOONG MEI LI2 4. ) WONG SIEW HONG2 5. ) LIM SAU WEI2 6. ) WONG MAN YEN2 7. ) WONG KIAM TEE2 8. ) LO SHOONG LAI2 9. ) CHOW AI HENG30. ) CHEONG SIEW KIN31. ) WONG YOON LIN3 2. ) WONG YOON YING3 3. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM3 4. ) NOR ANITA BINTI ABU TALIB3 5. ) CHU CHI SING3 6. ) LIOW SIN MOI3 7. ) OOI CHENG KEAT3 8. ) LOO AH BOR3 9. ) LEE MAY FONG40. ) TUEN FOO FAT41. ) WONG BEE MI4 2. ) KANG GET NEE4 3. ) DOMINIC ANANTHARAJ PETER4 4. ) SUBRAMANIAM NACHIMUTHU4 5. ) JELITHA RAMACHANDERAM4 6. ) NG TEIK POH4 7. ) NG GUAT CHU4 8. ) NIK ISMAIL BIN NIK MOHAMED4 9. ) SATHY RAMAKRISHNAN50. ) WONG WAI KAY51. ) LOH YEN LEE5 2. ) WONG SAI YING5 3. ) LEE CHIOU YUN5 4. ) ALISA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 5. ) ALINA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 6. ) LEE HWAI EN5 7. ) EMILIA LIM LEE KHIM5 8. ) LING KEH PING5 9. ) LIM BEE KHIN60. ) YEAP JING YEW61. ) ANDREW NG LOONG ERN6 2. ) GOH SHU YEEN6 3. ) NG TEONG BENG6 4. ) LEE BEE LENG6 5. ) TING PEIK WAN6 6. ) LEONG SOUT WAY6 7. ) LEONG MEE WAH Wakil Peribadi LEONG AH KIM6 8. ) LU HANN CHYANG6 9. ) JAIARAJO A/L LETCHUMANAN70. ) MARIAYEE A/P SINNAPPAN71. ) WONG PHUI PING7 2. ) LOH TECK ANN7 3. ) LIONG SIEW ENG7 4. ) CHEE CHUA KIAN BENG7 5. ) NUR MASDYIANA LEE BINTI ABDULLAH7 6. ) NG JU MEI7 7. ) CHIA PENG KHEONG7 8. ) NG LAI PENG7 9. ) GOH SIEW YING80. ) LEE CHEN LIM81. ) HOO SIEW KUN8 2. ) YIP KAH KUEN8 3. ) TAN LEE KIAK8 4. ) TEE CHING PAU8 5. ) WONG KOOI CHIN8 6. ) LAI JOON FOON8 7. ) SOH AH KHOOI8 8. ) ONG ENG JIN8 9. ) TAI LOO MEE90. ) LIM BEE CHIN91. ) TAN CHAI WEI9 2. ) CHAN KOW BOON9 3. ) THAM SIOW KUEEN9 4. ) CHAN LOY SHENG9 5. ) CHAN SHU HUA9 6. ) BRIAN YAP MING U9 7. ) NG HOON FAI9 8. ) NG LAY FANG9 9. ) CHOK YAM FUNG100. ) VIJAYAN A/L GOPINATHAN101. ) ONG ENG KHONG10 2. ) OH ENG LIM10 3. ) CHOY SIEW KEK10 4. ) WONG KAH MENG10 5. ) TAN LAI FU10 6. ) TOH WENG TUCK10 7. ) KAM KOOI HUA10 8. ) ZULKORNAIN AHMAD10 9. ) TOK YEE PING1 10. ) TIONG LEE EE111. ) NG CHEW HAR11 2. ) AW PHEI SZE11 3. ) PANG JOON SIONG11 4. ) CHEW LEE LEE11 5. ) YOONG KOW @YONG CHIN CHOON11 6. ) TEE CHING HUAT11 7. ) ARNE STAURSETH11 8. ) TEE AH SIM11 9. ) TEE KAU MOI @ TEE LEE HOON120. ) LIM HOCK CHUAN121. ) TOH SWEE TING12 2. ) MOHD KAMAL ARIFIN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN12 3. ) NOR AZILAH AINI BINTI NOOR12 4. ) KOO SIONG KUAN12 5. ) WONG CHOI YING12 6. ) WONG KOK WAI12 7. ) MAK FOOI CHOOI12 8. ) TEE HORNG YU12 9. ) TEE HORNG SHENG130. ) TEE SHI YUN131. ) TEO KING LOONG13 2. ) HIEW SIEW HEONG13 3. ) CHEAH AUN HENG13 4. ) CHEE PEE YANG13 5. ) CHEAH SOON HENG13 6. ) KHONG SHU TSUI13 7. ) TAN TIONG TIN13 8. ) CHUA SIEW LOON13 9. ) PHANG PAO CHUN140. ) RADHA KRISHNAN A/L RAMASAMY141. ) FOO HAN KEONG14 2. ) KOH POH HOON14 3. ) FOO XIANG JIE14 4. ) HO TAT HENG14 5. ) HEW EJIN14 6. ) TAN CHEE CHUNG14 7. ) LEE MEE FOONG14 8. ) ROSELINGE KHOO KWAI LING14 9. ) MAN KEIN SING @ MUN KEIN SING150. ) GOH SOH KIOW151. ) KIEW POH FONG15 2. ) CHUAH GAIK YEON15 3. ) AROKIAMARY A/P PARAMCHOTTI15 4. ) ROSNA BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN15 5. ) R SIVA NATHAN A/L RENGIAH15 6. ) LIM LEE SZE15 7. ) KHOR SAW YEE15 8. ) ISMADI BIN ISMAIL15 9. ) TERENCE CHONG CHOONG DAT160. ) HELLEN RITA JOSEPH161. ) HNG HUEY FEN16 2. ) NAVASURIYA A/P RADHA KRSIHNAN DEFENDAN 1. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD 2. ) AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD 4. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD 6. ) APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD 7. ) FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD 8. ) BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON 9. ) STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS 10. ) MARK RICHARD LAMB11. ) CHOO CHIN THYE1 2. ) LIM SIEW PENG1 3. ) NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS1 4. ) CHONG WAI CHEE1 5. ) KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY1 6. ) NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG1 7. ) TAN SEE SANG1 8. ) LIM SEE FWANG1 9. ) CHONG WEI KIONG20. ) SURAYA BINTI ALI21. ) POH WEE HON2 2. ) SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI2 3. ) TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU JAAFAR YAM2 4. ) CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD2 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED | Civil Procedure - Stay of Proceedings pending Arbitration —Dispute involving numerous third parties who are not party to arbitration agreement — disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another part in court — Whether split litigation should be avoided — legitimate concern of inconsistent decisions — multiplicity of proceedings — Whether dispute ought to be referred to arbitration | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Liza Chan Sow Keng | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a7041d7b-1220-4055-abab-e936f82f5c33&Inline=true |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT No: WA-22NCC-627-11/2022
BETWEEN
KHONG YOON LOONG & 161 OTHERS … PLAINTIFFS
AND
1. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 200923801D]
2. AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA
BERHAD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201041978 (908988-U)]
3. APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201501022437 (1147766-P)]
4. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
CO. LTD
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105555134940]
5. ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 201106988E]
6. APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201011055 (984575-T)]
7. FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201401032121 (1108205-D)]
8. BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 503255583]
9. STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 536667844]
10. MARK RICHARD LAMB
[SINGAPORE NRIC NO.: G5742846K]
15/11/2023 09:33:18
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 Kand. 221
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
11. CHOO CHIN THYE
[NRIC NO.: 620712-10-5159]
12. LIM SIEW PENG
[NRIC NO.: 761106-01-5048]
13. NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS
[NRIC NO.: 710917-10-5135]
14. CHONG WAI CHEE
[NRIC NO.: 790405-14-5574]
15. KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY
[NRIC NO.: 620709-08-5011]
16. NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG
[NRIC NO.: 740510-01-5848]
17. TAN SEE SANG
[NRIC NO.: 500717-06-5065]
18. LIM SEE FWANG
[NRIC NO.: 501020-10-5703]
19. CHONG WEI KIONG
[NRIC NO.: 800520-01-5165]
20. SURAYA BINTI ALI
[NRIC NO.: 780112-14-6312]
21. POH WEE HON
[NRIC NO.: 790911-04-5111]
22. SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI
[NRIC NO.: 780521-01-6041]
23. TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU
JA’AFAR YAM
[NRIC NO.: 470308-05-5259]
24. CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 199501031068 (360274-T)]
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
25. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS
COMPANY LIMITED
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105554054616]
... DEFENDANTS
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There were 9 applications before the Court for stay of proceedings
pending arbitration pursuant to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2005 (“AA
2005”):
1.1 Enclosure (“Enc.”) 18: filed by 2nd Defendant (D2);
1.2 Enc.21: filed by 3rd Defendant (D3)
1.3 Enc. 24: filed by 9th Defendant (D9)
1.4 Enc.26: filed by 23rd Defendant (D23)
1.5 Enc.28: filed by 15th Defendant (D15)
1.6 Enc.37: filed by 5th, 10th and 16th Defendants (D5, D10 and D16)
1.7 Enc.50: filed by 13th Defendant (D13)
1.8 Enc.81: filed by 14th Defendant (D14); and
1.9 Enc.131: filed by 21st Defendant (D21)
[2] On 19.9.2023, I had dismissed all the applications with costs, and
given broad grounds as to why. Out of the 11 applicants who applied for a stay,
5 applicants, D2, D3 D9, D15 and D23 being dissatisfied with my decision, has
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
filed their respective appeals to the Court of Appeal. This judgment contains the
reasons for my decision. As the matters were related and all heard on the same
day, it is convenient to deal with all 5 applications made respectively by D2, D3
D9, D15 and D23 in one judgment.
Background
[3] The background facts are culled from the pleadings, cause papers and
submissions of the parties.
[4] At all material times:
4.1 the 162 Plaintiffs, are members of the public who have
respectively purchased an investment scheme for Agarwood
trees and have entered into various written agreements with the
1st to 4th Defendants (the “Contracting Defendants);
4.2 D1 is a foreign company incorporated in and having its place of
business in Singapore;
4.3 D2 and D3 are Malaysian companies having their place of
business in Malaysia;
4.4 D4 is a foreign company registered in and has its place of
business in Thailand;
4.5 The Contracting Defendants were managed by D8 and D9 who
are both British nationals. D8 whom the Plaintiffs allege to be the
“Ultimate Controller” of the APC Group, has his place of
residence in Thailand;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
4.6 The D2, D5 to D7 (“Recipients”), were appointed by the
Contracting Defendants to receive the Investment Sums from the
Plaintiffs on behalf of the Contracting Defendants;
4.7 D8 to D24 (collectively the “Controllers”), are alleged by the
Plaintiffs to be:
(a) Directors (including shadow directors), officers and/or
controllers of the Contracting Defendants and/or Recipients;
and/or
(b) Organisers, promotors, orchestrators, designers and/or
facilitators of the Investment Scheme.
4.8 D25 is the ultimate holding company of the Contracting
Defendants.
[5] The Plaintiffs claim amongst others that:
5.1 In reliance on the Defendants’ representations, they had
cumulatively invested a sum of RM 24,322,763.00 in the
Agarwood scheme;
5.2 Under the Agreements, the Plaintiffs were allegedly promised
‘Guaranteed’ or ‘Investment’ returns;
5.3 The Defendants had intentionally designed the Agarwood
scheme to amongst others, contravene statutory provisions and
ensure that the Plaintiffs’ returns were channelled beyond their
reach;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
5.4 As at the date of commencement of this action, they have not
received any of their ‘Investment Returns;
5.5 The Plaintiffs discovered inter alia:
(a) that the Investment Schemes sold to the Plaintiffs were in
fact unregistered and not approved by CCM;
(b) D6 has been listed on Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM)
Financial Consumer Alert List since in or around 28.03.2013.
BNM regards D6 as:
(i) an unlicensed entity; or
(ii) an entity which offers an unlicensed scheme in
Malaysia;
5.6 The Plaintiffs are victims of fraud, breach of trust, conspiracy by
unlawful means and unjust enrichment.
[6] The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the following relief:
6.1 A declaration that the Agreements are void ab initio as a result of
the Defendants’ various breaches of statutory and legal
provisions;
6.2 A declaration that the Agreements are voidable on grounds of
fraud and/or misrepresentation;
6.3 A declaration that there has been a total failure of consideration
in so far as the Agreements are concerned; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
6.4 An Order that the Defendants jointly and severally make
restitution to the Plaintiffs for the sum of RM 24,322,763.00.
D2 and D3’s case for a stay pending arbitration.
[7] D2’s stay application cited the following reasons:
7.1 D2 has entered into a Sublease Agreement where clause 14
contains an arbitration agreement and Sale & Purchase
Agreement where clause 15 contains the arbitration agreement
(collectively the “D2 Agreements”) with the Plaintiffs which are
valid and binding whereby the parties have agreed that any
dispute or difference between the parties arising out of or in
connection to the D2 Agreements shall be referred to and finally
resolved by arbitration by the Asian International Arbitration
Centre located at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (“AIAC”) in
accordance with the Rules of the AIAC; the misnomer in
describing the AIAC as, “Malaysia International Arbitration
Centre” is not a proper ground for finding that the arbitration
agreements incapable of being performed. It does not render the
arbitration clauses null and void, inoperative or incapable of
being performed. The main intention of the arbitration clauses is
for disputes to be determined by arbitration in Malaysia which is
none other then the Asian International Arbitration Centre
(“AIAC”); the Court has no discretion, bound by stare decisis and
must stay the action as s. 10 of AA 2005 is couched in mandatory
terms, citing Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd
[2016] 5 MLJ 417 FC in support;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
7.2 The dispute with the Plaintiffs concern matters within the scope
of the arbitration clauses; even if there are third parties who are
not involved in the arbitration agreement ought not to stop the
Court from ordering a stay pending the outcome of the arbitration;
7.3 D2 who was also named in other suits has successfully obtained
a stay of proceedings to refer the disputes to arbitration:
(i) WA-22NCvC-848-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court
on 24/9/2021;
(ii) WA-B52NCVC-485-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022;
(iii) WA-A52NCVC-1009-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022.
[8] D3’s basis for a stay pending arbitration is that the Managing Agent
Agreement entered into with the Plaintiffs contains in clause 48 a valid and
binding arbitration agreement whereby the parties have agreed that any
disputes or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection to the
Managing Agent Agreement shall be referred to and finally resolved by
arbitration by the AIAC in accordance with the Rules of the AIAC.
[9] D2 however candidly admitted that:
(i) “There are difficulties in locating all the D2 Agreements entered
specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the sheer number of
contracts.”;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(ii) “There are possibilities that a certain number of Plaintiffs may not
have entered any agreements with the 2nd Defendant.”;
whilst D3 admits to being able to “extract some of the Managing Agent
Agreements entered with some of the Plaintiffs ranging from 20/9/2016
– 10/5/2018” and “There are difficulties in locating all the Managing
Agent Agreements entered specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the
sheer number of contracts.”
D9, D15 and D23‘s basis for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration
[10] D9, D15 and D23 took a broad-brush approach that the D2 agreements
and Managing Agent Agreements contain valid and binding arbitration
agreements with the Plaintiffs. D9 and D15 are not parties to any of the D2
agreements nor party to any Managing Agent Agreement although D23 did sign
a Lease Agreement dated 18.3.2016 and a Managing Agent agreement of same
date with D3, at enc 27 pg. 75 and 86 respectively. The agreements exhibited
by D9, D15 and D23 DO NOT show any of the Plaintiffs were parties to them.
Plaintiffs’ case in opposing Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[11] The Plaintiffs in essence contend that:
11.1 each applicant failed to discharge the burden that there exists a
valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between them and each
of the Plaintiff pursuant to ss. 9 & 10 of AA 2005;
11.2 even if there exists any arbitration agreements between the
Plaintiffs and the 1st to 4th Defendants (which is denied), D5 to
D25 are third parties to such arbitration agreements and do not
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
have any binding arbitration agreements with the Plaintiffs within
the meaning of ss 9 and 10 of AA 2005; non-parties to an
arbitration agreement may only ventilate claims through civil
proceedings in Court - Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical
Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395.
11.3 Where a dispute involves a party and non-party to the arbitration
agreement (in this case, D5 to D25), and the subject matter of
the claims overlap, it is best that the dispute be dealt with by the
court – Jaya Sudhir at [59].
Findings and decision on Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[12] The burden is on the applicants to show there is a valid arbitration
agreement.
[13] The applicants have relied on ss. 9 and 10 AA 2005 which state:
“9 Definition and form of arbitration agreement
(1) In this Act, ‘arbitration agreement’ means an agreement by the parties to
submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or
not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in an
agreement or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing —
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(a) if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration
agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other
means; or
(b) if it is contained in an exchange of statement of claim and defence in
which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied
by the other.
(4A) The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing is met by any
electronic communication that the parties make by means of data message if
the information contained therein is accessible so as to be useable for
subsequent reference.
(5) A reference in an agreement to a document containing an arbitration clause
shall constitute an arbitration agreement, provided that the agreement is in
writing and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the agreement.
(6) For the purpose of this section, ‘data message’ means information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or similar
means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy.
s 10 Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court
(1) A court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is
the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, where a party makes an application
before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer
the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed.
(2) The court, in granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to subsection (1), may
impose any conditions as it deems fit.
(2A) Where admiralty proceedings are stayed pursuant to subsection (1), the court
granting the stay may, if in those proceedings property has been arrested or bail
or other security has been given to prevent or obtain release from arrest—
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(a) order that the property arrested be retained as security for the satisfaction
of any award given in the arbitration in respect of that dispute; or
(b) order that the stay of those proceedings be conditional on the provision of
equivalent security for the satisfaction of any such award.
(2B) Subject to any rules of court and to any necessary modifications, the same
law and practice shall apply in relation to property retained in pursuance of an order
under subsection (2A) as would apply if it were held for the purposes of
proceedings in the court making the order.
(2C) For the purpose of this section, admiralty proceedings refer to admiralty
proceedings under Order 70 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and proceedings
commenced pursuant to paragraph 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
(3) Where the proceedings referred to in subsection (1) have been brought, arbitral
proceedings may be commenced or continued, and an award may be made, while
the issue is pending before the court.
(4) This section shall also apply in respect of an international arbitration, where the
seat of arbitration is not in Malaysia.”
[14] I begin with D2 and D3’s application. The points discussed are
applicable to the other applicants in so far as they are common issues.
[15] In dealing with the applications, I have considered the case of Protasco
Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU 993,
Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (as she then was) at [90] held:
"… the court is bound to strike a balance between the following considerations:
(a) The plaintiff’s right to choose whom it wants to sue and where;
(b) The court’s desire to prevent a plaintiff from circumventing the operation of
an arbitration clause; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(c) The court’s inherent power to manage its processes to prevent an abuse
of process and ensure the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.
(d) The balance that is achieved should be just in all the circumstances of the
case."
[16] Firstly, on the materials adduced, it can be readily appreciated that D2,
D3 are not able to show that each Plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with
them at the hearing and this was almost 9 months after the suit was filed except
for Sublease Agreements and Sale & Purchase Agreements signed between
P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P17 and P152. D9, D15 and D23 were also
not able to adduce evidence to show each Plaintiff had an arbitration agreement
with each of them. The Plaintiffs in my respectful view are not obliged to assist
the applicants to discharge their burden.
[17] Secondly, the pivotal issue in this case is that D5 to D25 in the Plaintiffs’
suit are non parties to the arbitration agreements. Thus, the arbitration
agreements as well as s.10 AA2005 cannot apply to them.
[18] In this regard, in Protasco’s case (supra), where Tey Por Yee and one
other were not parties to the arbitration agreement, Nallini Pathmanathan JCA
(as she then was) decided as follows:
[6] The crux of these appeals turns on the law governing a stay of proceedings in
relation to non-parties to an arbitration agreement. In the instant case, only
Protasco and PT ASU are bound by the arbitration agreement. The other two
defendants are not so bound. They fall outside the scope of the agreement.
… “
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[19] The decision in Protasco was affirmed by the Federal Court in Jaya
Sudhir (supra):
[74] In its decision, the Court of Appeal in Protasco, held that s 10 of the AA was
inapplicable and did not come into play as the second and third defendants were
non-parties to the arbitration agreement. The court’s power to grant a stay is
derived from its inherent power to stay court proceedings pending arbitration in the
interests of the justice of the case. The decision in Protasco is instructive and the
finding it made that s 10 of the AA is inapplicable to the third parties accords well
with our decision in this appeal.
…
[91] The language of AA in particular ss 8 and 10 is clear and unambiguous. It
does not apply to the third party such as the appellant. … When AA does not
apply to a non-party to arbitral proceedings, a logical proposition that
follows is that it would be manifestly wrong to extend its policy to the said
non-party. … (Emphasis added.)
[20] Following the decisions in Protasco and Jaya Sudhir, D5 to D25
including D2 and D3 cannot rely on s. 10 AA 2005. In any case, as stated earlier,
D2 and D3, D9, D15 and D23 have not discharged the burden to show each of
the 162 Plaintiffs had arbitration agreements with them.
[21] Of legitimate concern to this Court is that the nature of the Plaintiffs
claim is such that it involves similar or substantially similar underlying facts and
issues vis-à-vis the applicants and the other Defendants, so much so that it
would not be possible to segregate or isolate the Plaintiffs’ claim against the
applicants from the Plaintiffs’ claim against the others. Whilst it would not be
possible to compel non parties to the arbitration agreements to take part in
arbitration proceedings involving a breach of the various lease, sale and
purchase and management agreements, it would however be possible for this
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Court to exercise its jurisdiction over all the Defendants in relation to the
Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
[22] In any event, given the nature of the Plaintiffs' claim against the
Defendants, in my view it would, be wrong in law to sever/isolate the Plaintiffs'
claim for breach of the Agreements and have the claim against some
defendants stayed pending arbitration, whilst the same claim continues against
the other defendants in this Court. The stay of the entire claim against D2, D3
and the other applicants pending arbitration would invite the possibility of
conflicting or inconsistent findings and/or decisions being made by the Court
and the arbitrator which is manifestly not desirable.
[23] Granting the stay sought will in my respectful view serve only to
complicate and delay the just, expeditious and economical disposal of this
action.
[24] In the circumstances, as the dispute involves parties and a non-parties
to the arbitration agreements, in my judgment, it is just that the dispute be dealt
with by this Court to avoid split litigation as explained by the Federal Court in
Jaya Sudhir in the following words:
‘[59] We shall next focus on the argument with respect to multiplicity of proceedings
and risk of inconsistent findings. The Court of Appeal held that the issue of
multiplicity of proceedings and possibility of inconsistent findings as expounded in
Bina Jati, supra, are no longer material factors to oust the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator under Act 646 in view of the decision in J. Jarvis. The High Court in J.
Jarvis, we apprehend, said that all of those observations relating to concurrent
proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings were true but it was an inevitable
consequence of the mandatory language of s. 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 that
from time to time there would be concurrent proceedings in court and before an
arbitrator. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the instant action, in our view,
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
effectively sets to naught the principles laid down by the same court in the case of
Bina Jati, supra and as affirmed by the Federal Court in the case of Chase Perdana
Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677 that
where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court and that disputes between
parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another
part in court. In short, what the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in both
cases are trying to emphasise is that the risks inherent in split litigation ought
to be avoided.”
[25] In Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71,
the Court of Appeal on the same issue said this:
‘Where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court. In The 'Eastern Saga'; Oxford
Shipping Co Ltd v Nippon Yusen Kaisha [1984] 3 All ER 835, the court held: Since
arbitration is a private procedure it is an implied term of an arbitration agreement
that strangers to the agreement are excluded from the hearing and conduct of an
arbitration under the agreement. In the absence of the consent of all parties an
arbitrator has no power to order that a dispute referred to arbitration under the
agreement be heard or determined with another dispute involving a stranger which
has been referred to arbitration under a different agreement, even though the two
disputes are closely related and a consolidated hearing would be convenient' (see
also Bauer (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Daewoo Corporation [1999] 4 MLJ 545 at p 561 (CA);
The 'Vimeira'; Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 66 at p
75). Moreover, disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is
dealt with by arbitration and another part in court’.
[26] As alluded to at paragraph 23 of this judgment, Bina Jati was affirmed
by the Federal Court in Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. &
Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677. Bina Jati and Jaya Sudhir on the
principle that there should not be SPLIT LITIGATION was followed by the Court
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
of Appeal recently in IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU
2644 in a judgment delivered by Nordin Hassan JCA (now FCJ).
[27] That is not all. I am of the considered view that if the applicants are
allowed to have their way, there would be multiplicity of proceedings which itself
is an abuse of court process. Case laws on this is legion. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court can exercise the power under its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by refusing a stay and for the suit to be
dealt with by this Court.
[28] I must declare that I have no quarrel with the Press Metal principles
cited by the applicants’ respective counsel. However, Press Metal was decided
before Jaya Sudhir. In addition, Press Metal did not consider the issue of non-
parties to the arbitration agreement.
[29] I note the respective applicants’ counsel have cited in support of their
arguments, Paragraph 17 of the case of Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd &
Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394 where the Court of Appeal held:
“The action as between Inokom, Quasar and the alleged co-conspirators (Tan
Chong & TC Euro, who were not parties to the arbitration clause) can be stayed
pending the outcome of the arbitration.”
[30] However, it is clear to me paragraph [17] of the judgment in Inokom
was rendered per incuriam as there was already the Federal Court decision of
Chase Perdana to be given its due weight. Additionally, Inokom was decided
almost a decade before Jaya Sudhir was determined by the Federal Court.
[31] D2 and D3 have also cited in support of their arguments my decision
in Lineclear Motion Pictures Sdn Bhd V Measat Broadcast Network Systems
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 1826; [2021] 1 LNS 1506. I must at once make clear that
Lineclear was decided by me without considering Jaya Sudhir as unfortunately,
neither the appellant nor the respondent’s counsel had drawn my attention to
the case. The Federal Court decisions of Jaya Sudhir and Chase Perdana Bhd
on no split litigation are binding on this Court.
[32] As for D2’ posit that it has obtained a stay in a few other suits, I will
state that the facts and the arguments raised in those suits are not before this
Court. With all due respect, each case must necessarily be decided on its own
peculiar facts. Further, one was a subordinate court decision whilst the others,
being decisions of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, although deserving the
respect and deference that is due to them, are not binding on this Court. I
decline to follow those decisions.
[33] For reasons given, to avoid split litigation and multiplicity of
proceedings, Enc 18,21,24,26 and 28 are each dismissed with costs of
RM3,000 subject to allocator.
Dated this 5th day of November 2023
- signed -
………………………..
Liza Chan Sow Keng
Judge
High Court of Malaya at
Kuala Lumpur
COUNSEL:
For the Plaintiffs : Shaun Paulian (together with him,
Melvin Ng, Rahul Farhan and Loh Shi
Ying)
Messrs David & Paulian
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
For the 2nd and 3rd Defendants : K F Ee (together with him, Marcus
Chong)
Messrs K.F. Ee & Co.
For the 9th, 15th and 23rd Defendants : Arun Ganesh Boopalan
Messrs Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim
CASES CITED:
Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417
Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1;
[2019] 7 CLJ 395
Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU
993
Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71
Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313;
[2007] 7 MLJ 677
IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU 2644
Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394
STATUTE/LEGISLATION REFERRED:
Section 9, 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 30,295 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) KHONG YOON LOONG 2. ) AGNES LEE LAI HENG 3. ) NG CHEE SIEW 4. ) IRENE HARTANTO @ TAN HIAN LIE 5. ) CHAN YIK LONG 6. ) HO YEE KARM 7. ) LIU KWAI LIEN 8. ) KONG CHOONG HON 9. ) LIM KA TIN 10. ) JAMAL MOHAMED PADIYATH11. ) FOONG KIM SEONG1 2. ) KONG KOK SANG1 3. ) KHOR SAW PING1 4. ) KIEW LAI WAH1 5. ) WONG CHEE KEONG1 6. ) LIM MING NEE1 7. ) BONG YUE ZHING1 8. ) TAY THEAN SEONG1 9. ) CHANDRAN T GNANAPPAH20. ) ROHINY S AMBALAVANAR21. ) MAGDALENE TAN MAY LING2 2. ) KEK KEAN AUN2 3. ) CHOONG MEI LI2 4. ) WONG SIEW HONG2 5. ) LIM SAU WEI2 6. ) WONG MAN YEN2 7. ) WONG KIAM TEE2 8. ) LO SHOONG LAI2 9. ) CHOW AI HENG30. ) CHEONG SIEW KIN31. ) WONG YOON LIN3 2. ) WONG YOON YING3 3. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM3 4. ) NOR ANITA BINTI ABU TALIB3 5. ) CHU CHI SING3 6. ) LIOW SIN MOI3 7. ) OOI CHENG KEAT3 8. ) LOO AH BOR3 9. ) LEE MAY FONG40. ) TUEN FOO FAT41. ) WONG BEE MI4 2. ) KANG GET NEE4 3. ) DOMINIC ANANTHARAJ PETER4 4. ) SUBRAMANIAM NACHIMUTHU4 5. ) JELITHA RAMACHANDERAM4 6. ) NG TEIK POH4 7. ) NG GUAT CHU4 8. ) NIK ISMAIL BIN NIK MOHAMED4 9. ) SATHY RAMAKRISHNAN50. ) WONG WAI KAY51. ) LOH YEN LEE5 2. ) WONG SAI YING5 3. ) LEE CHIOU YUN5 4. ) ALISA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 5. ) ALINA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 6. ) LEE HWAI EN5 7. ) EMILIA LIM LEE KHIM5 8. ) LING KEH PING5 9. ) LIM BEE KHIN60. ) YEAP JING YEW61. ) ANDREW NG LOONG ERN6 2. ) GOH SHU YEEN6 3. ) NG TEONG BENG6 4. ) LEE BEE LENG6 5. ) TING PEIK WAN6 6. ) LEONG SOUT WAY6 7. ) LEONG MEE WAH Wakil Peribadi LEONG AH KIM6 8. ) LU HANN CHYANG6 9. ) JAIARAJO A/L LETCHUMANAN70. ) MARIAYEE A/P SINNAPPAN71. ) WONG PHUI PING7 2. ) LOH TECK ANN7 3. ) LIONG SIEW ENG7 4. ) CHEE CHUA KIAN BENG7 5. ) NUR MASDYIANA LEE BINTI ABDULLAH7 6. ) NG JU MEI7 7. ) CHIA PENG KHEONG7 8. ) NG LAI PENG7 9. ) GOH SIEW YING80. ) LEE CHEN LIM81. ) HOO SIEW KUN8 2. ) YIP KAH KUEN8 3. ) TAN LEE KIAK8 4. ) TEE CHING PAU8 5. ) WONG KOOI CHIN8 6. ) LAI JOON FOON8 7. ) SOH AH KHOOI8 8. ) ONG ENG JIN8 9. ) TAI LOO MEE90. ) LIM BEE CHIN91. ) TAN CHAI WEI9 2. ) CHAN KOW BOON9 3. ) THAM SIOW KUEEN9 4. ) CHAN LOY SHENG9 5. ) CHAN SHU HUA9 6. ) BRIAN YAP MING U9 7. ) NG HOON FAI9 8. ) NG LAY FANG9 9. ) CHOK YAM FUNG100. ) VIJAYAN A/L GOPINATHAN101. ) ONG ENG KHONG10 2. ) OH ENG LIM10 3. ) CHOY SIEW KEK10 4. ) WONG KAH MENG10 5. ) TAN LAI FU10 6. ) TOH WENG TUCK10 7. ) KAM KOOI HUA10 8. ) ZULKORNAIN AHMAD10 9. ) TOK YEE PING1 10. ) TIONG LEE EE111. ) NG CHEW HAR11 2. ) AW PHEI SZE11 3. ) PANG JOON SIONG11 4. ) CHEW LEE LEE11 5. ) YOONG KOW @YONG CHIN CHOON11 6. ) TEE CHING HUAT11 7. ) ARNE STAURSETH11 8. ) TEE AH SIM11 9. ) TEE KAU MOI @ TEE LEE HOON120. ) LIM HOCK CHUAN121. ) TOH SWEE TING12 2. ) MOHD KAMAL ARIFIN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN12 3. ) NOR AZILAH AINI BINTI NOOR12 4. ) KOO SIONG KUAN12 5. ) WONG CHOI YING12 6. ) WONG KOK WAI12 7. ) MAK FOOI CHOOI12 8. ) TEE HORNG YU12 9. ) TEE HORNG SHENG130. ) TEE SHI YUN131. ) TEO KING LOONG13 2. ) HIEW SIEW HEONG13 3. ) CHEAH AUN HENG13 4. ) CHEE PEE YANG13 5. ) CHEAH SOON HENG13 6. ) KHONG SHU TSUI13 7. ) TAN TIONG TIN13 8. ) CHUA SIEW LOON13 9. ) PHANG PAO CHUN140. ) RADHA KRISHNAN A/L RAMASAMY141. ) FOO HAN KEONG14 2. ) KOH POH HOON14 3. ) FOO XIANG JIE14 4. ) HO TAT HENG14 5. ) HEW EJIN14 6. ) TAN CHEE CHUNG14 7. ) LEE MEE FOONG14 8. ) ROSELINGE KHOO KWAI LING14 9. ) MAN KEIN SING @ MUN KEIN SING150. ) GOH SOH KIOW151. ) KIEW POH FONG15 2. ) CHUAH GAIK YEON15 3. ) AROKIAMARY A/P PARAMCHOTTI15 4. ) ROSNA BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN15 5. ) R SIVA NATHAN A/L RENGIAH15 6. ) LIM LEE SZE15 7. ) KHOR SAW YEE15 8. ) ISMADI BIN ISMAIL15 9. ) TERENCE CHONG CHOONG DAT160. ) HELLEN RITA JOSEPH161. ) HNG HUEY FEN16 2. ) NAVASURIYA A/P RADHA KRSIHNAN DEFENDAN 1. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD 2. ) AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD 4. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD 6. ) APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD 7. ) FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD 8. ) BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON 9. ) STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS 10. ) MARK RICHARD LAMB11. ) CHOO CHIN THYE1 2. ) LIM SIEW PENG1 3. ) NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS1 4. ) CHONG WAI CHEE1 5. ) KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY1 6. ) NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG1 7. ) TAN SEE SANG1 8. ) LIM SEE FWANG1 9. ) CHONG WEI KIONG20. ) SURAYA BINTI ALI21. ) POH WEE HON2 2. ) SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI2 3. ) TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU JAAFAR YAM2 4. ) CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD2 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED | Civil Procedure - Stay of Proceedings pending Arbitration —Dispute involving numerous third parties who are not party to arbitration agreement — disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another part in court — Whether split litigation should be avoided — legitimate concern of inconsistent decisions — multiplicity of proceedings — Whether dispute ought to be referred to arbitration | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Liza Chan Sow Keng | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a7041d7b-1220-4055-abab-e936f82f5c33&Inline=true |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT No: WA-22NCC-627-11/2022
BETWEEN
KHONG YOON LOONG & 161 OTHERS … PLAINTIFFS
AND
1. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 200923801D]
2. AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA
BERHAD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201041978 (908988-U)]
3. APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201501022437 (1147766-P)]
4. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
CO. LTD
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105555134940]
5. ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 201106988E]
6. APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201011055 (984575-T)]
7. FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201401032121 (1108205-D)]
8. BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 503255583]
9. STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 536667844]
10. MARK RICHARD LAMB
[SINGAPORE NRIC NO.: G5742846K]
15/11/2023 09:33:18
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 Kand. 221
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
11. CHOO CHIN THYE
[NRIC NO.: 620712-10-5159]
12. LIM SIEW PENG
[NRIC NO.: 761106-01-5048]
13. NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS
[NRIC NO.: 710917-10-5135]
14. CHONG WAI CHEE
[NRIC NO.: 790405-14-5574]
15. KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY
[NRIC NO.: 620709-08-5011]
16. NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG
[NRIC NO.: 740510-01-5848]
17. TAN SEE SANG
[NRIC NO.: 500717-06-5065]
18. LIM SEE FWANG
[NRIC NO.: 501020-10-5703]
19. CHONG WEI KIONG
[NRIC NO.: 800520-01-5165]
20. SURAYA BINTI ALI
[NRIC NO.: 780112-14-6312]
21. POH WEE HON
[NRIC NO.: 790911-04-5111]
22. SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI
[NRIC NO.: 780521-01-6041]
23. TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU
JA’AFAR YAM
[NRIC NO.: 470308-05-5259]
24. CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 199501031068 (360274-T)]
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
25. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS
COMPANY LIMITED
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105554054616]
... DEFENDANTS
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There were 9 applications before the Court for stay of proceedings
pending arbitration pursuant to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2005 (“AA
2005”):
1.1 Enclosure (“Enc.”) 18: filed by 2nd Defendant (D2);
1.2 Enc.21: filed by 3rd Defendant (D3)
1.3 Enc. 24: filed by 9th Defendant (D9)
1.4 Enc.26: filed by 23rd Defendant (D23)
1.5 Enc.28: filed by 15th Defendant (D15)
1.6 Enc.37: filed by 5th, 10th and 16th Defendants (D5, D10 and D16)
1.7 Enc.50: filed by 13th Defendant (D13)
1.8 Enc.81: filed by 14th Defendant (D14); and
1.9 Enc.131: filed by 21st Defendant (D21)
[2] On 19.9.2023, I had dismissed all the applications with costs, and
given broad grounds as to why. Out of the 11 applicants who applied for a stay,
5 applicants, D2, D3 D9, D15 and D23 being dissatisfied with my decision, has
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
filed their respective appeals to the Court of Appeal. This judgment contains the
reasons for my decision. As the matters were related and all heard on the same
day, it is convenient to deal with all 5 applications made respectively by D2, D3
D9, D15 and D23 in one judgment.
Background
[3] The background facts are culled from the pleadings, cause papers and
submissions of the parties.
[4] At all material times:
4.1 the 162 Plaintiffs, are members of the public who have
respectively purchased an investment scheme for Agarwood
trees and have entered into various written agreements with the
1st to 4th Defendants (the “Contracting Defendants);
4.2 D1 is a foreign company incorporated in and having its place of
business in Singapore;
4.3 D2 and D3 are Malaysian companies having their place of
business in Malaysia;
4.4 D4 is a foreign company registered in and has its place of
business in Thailand;
4.5 The Contracting Defendants were managed by D8 and D9 who
are both British nationals. D8 whom the Plaintiffs allege to be the
“Ultimate Controller” of the APC Group, has his place of
residence in Thailand;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
4.6 The D2, D5 to D7 (“Recipients”), were appointed by the
Contracting Defendants to receive the Investment Sums from the
Plaintiffs on behalf of the Contracting Defendants;
4.7 D8 to D24 (collectively the “Controllers”), are alleged by the
Plaintiffs to be:
(a) Directors (including shadow directors), officers and/or
controllers of the Contracting Defendants and/or Recipients;
and/or
(b) Organisers, promotors, orchestrators, designers and/or
facilitators of the Investment Scheme.
4.8 D25 is the ultimate holding company of the Contracting
Defendants.
[5] The Plaintiffs claim amongst others that:
5.1 In reliance on the Defendants’ representations, they had
cumulatively invested a sum of RM 24,322,763.00 in the
Agarwood scheme;
5.2 Under the Agreements, the Plaintiffs were allegedly promised
‘Guaranteed’ or ‘Investment’ returns;
5.3 The Defendants had intentionally designed the Agarwood
scheme to amongst others, contravene statutory provisions and
ensure that the Plaintiffs’ returns were channelled beyond their
reach;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
5.4 As at the date of commencement of this action, they have not
received any of their ‘Investment Returns;
5.5 The Plaintiffs discovered inter alia:
(a) that the Investment Schemes sold to the Plaintiffs were in
fact unregistered and not approved by CCM;
(b) D6 has been listed on Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM)
Financial Consumer Alert List since in or around 28.03.2013.
BNM regards D6 as:
(i) an unlicensed entity; or
(ii) an entity which offers an unlicensed scheme in
Malaysia;
5.6 The Plaintiffs are victims of fraud, breach of trust, conspiracy by
unlawful means and unjust enrichment.
[6] The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the following relief:
6.1 A declaration that the Agreements are void ab initio as a result of
the Defendants’ various breaches of statutory and legal
provisions;
6.2 A declaration that the Agreements are voidable on grounds of
fraud and/or misrepresentation;
6.3 A declaration that there has been a total failure of consideration
in so far as the Agreements are concerned; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
6.4 An Order that the Defendants jointly and severally make
restitution to the Plaintiffs for the sum of RM 24,322,763.00.
D2 and D3’s case for a stay pending arbitration.
[7] D2’s stay application cited the following reasons:
7.1 D2 has entered into a Sublease Agreement where clause 14
contains an arbitration agreement and Sale & Purchase
Agreement where clause 15 contains the arbitration agreement
(collectively the “D2 Agreements”) with the Plaintiffs which are
valid and binding whereby the parties have agreed that any
dispute or difference between the parties arising out of or in
connection to the D2 Agreements shall be referred to and finally
resolved by arbitration by the Asian International Arbitration
Centre located at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (“AIAC”) in
accordance with the Rules of the AIAC; the misnomer in
describing the AIAC as, “Malaysia International Arbitration
Centre” is not a proper ground for finding that the arbitration
agreements incapable of being performed. It does not render the
arbitration clauses null and void, inoperative or incapable of
being performed. The main intention of the arbitration clauses is
for disputes to be determined by arbitration in Malaysia which is
none other then the Asian International Arbitration Centre
(“AIAC”); the Court has no discretion, bound by stare decisis and
must stay the action as s. 10 of AA 2005 is couched in mandatory
terms, citing Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd
[2016] 5 MLJ 417 FC in support;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
7.2 The dispute with the Plaintiffs concern matters within the scope
of the arbitration clauses; even if there are third parties who are
not involved in the arbitration agreement ought not to stop the
Court from ordering a stay pending the outcome of the arbitration;
7.3 D2 who was also named in other suits has successfully obtained
a stay of proceedings to refer the disputes to arbitration:
(i) WA-22NCvC-848-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court
on 24/9/2021;
(ii) WA-B52NCVC-485-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022;
(iii) WA-A52NCVC-1009-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022.
[8] D3’s basis for a stay pending arbitration is that the Managing Agent
Agreement entered into with the Plaintiffs contains in clause 48 a valid and
binding arbitration agreement whereby the parties have agreed that any
disputes or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection to the
Managing Agent Agreement shall be referred to and finally resolved by
arbitration by the AIAC in accordance with the Rules of the AIAC.
[9] D2 however candidly admitted that:
(i) “There are difficulties in locating all the D2 Agreements entered
specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the sheer number of
contracts.”;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(ii) “There are possibilities that a certain number of Plaintiffs may not
have entered any agreements with the 2nd Defendant.”;
whilst D3 admits to being able to “extract some of the Managing Agent
Agreements entered with some of the Plaintiffs ranging from 20/9/2016
– 10/5/2018” and “There are difficulties in locating all the Managing
Agent Agreements entered specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the
sheer number of contracts.”
D9, D15 and D23‘s basis for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration
[10] D9, D15 and D23 took a broad-brush approach that the D2 agreements
and Managing Agent Agreements contain valid and binding arbitration
agreements with the Plaintiffs. D9 and D15 are not parties to any of the D2
agreements nor party to any Managing Agent Agreement although D23 did sign
a Lease Agreement dated 18.3.2016 and a Managing Agent agreement of same
date with D3, at enc 27 pg. 75 and 86 respectively. The agreements exhibited
by D9, D15 and D23 DO NOT show any of the Plaintiffs were parties to them.
Plaintiffs’ case in opposing Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[11] The Plaintiffs in essence contend that:
11.1 each applicant failed to discharge the burden that there exists a
valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between them and each
of the Plaintiff pursuant to ss. 9 & 10 of AA 2005;
11.2 even if there exists any arbitration agreements between the
Plaintiffs and the 1st to 4th Defendants (which is denied), D5 to
D25 are third parties to such arbitration agreements and do not
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
have any binding arbitration agreements with the Plaintiffs within
the meaning of ss 9 and 10 of AA 2005; non-parties to an
arbitration agreement may only ventilate claims through civil
proceedings in Court - Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical
Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395.
11.3 Where a dispute involves a party and non-party to the arbitration
agreement (in this case, D5 to D25), and the subject matter of
the claims overlap, it is best that the dispute be dealt with by the
court – Jaya Sudhir at [59].
Findings and decision on Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[12] The burden is on the applicants to show there is a valid arbitration
agreement.
[13] The applicants have relied on ss. 9 and 10 AA 2005 which state:
“9 Definition and form of arbitration agreement
(1) In this Act, ‘arbitration agreement’ means an agreement by the parties to
submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or
not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in an
agreement or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing —
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(a) if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration
agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other
means; or
(b) if it is contained in an exchange of statement of claim and defence in
which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied
by the other.
(4A) The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing is met by any
electronic communication that the parties make by means of data message if
the information contained therein is accessible so as to be useable for
subsequent reference.
(5) A reference in an agreement to a document containing an arbitration clause
shall constitute an arbitration agreement, provided that the agreement is in
writing and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the agreement.
(6) For the purpose of this section, ‘data message’ means information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or similar
means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy.
s 10 Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court
(1) A court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is
the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, where a party makes an application
before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer
the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed.
(2) The court, in granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to subsection (1), may
impose any conditions as it deems fit.
(2A) Where admiralty proceedings are stayed pursuant to subsection (1), the court
granting the stay may, if in those proceedings property has been arrested or bail
or other security has been given to prevent or obtain release from arrest—
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(a) order that the property arrested be retained as security for the satisfaction
of any award given in the arbitration in respect of that dispute; or
(b) order that the stay of those proceedings be conditional on the provision of
equivalent security for the satisfaction of any such award.
(2B) Subject to any rules of court and to any necessary modifications, the same
law and practice shall apply in relation to property retained in pursuance of an order
under subsection (2A) as would apply if it were held for the purposes of
proceedings in the court making the order.
(2C) For the purpose of this section, admiralty proceedings refer to admiralty
proceedings under Order 70 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and proceedings
commenced pursuant to paragraph 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
(3) Where the proceedings referred to in subsection (1) have been brought, arbitral
proceedings may be commenced or continued, and an award may be made, while
the issue is pending before the court.
(4) This section shall also apply in respect of an international arbitration, where the
seat of arbitration is not in Malaysia.”
[14] I begin with D2 and D3’s application. The points discussed are
applicable to the other applicants in so far as they are common issues.
[15] In dealing with the applications, I have considered the case of Protasco
Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU 993,
Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (as she then was) at [90] held:
"… the court is bound to strike a balance between the following considerations:
(a) The plaintiff’s right to choose whom it wants to sue and where;
(b) The court’s desire to prevent a plaintiff from circumventing the operation of
an arbitration clause; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(c) The court’s inherent power to manage its processes to prevent an abuse
of process and ensure the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.
(d) The balance that is achieved should be just in all the circumstances of the
case."
[16] Firstly, on the materials adduced, it can be readily appreciated that D2,
D3 are not able to show that each Plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with
them at the hearing and this was almost 9 months after the suit was filed except
for Sublease Agreements and Sale & Purchase Agreements signed between
P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P17 and P152. D9, D15 and D23 were also
not able to adduce evidence to show each Plaintiff had an arbitration agreement
with each of them. The Plaintiffs in my respectful view are not obliged to assist
the applicants to discharge their burden.
[17] Secondly, the pivotal issue in this case is that D5 to D25 in the Plaintiffs’
suit are non parties to the arbitration agreements. Thus, the arbitration
agreements as well as s.10 AA2005 cannot apply to them.
[18] In this regard, in Protasco’s case (supra), where Tey Por Yee and one
other were not parties to the arbitration agreement, Nallini Pathmanathan JCA
(as she then was) decided as follows:
[6] The crux of these appeals turns on the law governing a stay of proceedings in
relation to non-parties to an arbitration agreement. In the instant case, only
Protasco and PT ASU are bound by the arbitration agreement. The other two
defendants are not so bound. They fall outside the scope of the agreement.
… “
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[19] The decision in Protasco was affirmed by the Federal Court in Jaya
Sudhir (supra):
[74] In its decision, the Court of Appeal in Protasco, held that s 10 of the AA was
inapplicable and did not come into play as the second and third defendants were
non-parties to the arbitration agreement. The court’s power to grant a stay is
derived from its inherent power to stay court proceedings pending arbitration in the
interests of the justice of the case. The decision in Protasco is instructive and the
finding it made that s 10 of the AA is inapplicable to the third parties accords well
with our decision in this appeal.
…
[91] The language of AA in particular ss 8 and 10 is clear and unambiguous. It
does not apply to the third party such as the appellant. … When AA does not
apply to a non-party to arbitral proceedings, a logical proposition that
follows is that it would be manifestly wrong to extend its policy to the said
non-party. … (Emphasis added.)
[20] Following the decisions in Protasco and Jaya Sudhir, D5 to D25
including D2 and D3 cannot rely on s. 10 AA 2005. In any case, as stated earlier,
D2 and D3, D9, D15 and D23 have not discharged the burden to show each of
the 162 Plaintiffs had arbitration agreements with them.
[21] Of legitimate concern to this Court is that the nature of the Plaintiffs
claim is such that it involves similar or substantially similar underlying facts and
issues vis-à-vis the applicants and the other Defendants, so much so that it
would not be possible to segregate or isolate the Plaintiffs’ claim against the
applicants from the Plaintiffs’ claim against the others. Whilst it would not be
possible to compel non parties to the arbitration agreements to take part in
arbitration proceedings involving a breach of the various lease, sale and
purchase and management agreements, it would however be possible for this
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Court to exercise its jurisdiction over all the Defendants in relation to the
Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
[22] In any event, given the nature of the Plaintiffs' claim against the
Defendants, in my view it would, be wrong in law to sever/isolate the Plaintiffs'
claim for breach of the Agreements and have the claim against some
defendants stayed pending arbitration, whilst the same claim continues against
the other defendants in this Court. The stay of the entire claim against D2, D3
and the other applicants pending arbitration would invite the possibility of
conflicting or inconsistent findings and/or decisions being made by the Court
and the arbitrator which is manifestly not desirable.
[23] Granting the stay sought will in my respectful view serve only to
complicate and delay the just, expeditious and economical disposal of this
action.
[24] In the circumstances, as the dispute involves parties and a non-parties
to the arbitration agreements, in my judgment, it is just that the dispute be dealt
with by this Court to avoid split litigation as explained by the Federal Court in
Jaya Sudhir in the following words:
‘[59] We shall next focus on the argument with respect to multiplicity of proceedings
and risk of inconsistent findings. The Court of Appeal held that the issue of
multiplicity of proceedings and possibility of inconsistent findings as expounded in
Bina Jati, supra, are no longer material factors to oust the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator under Act 646 in view of the decision in J. Jarvis. The High Court in J.
Jarvis, we apprehend, said that all of those observations relating to concurrent
proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings were true but it was an inevitable
consequence of the mandatory language of s. 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 that
from time to time there would be concurrent proceedings in court and before an
arbitrator. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the instant action, in our view,
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
effectively sets to naught the principles laid down by the same court in the case of
Bina Jati, supra and as affirmed by the Federal Court in the case of Chase Perdana
Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677 that
where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court and that disputes between
parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another
part in court. In short, what the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in both
cases are trying to emphasise is that the risks inherent in split litigation ought
to be avoided.”
[25] In Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71,
the Court of Appeal on the same issue said this:
‘Where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court. In The 'Eastern Saga'; Oxford
Shipping Co Ltd v Nippon Yusen Kaisha [1984] 3 All ER 835, the court held: Since
arbitration is a private procedure it is an implied term of an arbitration agreement
that strangers to the agreement are excluded from the hearing and conduct of an
arbitration under the agreement. In the absence of the consent of all parties an
arbitrator has no power to order that a dispute referred to arbitration under the
agreement be heard or determined with another dispute involving a stranger which
has been referred to arbitration under a different agreement, even though the two
disputes are closely related and a consolidated hearing would be convenient' (see
also Bauer (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Daewoo Corporation [1999] 4 MLJ 545 at p 561 (CA);
The 'Vimeira'; Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 66 at p
75). Moreover, disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is
dealt with by arbitration and another part in court’.
[26] As alluded to at paragraph 23 of this judgment, Bina Jati was affirmed
by the Federal Court in Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. &
Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677. Bina Jati and Jaya Sudhir on the
principle that there should not be SPLIT LITIGATION was followed by the Court
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
of Appeal recently in IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU
2644 in a judgment delivered by Nordin Hassan JCA (now FCJ).
[27] That is not all. I am of the considered view that if the applicants are
allowed to have their way, there would be multiplicity of proceedings which itself
is an abuse of court process. Case laws on this is legion. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court can exercise the power under its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by refusing a stay and for the suit to be
dealt with by this Court.
[28] I must declare that I have no quarrel with the Press Metal principles
cited by the applicants’ respective counsel. However, Press Metal was decided
before Jaya Sudhir. In addition, Press Metal did not consider the issue of non-
parties to the arbitration agreement.
[29] I note the respective applicants’ counsel have cited in support of their
arguments, Paragraph 17 of the case of Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd &
Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394 where the Court of Appeal held:
“The action as between Inokom, Quasar and the alleged co-conspirators (Tan
Chong & TC Euro, who were not parties to the arbitration clause) can be stayed
pending the outcome of the arbitration.”
[30] However, it is clear to me paragraph [17] of the judgment in Inokom
was rendered per incuriam as there was already the Federal Court decision of
Chase Perdana to be given its due weight. Additionally, Inokom was decided
almost a decade before Jaya Sudhir was determined by the Federal Court.
[31] D2 and D3 have also cited in support of their arguments my decision
in Lineclear Motion Pictures Sdn Bhd V Measat Broadcast Network Systems
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 1826; [2021] 1 LNS 1506. I must at once make clear that
Lineclear was decided by me without considering Jaya Sudhir as unfortunately,
neither the appellant nor the respondent’s counsel had drawn my attention to
the case. The Federal Court decisions of Jaya Sudhir and Chase Perdana Bhd
on no split litigation are binding on this Court.
[32] As for D2’ posit that it has obtained a stay in a few other suits, I will
state that the facts and the arguments raised in those suits are not before this
Court. With all due respect, each case must necessarily be decided on its own
peculiar facts. Further, one was a subordinate court decision whilst the others,
being decisions of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, although deserving the
respect and deference that is due to them, are not binding on this Court. I
decline to follow those decisions.
[33] For reasons given, to avoid split litigation and multiplicity of
proceedings, Enc 18,21,24,26 and 28 are each dismissed with costs of
RM3,000 subject to allocator.
Dated this 5th day of November 2023
- signed -
………………………..
Liza Chan Sow Keng
Judge
High Court of Malaya at
Kuala Lumpur
COUNSEL:
For the Plaintiffs : Shaun Paulian (together with him,
Melvin Ng, Rahul Farhan and Loh Shi
Ying)
Messrs David & Paulian
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
For the 2nd and 3rd Defendants : K F Ee (together with him, Marcus
Chong)
Messrs K.F. Ee & Co.
For the 9th, 15th and 23rd Defendants : Arun Ganesh Boopalan
Messrs Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim
CASES CITED:
Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417
Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1;
[2019] 7 CLJ 395
Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU
993
Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71
Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313;
[2007] 7 MLJ 677
IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU 2644
Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394
STATUTE/LEGISLATION REFERRED:
Section 9, 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 30,295 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) KHONG YOON LOONG 2. ) AGNES LEE LAI HENG 3. ) NG CHEE SIEW 4. ) IRENE HARTANTO @ TAN HIAN LIE 5. ) CHAN YIK LONG 6. ) HO YEE KARM 7. ) LIU KWAI LIEN 8. ) KONG CHOONG HON 9. ) LIM KA TIN 10. ) JAMAL MOHAMED PADIYATH11. ) FOONG KIM SEONG1 2. ) KONG KOK SANG1 3. ) KHOR SAW PING1 4. ) KIEW LAI WAH1 5. ) WONG CHEE KEONG1 6. ) LIM MING NEE1 7. ) BONG YUE ZHING1 8. ) TAY THEAN SEONG1 9. ) CHANDRAN T GNANAPPAH20. ) ROHINY S AMBALAVANAR21. ) MAGDALENE TAN MAY LING2 2. ) KEK KEAN AUN2 3. ) CHOONG MEI LI2 4. ) WONG SIEW HONG2 5. ) LIM SAU WEI2 6. ) WONG MAN YEN2 7. ) WONG KIAM TEE2 8. ) LO SHOONG LAI2 9. ) CHOW AI HENG30. ) CHEONG SIEW KIN31. ) WONG YOON LIN3 2. ) WONG YOON YING3 3. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM3 4. ) NOR ANITA BINTI ABU TALIB3 5. ) CHU CHI SING3 6. ) LIOW SIN MOI3 7. ) OOI CHENG KEAT3 8. ) LOO AH BOR3 9. ) LEE MAY FONG40. ) TUEN FOO FAT41. ) WONG BEE MI4 2. ) KANG GET NEE4 3. ) DOMINIC ANANTHARAJ PETER4 4. ) SUBRAMANIAM NACHIMUTHU4 5. ) JELITHA RAMACHANDERAM4 6. ) NG TEIK POH4 7. ) NG GUAT CHU4 8. ) NIK ISMAIL BIN NIK MOHAMED4 9. ) SATHY RAMAKRISHNAN50. ) WONG WAI KAY51. ) LOH YEN LEE5 2. ) WONG SAI YING5 3. ) LEE CHIOU YUN5 4. ) ALISA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 5. ) ALINA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 6. ) LEE HWAI EN5 7. ) EMILIA LIM LEE KHIM5 8. ) LING KEH PING5 9. ) LIM BEE KHIN60. ) YEAP JING YEW61. ) ANDREW NG LOONG ERN6 2. ) GOH SHU YEEN6 3. ) NG TEONG BENG6 4. ) LEE BEE LENG6 5. ) TING PEIK WAN6 6. ) LEONG SOUT WAY6 7. ) LEONG MEE WAH Wakil Peribadi LEONG AH KIM6 8. ) LU HANN CHYANG6 9. ) JAIARAJO A/L LETCHUMANAN70. ) MARIAYEE A/P SINNAPPAN71. ) WONG PHUI PING7 2. ) LOH TECK ANN7 3. ) LIONG SIEW ENG7 4. ) CHEE CHUA KIAN BENG7 5. ) NUR MASDYIANA LEE BINTI ABDULLAH7 6. ) NG JU MEI7 7. ) CHIA PENG KHEONG7 8. ) NG LAI PENG7 9. ) GOH SIEW YING80. ) LEE CHEN LIM81. ) HOO SIEW KUN8 2. ) YIP KAH KUEN8 3. ) TAN LEE KIAK8 4. ) TEE CHING PAU8 5. ) WONG KOOI CHIN8 6. ) LAI JOON FOON8 7. ) SOH AH KHOOI8 8. ) ONG ENG JIN8 9. ) TAI LOO MEE90. ) LIM BEE CHIN91. ) TAN CHAI WEI9 2. ) CHAN KOW BOON9 3. ) THAM SIOW KUEEN9 4. ) CHAN LOY SHENG9 5. ) CHAN SHU HUA9 6. ) BRIAN YAP MING U9 7. ) NG HOON FAI9 8. ) NG LAY FANG9 9. ) CHOK YAM FUNG100. ) VIJAYAN A/L GOPINATHAN101. ) ONG ENG KHONG10 2. ) OH ENG LIM10 3. ) CHOY SIEW KEK10 4. ) WONG KAH MENG10 5. ) TAN LAI FU10 6. ) TOH WENG TUCK10 7. ) KAM KOOI HUA10 8. ) ZULKORNAIN AHMAD10 9. ) TOK YEE PING1 10. ) TIONG LEE EE111. ) NG CHEW HAR11 2. ) AW PHEI SZE11 3. ) PANG JOON SIONG11 4. ) CHEW LEE LEE11 5. ) YOONG KOW @YONG CHIN CHOON11 6. ) TEE CHING HUAT11 7. ) ARNE STAURSETH11 8. ) TEE AH SIM11 9. ) TEE KAU MOI @ TEE LEE HOON120. ) LIM HOCK CHUAN121. ) TOH SWEE TING12 2. ) MOHD KAMAL ARIFIN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN12 3. ) NOR AZILAH AINI BINTI NOOR12 4. ) KOO SIONG KUAN12 5. ) WONG CHOI YING12 6. ) WONG KOK WAI12 7. ) MAK FOOI CHOOI12 8. ) TEE HORNG YU12 9. ) TEE HORNG SHENG130. ) TEE SHI YUN131. ) TEO KING LOONG13 2. ) HIEW SIEW HEONG13 3. ) CHEAH AUN HENG13 4. ) CHEE PEE YANG13 5. ) CHEAH SOON HENG13 6. ) KHONG SHU TSUI13 7. ) TAN TIONG TIN13 8. ) CHUA SIEW LOON13 9. ) PHANG PAO CHUN140. ) RADHA KRISHNAN A/L RAMASAMY141. ) FOO HAN KEONG14 2. ) KOH POH HOON14 3. ) FOO XIANG JIE14 4. ) HO TAT HENG14 5. ) HEW EJIN14 6. ) TAN CHEE CHUNG14 7. ) LEE MEE FOONG14 8. ) ROSELINGE KHOO KWAI LING14 9. ) MAN KEIN SING @ MUN KEIN SING150. ) GOH SOH KIOW151. ) KIEW POH FONG15 2. ) CHUAH GAIK YEON15 3. ) AROKIAMARY A/P PARAMCHOTTI15 4. ) ROSNA BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN15 5. ) R SIVA NATHAN A/L RENGIAH15 6. ) LIM LEE SZE15 7. ) KHOR SAW YEE15 8. ) ISMADI BIN ISMAIL15 9. ) TERENCE CHONG CHOONG DAT160. ) HELLEN RITA JOSEPH161. ) HNG HUEY FEN16 2. ) NAVASURIYA A/P RADHA KRSIHNAN DEFENDAN 1. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD 2. ) AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD 4. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD 6. ) APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD 7. ) FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD 8. ) BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON 9. ) STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS 10. ) MARK RICHARD LAMB11. ) CHOO CHIN THYE1 2. ) LIM SIEW PENG1 3. ) NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS1 4. ) CHONG WAI CHEE1 5. ) KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY1 6. ) NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG1 7. ) TAN SEE SANG1 8. ) LIM SEE FWANG1 9. ) CHONG WEI KIONG20. ) SURAYA BINTI ALI21. ) POH WEE HON2 2. ) SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI2 3. ) TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU JAAFAR YAM2 4. ) CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD2 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED | Civil Procedure - Stay of Proceedings pending Arbitration —Dispute involving numerous third parties who are not party to arbitration agreement — disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another part in court — Whether split litigation should be avoided — legitimate concern of inconsistent decisions — multiplicity of proceedings — Whether dispute ought to be referred to arbitration | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Liza Chan Sow Keng | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a7041d7b-1220-4055-abab-e936f82f5c33&Inline=true |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT No: WA-22NCC-627-11/2022
BETWEEN
KHONG YOON LOONG & 161 OTHERS … PLAINTIFFS
AND
1. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 200923801D]
2. AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA
BERHAD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201041978 (908988-U)]
3. APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201501022437 (1147766-P)]
4. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
CO. LTD
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105555134940]
5. ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 201106988E]
6. APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201011055 (984575-T)]
7. FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201401032121 (1108205-D)]
8. BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 503255583]
9. STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 536667844]
10. MARK RICHARD LAMB
[SINGAPORE NRIC NO.: G5742846K]
15/11/2023 09:33:18
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 Kand. 221
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
11. CHOO CHIN THYE
[NRIC NO.: 620712-10-5159]
12. LIM SIEW PENG
[NRIC NO.: 761106-01-5048]
13. NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS
[NRIC NO.: 710917-10-5135]
14. CHONG WAI CHEE
[NRIC NO.: 790405-14-5574]
15. KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY
[NRIC NO.: 620709-08-5011]
16. NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG
[NRIC NO.: 740510-01-5848]
17. TAN SEE SANG
[NRIC NO.: 500717-06-5065]
18. LIM SEE FWANG
[NRIC NO.: 501020-10-5703]
19. CHONG WEI KIONG
[NRIC NO.: 800520-01-5165]
20. SURAYA BINTI ALI
[NRIC NO.: 780112-14-6312]
21. POH WEE HON
[NRIC NO.: 790911-04-5111]
22. SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI
[NRIC NO.: 780521-01-6041]
23. TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU
JA’AFAR YAM
[NRIC NO.: 470308-05-5259]
24. CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 199501031068 (360274-T)]
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
25. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS
COMPANY LIMITED
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105554054616]
... DEFENDANTS
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There were 9 applications before the Court for stay of proceedings
pending arbitration pursuant to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2005 (“AA
2005”):
1.1 Enclosure (“Enc.”) 18: filed by 2nd Defendant (D2);
1.2 Enc.21: filed by 3rd Defendant (D3)
1.3 Enc. 24: filed by 9th Defendant (D9)
1.4 Enc.26: filed by 23rd Defendant (D23)
1.5 Enc.28: filed by 15th Defendant (D15)
1.6 Enc.37: filed by 5th, 10th and 16th Defendants (D5, D10 and D16)
1.7 Enc.50: filed by 13th Defendant (D13)
1.8 Enc.81: filed by 14th Defendant (D14); and
1.9 Enc.131: filed by 21st Defendant (D21)
[2] On 19.9.2023, I had dismissed all the applications with costs, and
given broad grounds as to why. Out of the 11 applicants who applied for a stay,
5 applicants, D2, D3 D9, D15 and D23 being dissatisfied with my decision, has
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
filed their respective appeals to the Court of Appeal. This judgment contains the
reasons for my decision. As the matters were related and all heard on the same
day, it is convenient to deal with all 5 applications made respectively by D2, D3
D9, D15 and D23 in one judgment.
Background
[3] The background facts are culled from the pleadings, cause papers and
submissions of the parties.
[4] At all material times:
4.1 the 162 Plaintiffs, are members of the public who have
respectively purchased an investment scheme for Agarwood
trees and have entered into various written agreements with the
1st to 4th Defendants (the “Contracting Defendants);
4.2 D1 is a foreign company incorporated in and having its place of
business in Singapore;
4.3 D2 and D3 are Malaysian companies having their place of
business in Malaysia;
4.4 D4 is a foreign company registered in and has its place of
business in Thailand;
4.5 The Contracting Defendants were managed by D8 and D9 who
are both British nationals. D8 whom the Plaintiffs allege to be the
“Ultimate Controller” of the APC Group, has his place of
residence in Thailand;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
4.6 The D2, D5 to D7 (“Recipients”), were appointed by the
Contracting Defendants to receive the Investment Sums from the
Plaintiffs on behalf of the Contracting Defendants;
4.7 D8 to D24 (collectively the “Controllers”), are alleged by the
Plaintiffs to be:
(a) Directors (including shadow directors), officers and/or
controllers of the Contracting Defendants and/or Recipients;
and/or
(b) Organisers, promotors, orchestrators, designers and/or
facilitators of the Investment Scheme.
4.8 D25 is the ultimate holding company of the Contracting
Defendants.
[5] The Plaintiffs claim amongst others that:
5.1 In reliance on the Defendants’ representations, they had
cumulatively invested a sum of RM 24,322,763.00 in the
Agarwood scheme;
5.2 Under the Agreements, the Plaintiffs were allegedly promised
‘Guaranteed’ or ‘Investment’ returns;
5.3 The Defendants had intentionally designed the Agarwood
scheme to amongst others, contravene statutory provisions and
ensure that the Plaintiffs’ returns were channelled beyond their
reach;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
5.4 As at the date of commencement of this action, they have not
received any of their ‘Investment Returns;
5.5 The Plaintiffs discovered inter alia:
(a) that the Investment Schemes sold to the Plaintiffs were in
fact unregistered and not approved by CCM;
(b) D6 has been listed on Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM)
Financial Consumer Alert List since in or around 28.03.2013.
BNM regards D6 as:
(i) an unlicensed entity; or
(ii) an entity which offers an unlicensed scheme in
Malaysia;
5.6 The Plaintiffs are victims of fraud, breach of trust, conspiracy by
unlawful means and unjust enrichment.
[6] The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the following relief:
6.1 A declaration that the Agreements are void ab initio as a result of
the Defendants’ various breaches of statutory and legal
provisions;
6.2 A declaration that the Agreements are voidable on grounds of
fraud and/or misrepresentation;
6.3 A declaration that there has been a total failure of consideration
in so far as the Agreements are concerned; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
6.4 An Order that the Defendants jointly and severally make
restitution to the Plaintiffs for the sum of RM 24,322,763.00.
D2 and D3’s case for a stay pending arbitration.
[7] D2’s stay application cited the following reasons:
7.1 D2 has entered into a Sublease Agreement where clause 14
contains an arbitration agreement and Sale & Purchase
Agreement where clause 15 contains the arbitration agreement
(collectively the “D2 Agreements”) with the Plaintiffs which are
valid and binding whereby the parties have agreed that any
dispute or difference between the parties arising out of or in
connection to the D2 Agreements shall be referred to and finally
resolved by arbitration by the Asian International Arbitration
Centre located at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (“AIAC”) in
accordance with the Rules of the AIAC; the misnomer in
describing the AIAC as, “Malaysia International Arbitration
Centre” is not a proper ground for finding that the arbitration
agreements incapable of being performed. It does not render the
arbitration clauses null and void, inoperative or incapable of
being performed. The main intention of the arbitration clauses is
for disputes to be determined by arbitration in Malaysia which is
none other then the Asian International Arbitration Centre
(“AIAC”); the Court has no discretion, bound by stare decisis and
must stay the action as s. 10 of AA 2005 is couched in mandatory
terms, citing Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd
[2016] 5 MLJ 417 FC in support;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
7.2 The dispute with the Plaintiffs concern matters within the scope
of the arbitration clauses; even if there are third parties who are
not involved in the arbitration agreement ought not to stop the
Court from ordering a stay pending the outcome of the arbitration;
7.3 D2 who was also named in other suits has successfully obtained
a stay of proceedings to refer the disputes to arbitration:
(i) WA-22NCvC-848-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court
on 24/9/2021;
(ii) WA-B52NCVC-485-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022;
(iii) WA-A52NCVC-1009-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022.
[8] D3’s basis for a stay pending arbitration is that the Managing Agent
Agreement entered into with the Plaintiffs contains in clause 48 a valid and
binding arbitration agreement whereby the parties have agreed that any
disputes or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection to the
Managing Agent Agreement shall be referred to and finally resolved by
arbitration by the AIAC in accordance with the Rules of the AIAC.
[9] D2 however candidly admitted that:
(i) “There are difficulties in locating all the D2 Agreements entered
specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the sheer number of
contracts.”;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(ii) “There are possibilities that a certain number of Plaintiffs may not
have entered any agreements with the 2nd Defendant.”;
whilst D3 admits to being able to “extract some of the Managing Agent
Agreements entered with some of the Plaintiffs ranging from 20/9/2016
– 10/5/2018” and “There are difficulties in locating all the Managing
Agent Agreements entered specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the
sheer number of contracts.”
D9, D15 and D23‘s basis for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration
[10] D9, D15 and D23 took a broad-brush approach that the D2 agreements
and Managing Agent Agreements contain valid and binding arbitration
agreements with the Plaintiffs. D9 and D15 are not parties to any of the D2
agreements nor party to any Managing Agent Agreement although D23 did sign
a Lease Agreement dated 18.3.2016 and a Managing Agent agreement of same
date with D3, at enc 27 pg. 75 and 86 respectively. The agreements exhibited
by D9, D15 and D23 DO NOT show any of the Plaintiffs were parties to them.
Plaintiffs’ case in opposing Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[11] The Plaintiffs in essence contend that:
11.1 each applicant failed to discharge the burden that there exists a
valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between them and each
of the Plaintiff pursuant to ss. 9 & 10 of AA 2005;
11.2 even if there exists any arbitration agreements between the
Plaintiffs and the 1st to 4th Defendants (which is denied), D5 to
D25 are third parties to such arbitration agreements and do not
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
have any binding arbitration agreements with the Plaintiffs within
the meaning of ss 9 and 10 of AA 2005; non-parties to an
arbitration agreement may only ventilate claims through civil
proceedings in Court - Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical
Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395.
11.3 Where a dispute involves a party and non-party to the arbitration
agreement (in this case, D5 to D25), and the subject matter of
the claims overlap, it is best that the dispute be dealt with by the
court – Jaya Sudhir at [59].
Findings and decision on Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[12] The burden is on the applicants to show there is a valid arbitration
agreement.
[13] The applicants have relied on ss. 9 and 10 AA 2005 which state:
“9 Definition and form of arbitration agreement
(1) In this Act, ‘arbitration agreement’ means an agreement by the parties to
submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or
not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in an
agreement or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing —
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(a) if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration
agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other
means; or
(b) if it is contained in an exchange of statement of claim and defence in
which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied
by the other.
(4A) The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing is met by any
electronic communication that the parties make by means of data message if
the information contained therein is accessible so as to be useable for
subsequent reference.
(5) A reference in an agreement to a document containing an arbitration clause
shall constitute an arbitration agreement, provided that the agreement is in
writing and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the agreement.
(6) For the purpose of this section, ‘data message’ means information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or similar
means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy.
s 10 Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court
(1) A court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is
the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, where a party makes an application
before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer
the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed.
(2) The court, in granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to subsection (1), may
impose any conditions as it deems fit.
(2A) Where admiralty proceedings are stayed pursuant to subsection (1), the court
granting the stay may, if in those proceedings property has been arrested or bail
or other security has been given to prevent or obtain release from arrest—
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(a) order that the property arrested be retained as security for the satisfaction
of any award given in the arbitration in respect of that dispute; or
(b) order that the stay of those proceedings be conditional on the provision of
equivalent security for the satisfaction of any such award.
(2B) Subject to any rules of court and to any necessary modifications, the same
law and practice shall apply in relation to property retained in pursuance of an order
under subsection (2A) as would apply if it were held for the purposes of
proceedings in the court making the order.
(2C) For the purpose of this section, admiralty proceedings refer to admiralty
proceedings under Order 70 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and proceedings
commenced pursuant to paragraph 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
(3) Where the proceedings referred to in subsection (1) have been brought, arbitral
proceedings may be commenced or continued, and an award may be made, while
the issue is pending before the court.
(4) This section shall also apply in respect of an international arbitration, where the
seat of arbitration is not in Malaysia.”
[14] I begin with D2 and D3’s application. The points discussed are
applicable to the other applicants in so far as they are common issues.
[15] In dealing with the applications, I have considered the case of Protasco
Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU 993,
Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (as she then was) at [90] held:
"… the court is bound to strike a balance between the following considerations:
(a) The plaintiff’s right to choose whom it wants to sue and where;
(b) The court’s desire to prevent a plaintiff from circumventing the operation of
an arbitration clause; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(c) The court’s inherent power to manage its processes to prevent an abuse
of process and ensure the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.
(d) The balance that is achieved should be just in all the circumstances of the
case."
[16] Firstly, on the materials adduced, it can be readily appreciated that D2,
D3 are not able to show that each Plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with
them at the hearing and this was almost 9 months after the suit was filed except
for Sublease Agreements and Sale & Purchase Agreements signed between
P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P17 and P152. D9, D15 and D23 were also
not able to adduce evidence to show each Plaintiff had an arbitration agreement
with each of them. The Plaintiffs in my respectful view are not obliged to assist
the applicants to discharge their burden.
[17] Secondly, the pivotal issue in this case is that D5 to D25 in the Plaintiffs’
suit are non parties to the arbitration agreements. Thus, the arbitration
agreements as well as s.10 AA2005 cannot apply to them.
[18] In this regard, in Protasco’s case (supra), where Tey Por Yee and one
other were not parties to the arbitration agreement, Nallini Pathmanathan JCA
(as she then was) decided as follows:
[6] The crux of these appeals turns on the law governing a stay of proceedings in
relation to non-parties to an arbitration agreement. In the instant case, only
Protasco and PT ASU are bound by the arbitration agreement. The other two
defendants are not so bound. They fall outside the scope of the agreement.
… “
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[19] The decision in Protasco was affirmed by the Federal Court in Jaya
Sudhir (supra):
[74] In its decision, the Court of Appeal in Protasco, held that s 10 of the AA was
inapplicable and did not come into play as the second and third defendants were
non-parties to the arbitration agreement. The court’s power to grant a stay is
derived from its inherent power to stay court proceedings pending arbitration in the
interests of the justice of the case. The decision in Protasco is instructive and the
finding it made that s 10 of the AA is inapplicable to the third parties accords well
with our decision in this appeal.
…
[91] The language of AA in particular ss 8 and 10 is clear and unambiguous. It
does not apply to the third party such as the appellant. … When AA does not
apply to a non-party to arbitral proceedings, a logical proposition that
follows is that it would be manifestly wrong to extend its policy to the said
non-party. … (Emphasis added.)
[20] Following the decisions in Protasco and Jaya Sudhir, D5 to D25
including D2 and D3 cannot rely on s. 10 AA 2005. In any case, as stated earlier,
D2 and D3, D9, D15 and D23 have not discharged the burden to show each of
the 162 Plaintiffs had arbitration agreements with them.
[21] Of legitimate concern to this Court is that the nature of the Plaintiffs
claim is such that it involves similar or substantially similar underlying facts and
issues vis-à-vis the applicants and the other Defendants, so much so that it
would not be possible to segregate or isolate the Plaintiffs’ claim against the
applicants from the Plaintiffs’ claim against the others. Whilst it would not be
possible to compel non parties to the arbitration agreements to take part in
arbitration proceedings involving a breach of the various lease, sale and
purchase and management agreements, it would however be possible for this
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Court to exercise its jurisdiction over all the Defendants in relation to the
Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
[22] In any event, given the nature of the Plaintiffs' claim against the
Defendants, in my view it would, be wrong in law to sever/isolate the Plaintiffs'
claim for breach of the Agreements and have the claim against some
defendants stayed pending arbitration, whilst the same claim continues against
the other defendants in this Court. The stay of the entire claim against D2, D3
and the other applicants pending arbitration would invite the possibility of
conflicting or inconsistent findings and/or decisions being made by the Court
and the arbitrator which is manifestly not desirable.
[23] Granting the stay sought will in my respectful view serve only to
complicate and delay the just, expeditious and economical disposal of this
action.
[24] In the circumstances, as the dispute involves parties and a non-parties
to the arbitration agreements, in my judgment, it is just that the dispute be dealt
with by this Court to avoid split litigation as explained by the Federal Court in
Jaya Sudhir in the following words:
‘[59] We shall next focus on the argument with respect to multiplicity of proceedings
and risk of inconsistent findings. The Court of Appeal held that the issue of
multiplicity of proceedings and possibility of inconsistent findings as expounded in
Bina Jati, supra, are no longer material factors to oust the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator under Act 646 in view of the decision in J. Jarvis. The High Court in J.
Jarvis, we apprehend, said that all of those observations relating to concurrent
proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings were true but it was an inevitable
consequence of the mandatory language of s. 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 that
from time to time there would be concurrent proceedings in court and before an
arbitrator. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the instant action, in our view,
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
effectively sets to naught the principles laid down by the same court in the case of
Bina Jati, supra and as affirmed by the Federal Court in the case of Chase Perdana
Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677 that
where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court and that disputes between
parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another
part in court. In short, what the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in both
cases are trying to emphasise is that the risks inherent in split litigation ought
to be avoided.”
[25] In Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71,
the Court of Appeal on the same issue said this:
‘Where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court. In The 'Eastern Saga'; Oxford
Shipping Co Ltd v Nippon Yusen Kaisha [1984] 3 All ER 835, the court held: Since
arbitration is a private procedure it is an implied term of an arbitration agreement
that strangers to the agreement are excluded from the hearing and conduct of an
arbitration under the agreement. In the absence of the consent of all parties an
arbitrator has no power to order that a dispute referred to arbitration under the
agreement be heard or determined with another dispute involving a stranger which
has been referred to arbitration under a different agreement, even though the two
disputes are closely related and a consolidated hearing would be convenient' (see
also Bauer (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Daewoo Corporation [1999] 4 MLJ 545 at p 561 (CA);
The 'Vimeira'; Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 66 at p
75). Moreover, disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is
dealt with by arbitration and another part in court’.
[26] As alluded to at paragraph 23 of this judgment, Bina Jati was affirmed
by the Federal Court in Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. &
Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677. Bina Jati and Jaya Sudhir on the
principle that there should not be SPLIT LITIGATION was followed by the Court
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
of Appeal recently in IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU
2644 in a judgment delivered by Nordin Hassan JCA (now FCJ).
[27] That is not all. I am of the considered view that if the applicants are
allowed to have their way, there would be multiplicity of proceedings which itself
is an abuse of court process. Case laws on this is legion. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court can exercise the power under its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by refusing a stay and for the suit to be
dealt with by this Court.
[28] I must declare that I have no quarrel with the Press Metal principles
cited by the applicants’ respective counsel. However, Press Metal was decided
before Jaya Sudhir. In addition, Press Metal did not consider the issue of non-
parties to the arbitration agreement.
[29] I note the respective applicants’ counsel have cited in support of their
arguments, Paragraph 17 of the case of Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd &
Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394 where the Court of Appeal held:
“The action as between Inokom, Quasar and the alleged co-conspirators (Tan
Chong & TC Euro, who were not parties to the arbitration clause) can be stayed
pending the outcome of the arbitration.”
[30] However, it is clear to me paragraph [17] of the judgment in Inokom
was rendered per incuriam as there was already the Federal Court decision of
Chase Perdana to be given its due weight. Additionally, Inokom was decided
almost a decade before Jaya Sudhir was determined by the Federal Court.
[31] D2 and D3 have also cited in support of their arguments my decision
in Lineclear Motion Pictures Sdn Bhd V Measat Broadcast Network Systems
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 1826; [2021] 1 LNS 1506. I must at once make clear that
Lineclear was decided by me without considering Jaya Sudhir as unfortunately,
neither the appellant nor the respondent’s counsel had drawn my attention to
the case. The Federal Court decisions of Jaya Sudhir and Chase Perdana Bhd
on no split litigation are binding on this Court.
[32] As for D2’ posit that it has obtained a stay in a few other suits, I will
state that the facts and the arguments raised in those suits are not before this
Court. With all due respect, each case must necessarily be decided on its own
peculiar facts. Further, one was a subordinate court decision whilst the others,
being decisions of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, although deserving the
respect and deference that is due to them, are not binding on this Court. I
decline to follow those decisions.
[33] For reasons given, to avoid split litigation and multiplicity of
proceedings, Enc 18,21,24,26 and 28 are each dismissed with costs of
RM3,000 subject to allocator.
Dated this 5th day of November 2023
- signed -
………………………..
Liza Chan Sow Keng
Judge
High Court of Malaya at
Kuala Lumpur
COUNSEL:
For the Plaintiffs : Shaun Paulian (together with him,
Melvin Ng, Rahul Farhan and Loh Shi
Ying)
Messrs David & Paulian
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
For the 2nd and 3rd Defendants : K F Ee (together with him, Marcus
Chong)
Messrs K.F. Ee & Co.
For the 9th, 15th and 23rd Defendants : Arun Ganesh Boopalan
Messrs Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim
CASES CITED:
Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417
Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1;
[2019] 7 CLJ 395
Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU
993
Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71
Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313;
[2007] 7 MLJ 677
IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU 2644
Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394
STATUTE/LEGISLATION REFERRED:
Section 9, 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 30,295 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) KHONG YOON LOONG 2. ) AGNES LEE LAI HENG 3. ) NG CHEE SIEW 4. ) IRENE HARTANTO @ TAN HIAN LIE 5. ) CHAN YIK LONG 6. ) HO YEE KARM 7. ) LIU KWAI LIEN 8. ) KONG CHOONG HON 9. ) LIM KA TIN 10. ) JAMAL MOHAMED PADIYATH11. ) FOONG KIM SEONG1 2. ) KONG KOK SANG1 3. ) KHOR SAW PING1 4. ) KIEW LAI WAH1 5. ) WONG CHEE KEONG1 6. ) LIM MING NEE1 7. ) BONG YUE ZHING1 8. ) TAY THEAN SEONG1 9. ) CHANDRAN T GNANAPPAH20. ) ROHINY S AMBALAVANAR21. ) MAGDALENE TAN MAY LING2 2. ) KEK KEAN AUN2 3. ) CHOONG MEI LI2 4. ) WONG SIEW HONG2 5. ) LIM SAU WEI2 6. ) WONG MAN YEN2 7. ) WONG KIAM TEE2 8. ) LO SHOONG LAI2 9. ) CHOW AI HENG30. ) CHEONG SIEW KIN31. ) WONG YOON LIN3 2. ) WONG YOON YING3 3. ) CHAN CHAI TIAM3 4. ) NOR ANITA BINTI ABU TALIB3 5. ) CHU CHI SING3 6. ) LIOW SIN MOI3 7. ) OOI CHENG KEAT3 8. ) LOO AH BOR3 9. ) LEE MAY FONG40. ) TUEN FOO FAT41. ) WONG BEE MI4 2. ) KANG GET NEE4 3. ) DOMINIC ANANTHARAJ PETER4 4. ) SUBRAMANIAM NACHIMUTHU4 5. ) JELITHA RAMACHANDERAM4 6. ) NG TEIK POH4 7. ) NG GUAT CHU4 8. ) NIK ISMAIL BIN NIK MOHAMED4 9. ) SATHY RAMAKRISHNAN50. ) WONG WAI KAY51. ) LOH YEN LEE5 2. ) WONG SAI YING5 3. ) LEE CHIOU YUN5 4. ) ALISA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 5. ) ALINA BINTI MOHD FAIZAL5 6. ) LEE HWAI EN5 7. ) EMILIA LIM LEE KHIM5 8. ) LING KEH PING5 9. ) LIM BEE KHIN60. ) YEAP JING YEW61. ) ANDREW NG LOONG ERN6 2. ) GOH SHU YEEN6 3. ) NG TEONG BENG6 4. ) LEE BEE LENG6 5. ) TING PEIK WAN6 6. ) LEONG SOUT WAY6 7. ) LEONG MEE WAH Wakil Peribadi LEONG AH KIM6 8. ) LU HANN CHYANG6 9. ) JAIARAJO A/L LETCHUMANAN70. ) MARIAYEE A/P SINNAPPAN71. ) WONG PHUI PING7 2. ) LOH TECK ANN7 3. ) LIONG SIEW ENG7 4. ) CHEE CHUA KIAN BENG7 5. ) NUR MASDYIANA LEE BINTI ABDULLAH7 6. ) NG JU MEI7 7. ) CHIA PENG KHEONG7 8. ) NG LAI PENG7 9. ) GOH SIEW YING80. ) LEE CHEN LIM81. ) HOO SIEW KUN8 2. ) YIP KAH KUEN8 3. ) TAN LEE KIAK8 4. ) TEE CHING PAU8 5. ) WONG KOOI CHIN8 6. ) LAI JOON FOON8 7. ) SOH AH KHOOI8 8. ) ONG ENG JIN8 9. ) TAI LOO MEE90. ) LIM BEE CHIN91. ) TAN CHAI WEI9 2. ) CHAN KOW BOON9 3. ) THAM SIOW KUEEN9 4. ) CHAN LOY SHENG9 5. ) CHAN SHU HUA9 6. ) BRIAN YAP MING U9 7. ) NG HOON FAI9 8. ) NG LAY FANG9 9. ) CHOK YAM FUNG100. ) VIJAYAN A/L GOPINATHAN101. ) ONG ENG KHONG10 2. ) OH ENG LIM10 3. ) CHOY SIEW KEK10 4. ) WONG KAH MENG10 5. ) TAN LAI FU10 6. ) TOH WENG TUCK10 7. ) KAM KOOI HUA10 8. ) ZULKORNAIN AHMAD10 9. ) TOK YEE PING1 10. ) TIONG LEE EE111. ) NG CHEW HAR11 2. ) AW PHEI SZE11 3. ) PANG JOON SIONG11 4. ) CHEW LEE LEE11 5. ) YOONG KOW @YONG CHIN CHOON11 6. ) TEE CHING HUAT11 7. ) ARNE STAURSETH11 8. ) TEE AH SIM11 9. ) TEE KAU MOI @ TEE LEE HOON120. ) LIM HOCK CHUAN121. ) TOH SWEE TING12 2. ) MOHD KAMAL ARIFIN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN12 3. ) NOR AZILAH AINI BINTI NOOR12 4. ) KOO SIONG KUAN12 5. ) WONG CHOI YING12 6. ) WONG KOK WAI12 7. ) MAK FOOI CHOOI12 8. ) TEE HORNG YU12 9. ) TEE HORNG SHENG130. ) TEE SHI YUN131. ) TEO KING LOONG13 2. ) HIEW SIEW HEONG13 3. ) CHEAH AUN HENG13 4. ) CHEE PEE YANG13 5. ) CHEAH SOON HENG13 6. ) KHONG SHU TSUI13 7. ) TAN TIONG TIN13 8. ) CHUA SIEW LOON13 9. ) PHANG PAO CHUN140. ) RADHA KRISHNAN A/L RAMASAMY141. ) FOO HAN KEONG14 2. ) KOH POH HOON14 3. ) FOO XIANG JIE14 4. ) HO TAT HENG14 5. ) HEW EJIN14 6. ) TAN CHEE CHUNG14 7. ) LEE MEE FOONG14 8. ) ROSELINGE KHOO KWAI LING14 9. ) MAN KEIN SING @ MUN KEIN SING150. ) GOH SOH KIOW151. ) KIEW POH FONG15 2. ) CHUAH GAIK YEON15 3. ) AROKIAMARY A/P PARAMCHOTTI15 4. ) ROSNA BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN15 5. ) R SIVA NATHAN A/L RENGIAH15 6. ) LIM LEE SZE15 7. ) KHOR SAW YEE15 8. ) ISMADI BIN ISMAIL15 9. ) TERENCE CHONG CHOONG DAT160. ) HELLEN RITA JOSEPH161. ) HNG HUEY FEN16 2. ) NAVASURIYA A/P RADHA KRSIHNAN DEFENDAN 1. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD 2. ) AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD 4. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD 6. ) APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD 7. ) FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD 8. ) BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON 9. ) STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS 10. ) MARK RICHARD LAMB11. ) CHOO CHIN THYE1 2. ) LIM SIEW PENG1 3. ) NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS1 4. ) CHONG WAI CHEE1 5. ) KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY1 6. ) NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG1 7. ) TAN SEE SANG1 8. ) LIM SEE FWANG1 9. ) CHONG WEI KIONG20. ) SURAYA BINTI ALI21. ) POH WEE HON2 2. ) SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI2 3. ) TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU JAAFAR YAM2 4. ) CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD2 5. ) ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED | Civil Procedure - Stay of Proceedings pending Arbitration —Dispute involving numerous third parties who are not party to arbitration agreement — disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another part in court — Whether split litigation should be avoided — legitimate concern of inconsistent decisions — multiplicity of proceedings — Whether dispute ought to be referred to arbitration | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Liza Chan Sow Keng | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a7041d7b-1220-4055-abab-e936f82f5c33&Inline=true |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT No: WA-22NCC-627-11/2022
BETWEEN
KHONG YOON LOONG & 161 OTHERS … PLAINTIFFS
AND
1. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 200923801D]
2. AGARWOOD ORIGINALS MALAYSIA
BERHAD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201041978 (908988-U)]
3. APC PLANTATIONS SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201501022437 (1147766-P)]
4. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
CO. LTD
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105555134940]
5. ASIA PLANTATION SINGAPORE PTE LTD
[SINGAPORE UEN: 201106988E]
6. APS ASIA PLANTATION BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201201011055 (984575-T)]
7. FORESTRY FIRST SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 201401032121 (1108205-D)]
8. BARRY ALLAN RAWLINSON
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 503255583]
9. STEVEN MALCOLM WATTS
[UK PASSPORT NO.: 536667844]
10. MARK RICHARD LAMB
[SINGAPORE NRIC NO.: G5742846K]
15/11/2023 09:33:18
WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 Kand. 221
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
11. CHOO CHIN THYE
[NRIC NO.: 620712-10-5159]
12. LIM SIEW PENG
[NRIC NO.: 761106-01-5048]
13. NEILSON NAVIN A/L ANTHONY ALOYSIUS
[NRIC NO.: 710917-10-5135]
14. CHONG WAI CHEE
[NRIC NO.: 790405-14-5574]
15. KODI ISPARAN A/L KANDASAMY
[NRIC NO.: 620709-08-5011]
16. NG OOI SHIN @ IRENE NG
[NRIC NO.: 740510-01-5848]
17. TAN SEE SANG
[NRIC NO.: 500717-06-5065]
18. LIM SEE FWANG
[NRIC NO.: 501020-10-5703]
19. CHONG WEI KIONG
[NRIC NO.: 800520-01-5165]
20. SURAYA BINTI ALI
[NRIC NO.: 780112-14-6312]
21. POH WEE HON
[NRIC NO.: 790911-04-5111]
22. SYED MOHD AIZAT BIN SYED MOHD ZAINI
[NRIC NO.: 780521-01-6041]
23. TUNKU NAQUIYUDDIN IBNI TUANKU
JA’AFAR YAM
[NRIC NO.: 470308-05-5259]
24. CTCHOO CAPITAL ADVISOR SDN BHD
[COMPANY NO.: 199501031068 (360274-T)]
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
25. ASIA PLANTATION CAPITAL HOLDINGS
COMPANY LIMITED
[THAILAND REGISTRATION NO.:
0105554054616]
... DEFENDANTS
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There were 9 applications before the Court for stay of proceedings
pending arbitration pursuant to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 2005 (“AA
2005”):
1.1 Enclosure (“Enc.”) 18: filed by 2nd Defendant (D2);
1.2 Enc.21: filed by 3rd Defendant (D3)
1.3 Enc. 24: filed by 9th Defendant (D9)
1.4 Enc.26: filed by 23rd Defendant (D23)
1.5 Enc.28: filed by 15th Defendant (D15)
1.6 Enc.37: filed by 5th, 10th and 16th Defendants (D5, D10 and D16)
1.7 Enc.50: filed by 13th Defendant (D13)
1.8 Enc.81: filed by 14th Defendant (D14); and
1.9 Enc.131: filed by 21st Defendant (D21)
[2] On 19.9.2023, I had dismissed all the applications with costs, and
given broad grounds as to why. Out of the 11 applicants who applied for a stay,
5 applicants, D2, D3 D9, D15 and D23 being dissatisfied with my decision, has
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
filed their respective appeals to the Court of Appeal. This judgment contains the
reasons for my decision. As the matters were related and all heard on the same
day, it is convenient to deal with all 5 applications made respectively by D2, D3
D9, D15 and D23 in one judgment.
Background
[3] The background facts are culled from the pleadings, cause papers and
submissions of the parties.
[4] At all material times:
4.1 the 162 Plaintiffs, are members of the public who have
respectively purchased an investment scheme for Agarwood
trees and have entered into various written agreements with the
1st to 4th Defendants (the “Contracting Defendants);
4.2 D1 is a foreign company incorporated in and having its place of
business in Singapore;
4.3 D2 and D3 are Malaysian companies having their place of
business in Malaysia;
4.4 D4 is a foreign company registered in and has its place of
business in Thailand;
4.5 The Contracting Defendants were managed by D8 and D9 who
are both British nationals. D8 whom the Plaintiffs allege to be the
“Ultimate Controller” of the APC Group, has his place of
residence in Thailand;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
4.6 The D2, D5 to D7 (“Recipients”), were appointed by the
Contracting Defendants to receive the Investment Sums from the
Plaintiffs on behalf of the Contracting Defendants;
4.7 D8 to D24 (collectively the “Controllers”), are alleged by the
Plaintiffs to be:
(a) Directors (including shadow directors), officers and/or
controllers of the Contracting Defendants and/or Recipients;
and/or
(b) Organisers, promotors, orchestrators, designers and/or
facilitators of the Investment Scheme.
4.8 D25 is the ultimate holding company of the Contracting
Defendants.
[5] The Plaintiffs claim amongst others that:
5.1 In reliance on the Defendants’ representations, they had
cumulatively invested a sum of RM 24,322,763.00 in the
Agarwood scheme;
5.2 Under the Agreements, the Plaintiffs were allegedly promised
‘Guaranteed’ or ‘Investment’ returns;
5.3 The Defendants had intentionally designed the Agarwood
scheme to amongst others, contravene statutory provisions and
ensure that the Plaintiffs’ returns were channelled beyond their
reach;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
5.4 As at the date of commencement of this action, they have not
received any of their ‘Investment Returns;
5.5 The Plaintiffs discovered inter alia:
(a) that the Investment Schemes sold to the Plaintiffs were in
fact unregistered and not approved by CCM;
(b) D6 has been listed on Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM)
Financial Consumer Alert List since in or around 28.03.2013.
BNM regards D6 as:
(i) an unlicensed entity; or
(ii) an entity which offers an unlicensed scheme in
Malaysia;
5.6 The Plaintiffs are victims of fraud, breach of trust, conspiracy by
unlawful means and unjust enrichment.
[6] The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the following relief:
6.1 A declaration that the Agreements are void ab initio as a result of
the Defendants’ various breaches of statutory and legal
provisions;
6.2 A declaration that the Agreements are voidable on grounds of
fraud and/or misrepresentation;
6.3 A declaration that there has been a total failure of consideration
in so far as the Agreements are concerned; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
6.4 An Order that the Defendants jointly and severally make
restitution to the Plaintiffs for the sum of RM 24,322,763.00.
D2 and D3’s case for a stay pending arbitration.
[7] D2’s stay application cited the following reasons:
7.1 D2 has entered into a Sublease Agreement where clause 14
contains an arbitration agreement and Sale & Purchase
Agreement where clause 15 contains the arbitration agreement
(collectively the “D2 Agreements”) with the Plaintiffs which are
valid and binding whereby the parties have agreed that any
dispute or difference between the parties arising out of or in
connection to the D2 Agreements shall be referred to and finally
resolved by arbitration by the Asian International Arbitration
Centre located at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (“AIAC”) in
accordance with the Rules of the AIAC; the misnomer in
describing the AIAC as, “Malaysia International Arbitration
Centre” is not a proper ground for finding that the arbitration
agreements incapable of being performed. It does not render the
arbitration clauses null and void, inoperative or incapable of
being performed. The main intention of the arbitration clauses is
for disputes to be determined by arbitration in Malaysia which is
none other then the Asian International Arbitration Centre
(“AIAC”); the Court has no discretion, bound by stare decisis and
must stay the action as s. 10 of AA 2005 is couched in mandatory
terms, citing Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd
[2016] 5 MLJ 417 FC in support;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
7.2 The dispute with the Plaintiffs concern matters within the scope
of the arbitration clauses; even if there are third parties who are
not involved in the arbitration agreement ought not to stop the
Court from ordering a stay pending the outcome of the arbitration;
7.3 D2 who was also named in other suits has successfully obtained
a stay of proceedings to refer the disputes to arbitration:
(i) WA-22NCvC-848-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court
on 24/9/2021;
(ii) WA-B52NCVC-485-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022;
(iii) WA-A52NCVC-1009-12/2020 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions
Court on 9/2/2022.
[8] D3’s basis for a stay pending arbitration is that the Managing Agent
Agreement entered into with the Plaintiffs contains in clause 48 a valid and
binding arbitration agreement whereby the parties have agreed that any
disputes or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection to the
Managing Agent Agreement shall be referred to and finally resolved by
arbitration by the AIAC in accordance with the Rules of the AIAC.
[9] D2 however candidly admitted that:
(i) “There are difficulties in locating all the D2 Agreements entered
specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the sheer number of
contracts.”;
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(ii) “There are possibilities that a certain number of Plaintiffs may not
have entered any agreements with the 2nd Defendant.”;
whilst D3 admits to being able to “extract some of the Managing Agent
Agreements entered with some of the Plaintiffs ranging from 20/9/2016
– 10/5/2018” and “There are difficulties in locating all the Managing
Agent Agreements entered specifically with the Plaintiffs due to the
sheer number of contracts.”
D9, D15 and D23‘s basis for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration
[10] D9, D15 and D23 took a broad-brush approach that the D2 agreements
and Managing Agent Agreements contain valid and binding arbitration
agreements with the Plaintiffs. D9 and D15 are not parties to any of the D2
agreements nor party to any Managing Agent Agreement although D23 did sign
a Lease Agreement dated 18.3.2016 and a Managing Agent agreement of same
date with D3, at enc 27 pg. 75 and 86 respectively. The agreements exhibited
by D9, D15 and D23 DO NOT show any of the Plaintiffs were parties to them.
Plaintiffs’ case in opposing Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[11] The Plaintiffs in essence contend that:
11.1 each applicant failed to discharge the burden that there exists a
valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between them and each
of the Plaintiff pursuant to ss. 9 & 10 of AA 2005;
11.2 even if there exists any arbitration agreements between the
Plaintiffs and the 1st to 4th Defendants (which is denied), D5 to
D25 are third parties to such arbitration agreements and do not
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
have any binding arbitration agreements with the Plaintiffs within
the meaning of ss 9 and 10 of AA 2005; non-parties to an
arbitration agreement may only ventilate claims through civil
proceedings in Court - Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical
Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1; [2019] 7 CLJ 395.
11.3 Where a dispute involves a party and non-party to the arbitration
agreement (in this case, D5 to D25), and the subject matter of
the claims overlap, it is best that the dispute be dealt with by the
court – Jaya Sudhir at [59].
Findings and decision on Enc. 18, 21, 24, 26 & 28
[12] The burden is on the applicants to show there is a valid arbitration
agreement.
[13] The applicants have relied on ss. 9 and 10 AA 2005 which state:
“9 Definition and form of arbitration agreement
(1) In this Act, ‘arbitration agreement’ means an agreement by the parties to
submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or
not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in an
agreement or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing —
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(a) if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration
agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other
means; or
(b) if it is contained in an exchange of statement of claim and defence in
which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied
by the other.
(4A) The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing is met by any
electronic communication that the parties make by means of data message if
the information contained therein is accessible so as to be useable for
subsequent reference.
(5) A reference in an agreement to a document containing an arbitration clause
shall constitute an arbitration agreement, provided that the agreement is in
writing and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the agreement.
(6) For the purpose of this section, ‘data message’ means information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or similar
means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy.
s 10 Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court
(1) A court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is
the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, where a party makes an application
before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings and refer
the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed.
(2) The court, in granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to subsection (1), may
impose any conditions as it deems fit.
(2A) Where admiralty proceedings are stayed pursuant to subsection (1), the court
granting the stay may, if in those proceedings property has been arrested or bail
or other security has been given to prevent or obtain release from arrest—
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(a) order that the property arrested be retained as security for the satisfaction
of any award given in the arbitration in respect of that dispute; or
(b) order that the stay of those proceedings be conditional on the provision of
equivalent security for the satisfaction of any such award.
(2B) Subject to any rules of court and to any necessary modifications, the same
law and practice shall apply in relation to property retained in pursuance of an order
under subsection (2A) as would apply if it were held for the purposes of
proceedings in the court making the order.
(2C) For the purpose of this section, admiralty proceedings refer to admiralty
proceedings under Order 70 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and proceedings
commenced pursuant to paragraph 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
(3) Where the proceedings referred to in subsection (1) have been brought, arbitral
proceedings may be commenced or continued, and an award may be made, while
the issue is pending before the court.
(4) This section shall also apply in respect of an international arbitration, where the
seat of arbitration is not in Malaysia.”
[14] I begin with D2 and D3’s application. The points discussed are
applicable to the other applicants in so far as they are common issues.
[15] In dealing with the applications, I have considered the case of Protasco
Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU 993,
Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (as she then was) at [90] held:
"… the court is bound to strike a balance between the following considerations:
(a) The plaintiff’s right to choose whom it wants to sue and where;
(b) The court’s desire to prevent a plaintiff from circumventing the operation of
an arbitration clause; and
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(c) The court’s inherent power to manage its processes to prevent an abuse
of process and ensure the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.
(d) The balance that is achieved should be just in all the circumstances of the
case."
[16] Firstly, on the materials adduced, it can be readily appreciated that D2,
D3 are not able to show that each Plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with
them at the hearing and this was almost 9 months after the suit was filed except
for Sublease Agreements and Sale & Purchase Agreements signed between
P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P17 and P152. D9, D15 and D23 were also
not able to adduce evidence to show each Plaintiff had an arbitration agreement
with each of them. The Plaintiffs in my respectful view are not obliged to assist
the applicants to discharge their burden.
[17] Secondly, the pivotal issue in this case is that D5 to D25 in the Plaintiffs’
suit are non parties to the arbitration agreements. Thus, the arbitration
agreements as well as s.10 AA2005 cannot apply to them.
[18] In this regard, in Protasco’s case (supra), where Tey Por Yee and one
other were not parties to the arbitration agreement, Nallini Pathmanathan JCA
(as she then was) decided as follows:
[6] The crux of these appeals turns on the law governing a stay of proceedings in
relation to non-parties to an arbitration agreement. In the instant case, only
Protasco and PT ASU are bound by the arbitration agreement. The other two
defendants are not so bound. They fall outside the scope of the agreement.
… “
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[19] The decision in Protasco was affirmed by the Federal Court in Jaya
Sudhir (supra):
[74] In its decision, the Court of Appeal in Protasco, held that s 10 of the AA was
inapplicable and did not come into play as the second and third defendants were
non-parties to the arbitration agreement. The court’s power to grant a stay is
derived from its inherent power to stay court proceedings pending arbitration in the
interests of the justice of the case. The decision in Protasco is instructive and the
finding it made that s 10 of the AA is inapplicable to the third parties accords well
with our decision in this appeal.
…
[91] The language of AA in particular ss 8 and 10 is clear and unambiguous. It
does not apply to the third party such as the appellant. … When AA does not
apply to a non-party to arbitral proceedings, a logical proposition that
follows is that it would be manifestly wrong to extend its policy to the said
non-party. … (Emphasis added.)
[20] Following the decisions in Protasco and Jaya Sudhir, D5 to D25
including D2 and D3 cannot rely on s. 10 AA 2005. In any case, as stated earlier,
D2 and D3, D9, D15 and D23 have not discharged the burden to show each of
the 162 Plaintiffs had arbitration agreements with them.
[21] Of legitimate concern to this Court is that the nature of the Plaintiffs
claim is such that it involves similar or substantially similar underlying facts and
issues vis-à-vis the applicants and the other Defendants, so much so that it
would not be possible to segregate or isolate the Plaintiffs’ claim against the
applicants from the Plaintiffs’ claim against the others. Whilst it would not be
possible to compel non parties to the arbitration agreements to take part in
arbitration proceedings involving a breach of the various lease, sale and
purchase and management agreements, it would however be possible for this
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Court to exercise its jurisdiction over all the Defendants in relation to the
Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
[22] In any event, given the nature of the Plaintiffs' claim against the
Defendants, in my view it would, be wrong in law to sever/isolate the Plaintiffs'
claim for breach of the Agreements and have the claim against some
defendants stayed pending arbitration, whilst the same claim continues against
the other defendants in this Court. The stay of the entire claim against D2, D3
and the other applicants pending arbitration would invite the possibility of
conflicting or inconsistent findings and/or decisions being made by the Court
and the arbitrator which is manifestly not desirable.
[23] Granting the stay sought will in my respectful view serve only to
complicate and delay the just, expeditious and economical disposal of this
action.
[24] In the circumstances, as the dispute involves parties and a non-parties
to the arbitration agreements, in my judgment, it is just that the dispute be dealt
with by this Court to avoid split litigation as explained by the Federal Court in
Jaya Sudhir in the following words:
‘[59] We shall next focus on the argument with respect to multiplicity of proceedings
and risk of inconsistent findings. The Court of Appeal held that the issue of
multiplicity of proceedings and possibility of inconsistent findings as expounded in
Bina Jati, supra, are no longer material factors to oust the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator under Act 646 in view of the decision in J. Jarvis. The High Court in J.
Jarvis, we apprehend, said that all of those observations relating to concurrent
proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings were true but it was an inevitable
consequence of the mandatory language of s. 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 that
from time to time there would be concurrent proceedings in court and before an
arbitrator. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the instant action, in our view,
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
effectively sets to naught the principles laid down by the same court in the case of
Bina Jati, supra and as affirmed by the Federal Court in the case of Chase Perdana
Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677 that
where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court and that disputes between
parties cannot be divided so that part is dealt with by arbitration and another
part in court. In short, what the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in both
cases are trying to emphasise is that the risks inherent in split litigation ought
to be avoided.”
[25] In Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71,
the Court of Appeal on the same issue said this:
‘Where some are parties and others are not parties to the arbitration it is best
that their disputes be dealt with by the court. In The 'Eastern Saga'; Oxford
Shipping Co Ltd v Nippon Yusen Kaisha [1984] 3 All ER 835, the court held: Since
arbitration is a private procedure it is an implied term of an arbitration agreement
that strangers to the agreement are excluded from the hearing and conduct of an
arbitration under the agreement. In the absence of the consent of all parties an
arbitrator has no power to order that a dispute referred to arbitration under the
agreement be heard or determined with another dispute involving a stranger which
has been referred to arbitration under a different agreement, even though the two
disputes are closely related and a consolidated hearing would be convenient' (see
also Bauer (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Daewoo Corporation [1999] 4 MLJ 545 at p 561 (CA);
The 'Vimeira'; Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 66 at p
75). Moreover, disputes between parties cannot be divided so that part is
dealt with by arbitration and another part in court’.
[26] As alluded to at paragraph 23 of this judgment, Bina Jati was affirmed
by the Federal Court in Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. &
Anor [2008] CLJ 313; [2007] 7 MLJ 677. Bina Jati and Jaya Sudhir on the
principle that there should not be SPLIT LITIGATION was followed by the Court
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
of Appeal recently in IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU
2644 in a judgment delivered by Nordin Hassan JCA (now FCJ).
[27] That is not all. I am of the considered view that if the applicants are
allowed to have their way, there would be multiplicity of proceedings which itself
is an abuse of court process. Case laws on this is legion. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court can exercise the power under its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by refusing a stay and for the suit to be
dealt with by this Court.
[28] I must declare that I have no quarrel with the Press Metal principles
cited by the applicants’ respective counsel. However, Press Metal was decided
before Jaya Sudhir. In addition, Press Metal did not consider the issue of non-
parties to the arbitration agreement.
[29] I note the respective applicants’ counsel have cited in support of their
arguments, Paragraph 17 of the case of Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd &
Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394 where the Court of Appeal held:
“The action as between Inokom, Quasar and the alleged co-conspirators (Tan
Chong & TC Euro, who were not parties to the arbitration clause) can be stayed
pending the outcome of the arbitration.”
[30] However, it is clear to me paragraph [17] of the judgment in Inokom
was rendered per incuriam as there was already the Federal Court decision of
Chase Perdana to be given its due weight. Additionally, Inokom was decided
almost a decade before Jaya Sudhir was determined by the Federal Court.
[31] D2 and D3 have also cited in support of their arguments my decision
in Lineclear Motion Pictures Sdn Bhd V Measat Broadcast Network Systems
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 1826; [2021] 1 LNS 1506. I must at once make clear that
Lineclear was decided by me without considering Jaya Sudhir as unfortunately,
neither the appellant nor the respondent’s counsel had drawn my attention to
the case. The Federal Court decisions of Jaya Sudhir and Chase Perdana Bhd
on no split litigation are binding on this Court.
[32] As for D2’ posit that it has obtained a stay in a few other suits, I will
state that the facts and the arguments raised in those suits are not before this
Court. With all due respect, each case must necessarily be decided on its own
peculiar facts. Further, one was a subordinate court decision whilst the others,
being decisions of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, although deserving the
respect and deference that is due to them, are not binding on this Court. I
decline to follow those decisions.
[33] For reasons given, to avoid split litigation and multiplicity of
proceedings, Enc 18,21,24,26 and 28 are each dismissed with costs of
RM3,000 subject to allocator.
Dated this 5th day of November 2023
- signed -
………………………..
Liza Chan Sow Keng
Judge
High Court of Malaya at
Kuala Lumpur
COUNSEL:
For the Plaintiffs : Shaun Paulian (together with him,
Melvin Ng, Rahul Farhan and Loh Shi
Ying)
Messrs David & Paulian
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
For the 2nd and 3rd Defendants : K F Ee (together with him, Marcus
Chong)
Messrs K.F. Ee & Co.
For the 9th, 15th and 23rd Defendants : Arun Ganesh Boopalan
Messrs Kamil Hashim Raj & Lim
CASES CITED:
Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417
Jaya Sudhir al Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1;
[2019] 7 CLJ 395
Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee and another appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU
993
Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v Sum-Projects (Bros) Sdn Bhd [2002] 2 MLJ 71
Chase Perdana Bhd. v Pekeliling Triangle Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2008] CLJ 313;
[2007] 7 MLJ 677
IFCI Limited v Archipelago Insurance Limited [2021] MLJU 2644
Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 5 MLJ 394
STATUTE/LEGISLATION REFERRED:
Section 9, 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005
S/N ex0EpyASVUCrqk2C9cMw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 30,295 | Tika 2.6.0 |
PA-22NCvC-135-09/2022 | PLAINTIF AZURA BINTI MASRI DEFENDAN PERDA VENTURES INCORPORATED SDN BHD | Full trial – Setting aside consent judgment – Consent judgment recorded by plaintiff’s solicitor – Whether the consent judgment was recorded without plaintiff’s knowledge and authority – Whether lack of mandate of the solicitor is ground to set aside the consent judgment – Whether the solicitor is agent of the plaintiff in relation to the suit where the consent judgment was recorded – Suit was filed against a law firm and its partners – Whether the plaintiff as a partner of the law firm is jointly and severally liable. | 15/11/2023 | YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a8fd27c-e9a8-48f3-af04-a3c75b643f1c&Inline=true |
15/11/2023 15:17:29
PA-22NCvC-135-09/2022 Kand. 67
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N fNKPSqjp80ivBKPHW2Q/HA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
PA-ZZNCVC-135-09/2022 Kand. 67
15/11/2022 13:17:29
IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAYA AY PENANG
IN THE sun: or PENANG
CIVIL su NO A may 11: gnI2n22
Between
AZURA EINTV MASRV .. Plannhfl
And
PERDA vemuaes wconponmen sou BHD .. Delendanl
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
1 T ’ .5 an adion by me P\a\nlifl(‘F') to set aside a ecnsent judgment
Mler a mu Inah I msnussea P's sull Here are me gmunds ov my judgmem.
Tho Irial
2 The mal look 2 days nn15.5 2023 and15.6 2023. The witnesses who
lesflfied at the ma! were
w :55 Name Descn an
FM __A_xura nmumasn _ _ _,
FW 2 Muhsmzfl lmvan am We saucuam change mm Sam Sun lmm ‘
Manamaa Farok Messrs Rash lsman 5. Go ‘
(sunwana wllness}
wws Sardalulmuzahna The A“' aacanuam m the Sam sum
mrm Muscapa (suumena wnlnessl
,7rarflg.4a..a.m ii,
‘Fagawal Undang , unaang, Lambaga
J Kamapan Wwlayah Pmau Pmang (PERM)
fiwt
Background ram
3. F \s an ad\mca|e 5. sallworcnhe Hugh Cmmof Malaya. At an mslsna\
Ixmes, she was a parlner at ma law firm ul Messrs SailAri1& Rahawzal
(‘Said Law ' "p
m mxvsunsn-vaKPww2o/HA
«mm. san-1 nmhnrwm be met! a my a. nflmnlflly mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max
A The Defendant (‘D’) is a whu||y—subsidiary company oi Lembaga
Kemaiuan wiiayah Fulau Pmang (PERDA), a svammry body established
under lhe Lemaaga Kemaiuan wiiayah Fulau Pinang Aclfl-183
5 On 27 B 2019‘ D had filed a SIM In Fenarig High Conn Civii SIM N0.
PA»22NCVC-156476/2019 against in me Sald Law Firm as me 1"
defendant, (H) P as the 2-1 aeienaam. (HI) Nasdrul Urllul bin Shamsu!
Huda as me 3"’ deferida and (iv) Saidslui Muzalma birili Mus|apa as the
4"‘ aeienaam (“sald s )
s in the Said sun, D soughi iunheieiiewing relieve
-s Fsmuinngari kepada Paid: Vanluves inampmaiea kesemua dukumun
hakmfllk, noiana plrldahmllik yang ieiah a. sempumakan dill kesemua
dokumell lam yang aenaiiah denfian lrznsaksi peniwian hananah I
hananah bunku|yIng1eI1e1ak ai Mukim 12, Damn Subemng weiai Ulara,
Pulau Pinang ,
LaiNo 277D.GM 539
Lo|Nn 2171. GM 540
Lot No 2172. SM 541
L01 No 2773 am 542
Lm Na 21mg“ su
Lm Na 2117, GM 545
. LoINu znwsaranua was
I) Psmulamgan semula hayaran yurari guaman dam haynran mm selem dan
penuahmn haknuiix yang hsnumlah RM1.499‘BS3 79'
7 D initiated me Said Suitln pm|ec1 I|S interest In reiaiion \o me various
iands purmased by ii to: a \u|a| pumhass price 04 was nnuiun Where
the min purchase price had been semen, but me regieh-anon anhe was of
the said lands In as (avour was not carried am by me said Law Firm
8. On 3!} ID 2019, Ihe delendanls in the Said Suit (which Included P
herein) entered iniu a oensenl iudgmem with the p VI ihe Said Suit
(LB D herein) (“Conant Judgment‘). The canseni Judgment was
recorded belnre (he ‘earned iudge In wen noun, Al the maienai lime, ||‘|e
defendants In lhe Said Suil (excep| For the 4"‘ dekandanl), were
represemsd by Messrs Rosli isniaii 5. Co |'S|ld sun Sol rs“)
The Consent Judgmuit dnud 3o.1o.2n1n
9 The Cunsenl Judgmem dated so in 2019 reads:
m rNKPsupenwaKPMw20/HA
«ma s.n.i nmihnrwm a. HIGH m mm .. nflginlflly snn. dnuuvinnl VI nFiuNG puns!
him $30 the ms at Suulham Empava Duvalopmonl Sdn any V mun
Shnhmuddrn 5 Farm! 4 Dr: [2005] ML./U an m ma mural! af lnnbrlrly DI a
Danneyshm for a /aw Mn vi:- ws lmbvlny and the 0352 olA1an Mrchsel Rnasno
v Merbak MDF say. and 12-71 1] 1 cu 439 were me Com amnpsar held mat
me amatmn the! one Dimer was rm! an scurry banner arms mam branch or
me Iega/ rm anamam nan no krmwladga arms manu dots not ebsolw mm
in law al ms ltabtlrry as a plllrvar on». am.-
nu Law an F
uipal . Again
as From the laclum matrix 0! this case and me testimony at me
witnesses. I uonsxder that P was me principal And bo|h her soncuor (PW
3) am Rohaxzat were her agama m ralauan to ma Sam sun man by D
agamsl the Said Law Firm and as partners
:7 AI waw, a prinmpal Is bound by ma am: and omissms at ms agem
Regardless whelherlhe prin al has actual oi constructive knowledge In
racn. me krwmedge ollhe agem is imputed |o me pnncypax,
35. The Federal Caurl m I’ swam Thsrams/mgam v Pub/Ic Bank End
[2013] 5 cm 1 a| 24 - 25 observed:
-159; To answer nu‘: key queslfan, we have to ass» me general/aw afmvnupal
and agam m the actual (am aims pmssnl case: 1: La esmuany a aueanon oi
agency /aw. As slaved by amnaaa 4 Reynolds an mm 20» edn al p. 1.
lverwr m m. maary rornlronsmn much was bemoan two persons, on: at
whom axpwssvy or .mp»..ny mlmfusls auun! mu MI Omar svvouht Icl on ms
behalf sa .s )9 Elisa! M mmlmn: mm mm Parties, and ma amnr of wham
wmlar/y menfleslsassenlsolo aclorm acts pursuant m the mamasaam. The
was on whom bonamhe act or acla are m be none .s called the prmcmal. The
arm wvnorsm ac!/5 cafledlhe mm
/50] ona ultllu Vavirnonuquurvces ms: /allow mm. (Ins fiduaaryr laltonsllrp rs
me! as M: agirvl .s an fntamredmry, me knawhdgl 9:... .g.m 5... ...a must
samntirnu bl imbuk-d m lnIpIin:IPlI Tm: .s a mu through an agent The
concept ol mauled knowledge need In be Mp! separate «mm the concept av
oarrsmwllvs mawaaage. Imoulea mowmdgs. were u wsrates, deems ma
I-"lnc1Pi!Io have ma actual mawreago, wmm 1». mm has [599 Eowsioad s
Faynolds On Agnncy, p 54:; Conshucttvo nonu vs “a ma oirvolrce wlum mo
bowls ma mlurvfid agamsl . person Imm his wviiufly .w..m»g from mukmg
mawy 0. mspamng ducumirvls" um Fvy 4 m xamawau V Watson [1852] 2v on
ass; The »aw ml/not a/flaws person In my knawfledae mam that In: agent
knew An exylalned by the authors omgsncy Law m Commercfial Praclme, 21716
9:17! alp. 202 the prams o//mpulabovv Imals krmwrsvva hard by ma am: as
m. knowradws arms 0/ mzrpnncvfllr 1: am. s whom mwvaaga rs mm": m
III: raga: ulahonsmu Dnrwaon Mo PM-Ivrvs our .s mm only w an agent Smea :1
rs tn: duty al m. nganl la canvry such /am Ia m. prmcwzll, (ha law presumes
sm mxvsunsn-vakwwzo/HA “
«mm. Snr1I\nanhnrw\HI>e HIGH a my .. mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI .r\uNa Wm!
tne egenthas uone so wttnoutptaang upon any one the ansmus umlsnakmg 5/
aatoany astaonanmg II
1511 II it tnullmma tnat tne nlulonslllp bvlwoon ma our-naanx anu me
mutant.» was mat on pnnetaal ano Ivan! [sad caoaaya Law Ratanng Ta
sonotou stn aun. o. 144; TIM soltcrlav was an agent ama oerenaent, Nam
tooka at ma matter as a ouasmn olpnrmnka, H V! wsl/—5smm1 law as natd by me
Federal Cowl In noun V veon Ttong Lay mat me knowlodgn an mlimlarls
rounded by Mw u an. knawhdgv n! we event, so tnatms not open to me
men: In say not me sulvcnoldrd notdlsdosa me into lam lo nnn me mph Cum!
olAusa7aMa tn Slum V Kingston /12321 32 cm my nero mat ma Know/mg: of
ma whale!/5 to be Ivoatudas xnowtaoga olhva onent. tn sraotny v Rrchos[V87B]
9 on n 152 In axplzlmmg ma nne that me knuwlidyc ul ma sohcrlm IS ma
nnpuuo xnomoga onne extent Fry 4 said
mna amumslarwes onna use us auan as m ma mimary cuursa omuonass
bsrwsen sonata: and men! they are men ma sormvlal must Dc anumpd to
have oommunrcsrudml Inn to ht: anant, and me krvowloags ofme agent ta
ta nae tn. language a(Lan1 one/maven: m Esom V Plmbeflon, tne nnouxeu
knomaoga oune die!!! n apoaaas In n». to my deer that tnatmaumooon or
Wnulatrovv V: a lnmg wnton ma wan! manna! he allowed to rebut -
as 1! us my findmg that P is bound by the actions taken Dy noun Rohaizal
and her sohcnor PW 3, Even w P had wrongly napoeed her|rus\un|I1em,
ens cannot now |ake advantage or her own wrong by seekmg to set aswde
me valid and encoroeatzle Corvsenl Judgment
40 tn Pelmnas Csngs/I Sdn Bhd v Acelimur Dlilhng Sdn and [2020] 1
LNS 866. the Htgn ooun sand:
"rm III: mu tnatno man nan lake am/arvlsga ollus awn wrong and slvouldnot
benzfit Imm ht: own mrslaks Thu onnnptn waa lard out tn Hack Nua Bank
(Sabsh) and V Lam Ta! May a 0rsI1995I1LNS an M9514 MLJ 325 at :44
wmeh aan:
“ln any awn! ms me law mat no man can an ndvnntagu onna awn mong
out we may atata tne plmctple upon wnmn me Court mvanably amo,
namaty, met me auma among, wno naaam a person In a posrlton M wmch
he Hzsno ngnt to put nnn, snatt name aote to Ian adv/anlagc onnaown mega!
act av, M otner words, anon no4 avail mmsalfo/Ins own wrong -
Tm Law in upocl o4 smlng Aside a Consult Judgment
41. The courts have expounded a stud: appruach m deanng wmn
appltcattans to sel aside a vain: and tegat consent tudgment. u n. omy
snlenamsd in very lvmted circumstances
am rN><PsuoenauaKPww2a/HA ‘1
“Nair s.nn nmhnrwm a. .n... m my a. annnnn mm: dnuumnl Vfl .nann v-mat
42 The court otaopeat in Macquarts (Me/aysta) sdh arid VHSEC Bank
Ma/aysta and 5 Arm and another appaat[2ot17] 5 cm as at 188 - 139
held
V451 Hawuvw, mass thre. tsulhurtltas ham also mafltmted that the
jurisdiction me. me. am liudgmnnti: not In bu exucfsed as a matter
or mm, "kl day Iohawml rrranr. but mly be exemfsed In rirrrtted
erreirrrisrarrees orrty ad where mere is
la] areaori om. rutes orriaturatrdstiaa
tot Vick alllmsdtchofli
1:} riregairiy ie cmtlrsvenlron Ms sirnsiaririve statutory Dim/mall,
Id) serious detect or
ts; rraud
[45] TM NIVVIW rriirst drsmrtrs tn. ourdsn ul proving that tn. t/V|P“9IrsL1
appticatiori carries mthrri Im ambtl otariy at these Itmttufl zrwcumslarmvs -
43 Once a oonsent iudgment had been perteoted, the parltes are bound
by it. And the own is duty bound to entoree the agreed terms otthe same.
(see the court 0! Appeal case at Abdul Razak sheixn Marirriood & ors V
Arnanah Rays Bhd ts. ore and another appeat [2013] 5 cu 273)
44. Fremtsed on the above authan et a consent iudgrnent is rarety
disturbed unless there are axoeptienai circumstances that warrants it. The
burden ot proat ties an the apphcanl ahattenging the oonsant iudgnieht
The juttsdtcliun to set aside a eonsent Judgment is not ta ha exerctsed as
a matter ofoourse but in tirriited wcumslances It is dntyto be used where
tor instance there is Dteach o1 haturat iustice. tack ot turisd’ ' n, iitegatity
or traud.
45 P‘s case here does not come under any or the established
exoeptions tn the premises, there is no vahd ground to set aside the
consent Judgment
Alleged lack M ninndttu
45 P wmplatns that her solicitor, t=w 3. has recorded the consent
Judgment without any approval trdm her. However, a lack at mandate ol
the tawyer is not a yaiid gmtmd to have a oansent ittdgrnant set aside. it
is wen established that the s tut retained in an aotiun has an imptiad
authority as between hirnsett and his etient to cumprom se the suit Thus,
oaunse\’s alleged tack ot authority is not a valid ground to set aside a
consent iudgnient.
SIN rN><PSuD6DwBKPww2o/HA '3
“Nate Smut luvthnrwm i. u... a may he nflmruflly MIMI dnuavtml VI aFiuNfl vlmxi
47 it is aignttioant to note that the athdavits aitirrned oy F atter the
consent Judgment was recorded, had explained the naps taken to
execule the consent Judgment. Thus. F cannot say that she did not agree
to enter into the consent Judgment In any case, by way other conduct
in ettirnitng the amdauits, P had rattfied theact oi her sotioitors in reoording
the consent Judgment I oonetude that F cannot set aside the consent
Judgment based on the argument that she never gave a mandate to her
soticitors to enter into the consent Judgment
48. P haros on the tact that Rohaizat is no tonger an advocate 5 solicitor
and was not a partner or the said Law Firm at the matertat time. having
been struck o« the runs. on that basis. P oontends that Rohaizat has no
authority |a enter into any consent Judgment taut that misses the point,
The consent Judgmen| was entered into by the said Law Firm and its
partners, who were the detertdants in the said suit Not by Rohatzat.
Ruhatlat‘s rote was as P's agent in relation to the said suit and in
corweytn ' |mc1tun to the said suttsoticitors.
49. P pointed out that the consent Judgment was recorded heiore the
tearned iudga without her presence. But it is not a requirement that the
etient nttJs| be present as such The sorieitors representing F tn the said
Sutl was present. and that sutiioes
so D had appctlmsd the said Law Firm t omptete the purchase and
registration or tands tn its iavour. Towards thi D had paid tegat tees and
disbursements amounting to RMt.49s,a9a 79. The said Law Firm had
varied to discharge its du|y to D This ted to D (ting the said sun against
the said Law Ftvm and its partners, which tnctuded P The said suit
cutmtnated in the recording oi the consent Judgment D shoutd not be
denied oi their rights under the consent Judgment, tor no Iautt v1 theirs
conclusion
51 For the reasons aoove, I itnd that P has iatted to prove her case on a
oatanoe of probabilities. I thereiore dismissed P‘: action. I ordered P lo
oay oosts D1 Rtvtt 5,000 to D
Dated 25 septemoei 2023
X
Quay Chvw soon
rn 7NKPSup6niwBKPHW20/HA
“Nair s.n.i nuvthnrwm be u... M van; i... nflgtrilflly MVMI dnuumnl vn .riuite porut
Judge
mgr. Cuurl or Mawaya, Fenang
cm: Diviswon NCVC 1
V
Mohammid mu; hm Zamm Ahlmn (Messrs Hafiz mm .: Rezafl let me P\arrml1
Amux Faveed Mn mm eavoavana Faun NabILIh hmu smnanmun (Messrs Emliw
Hm; rmme wenuam
zmanw-.4
Toh Fang Chang 5 Dr: V Pang Choon ma! 5 Or: and anolhur E17993/[2020] MLJU
ms
1 s.V.m Tharamaflngam V PVMV am am1[2o1e} s on I
Patrons: Cangak Sun and V /wcflmm omvmg Slim and [mm] 1 ms use
Maaquane [Ma/aysu) Sun and V Nsac am Ma/aysua am 4 mm and mm.
span! [2007] 6 cu 1 75
Abdul Razak shun: Mnhmood 4 (its Vmmn Ray; and 5 Or: and another appeal
pm; 5 cm 273
Lg slahan ma
seam 114[g)o/Ills 5V.ame Act 195::
sm mxfisupennakvwwza/HA ‘5
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwHH>e V... In vsfly V. WWVHIUIY mum: V.m.V.V. VI .HuNa Wm!
sw vN»<PsuDWwaK>>Mw2n/HA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
-1 nacanaan Penama. Keaaa flan Kanga hendak Van memasukkan adpudukasx
aanam unmk Borang mnaannnnx an Kanun ranan Nvfiava unluk ketumh
—|unm nu nananan yang mamam sublskun nawarnnnaaun Im klpldi plhak
Lembaga Han: Da\am Nagan (mum da¥am man nnan 47) nan dinpnda
lankh psvmlah 1
2 navenuen Perumn. Kaaaa gen Kanga heuflak wan menwsmukakan Kepada
wanmv alau Peg-aamaa.a nya sesalman Nana Takslvan yang u. kduarkan
men mun umuk aanmnan dawn Wmrlwan 1.
3 Saw: nya yumhh bayaun yang a. kenaksn dzflnm Nolm manan flan!
atau panawn yang dw nanmn pwhak mun unluk ke1ujuh—Iuyuhlm nananan
ying memndv suhpek flw aannn lmdakan W melehem nnman
Rmnogaassse yaw |e\ah .1. aayar auen manna «apaaa nevanuan
Penama. make uevenaan r-enama. Kedua can Kauga nanuan Van
nuenyexasnan Nmlah wanw yang bellehman yang dw nanmn mshlul Nana
rananan umuk aannmau aanam pa.en9Qan 1 a. ma.
4 Fembiynmn hiyman mm aeuem menurm Nous rasanan pmak won
henflak Van aw aaananan Deflendan Panama, Kedua den Kauna Imam -nasa
21 (due vuhm salu) nan darvpada Denumuazn Mom Takwan uanpaua
h‘hakLHDN1
5 wenaananan Buvlng my Kamm nnan Nagnri umukme\en.askan gaaaaan
din aanang ma Kannn nanan uagena unluk Pmdahmmk hendaklah dw
kemukakan kevada pmak PenIaflhnvTanenlFem1aiIav Hanannk bmallan
Hahn: (emwh 3 may nan aanpaaa lankh pemamnaan sum sanam unluk
«amen da\am Davaflflslan 4 dl a«an
a sakna ny: leldipnl ipz|- aga blynvin din /a-an penann umuk pendallaran
damn verenqgan 5 El! mas mebbxhx nmnen RM17952311 yang an bays!
ole“ mnan Pmvnnl napaaa Delendan Panama, maka Delsndan Panama‘
Kenna den Kenna hemiak nan membayav ape ~ aoa mnuan wang yang
nanamnan yarn: d1 kanakan uarsanun
1 Pmak Flammaknn menank semua aeaan yang .1. hual uamaaan Delendnn
Kenna, Kenga dnn Muflurih mnn zaunn. nepaaa Lemhaga Tzlalemb
Pefiuam V Peguam sebnaa vmses pmaannnnn kemnh 4-nun Vol nananan
yang menial}! aumaxm oa\am tmdakan W an anaa nama Dafanuan Panama
an samnurnanan,
a maunm menank bank keseluruhan (mdakan «ammo nerenaan Kaempax.
a ham Dennlah berkenaan ms “
Daemon
10 In the msxam acnony P seeks to set aside |he Consent Judgment
recuvded me Said Suil P aHeges mat the 5 sun senators, and m
SIN INKPSIDGDIVEKPKWZQ/HA 3
«nae ann ...na.,.n a. a... e vsfly .. anmnauly mum: flnuamnl vn .nnna W
panlcular the sotrodor tn charge FW 3. had recorded the consent
Judgment wrzhout her knawledge and aumonly. The present aclmn was
med atter D had commenced execulmn pnmeedrngr. tn the Sand sun
11 eased on the evrdenee and the testtmumes nf P's own wrtnesees, I
oonsrder P‘s actrdn nerern |o be an enenhought and an unmented anemp|
to tree hersetv Yrom oornptyrng wtth the terms unhe Cnnsent Judgment
Here are my reasons
flu testimony of Ihu Plaintm
12 From F‘s uwn evtdenoe‘ upan reoewmg the Wm under me Said Suilr
she had entrusted and left Ihe mallet In be handled by Enclk Rohalzal hm
othrnan (“kohnlzll”) In olher words, r= had apparnted Rahalzal as her
agent |o handle maners penainmg (L) We Said Sun.
13 P had chosen |o reuose her trust on Roharzat, the vdrrner pennerov
the sand Law Frrrn. Roharzat was struck omrorn the voH at advocates &
sohctturs due In enrbezztement 0! chants‘ awcum rnonra P had on her
own accord acknowledged Roharzat as the owner or the sad Law Frnn
when as a matter at tact and taw, Rohatzat Is not so
14 under cross exammalton, P admitted rt was no| wrrecl to do so
-0 seruru saya mangalaknn bahzwa dengan mengetakan hnhau xebagal
seoreng perrmnr films. vanyn sebenamya mervyalam peluntukin Legal
Fmiesxmn Act tnrtah penmdangan Fuan aderah psguam den Puan petiu
mu.
A Va“
15. P also adnrmed that she was one or the partners at the Satd Law Ftmt
at the nretenal Mme ol the wand purchase transactron.
‘o Jam Puan iendm yang ms menpadl r-Ikzm kaflgst Dada waklu mu"
A Reta meruadl Iakan knngst '
15 crucrany, P had taued to subpoena Rahaizat to testrty tmnosmmg ms
rote tn retauon hi the land purchase trsnsacltcn and the matters teadrng
up to me consent Judgmem.
'9 our unluk mangalakan behiu sehagm vakan kangst ataupurr pammk Vwma
tarsubul, xdiknh Puan Ielah nrengseptrra En Rohalzat mentldl my pads
kt: mm
A Trdak “
srn rws...ed.rem«w2mr. ‘
«rt... smut nnmhnrwm .. u... m mm .. nrW\rr|U|Y sun. dnuumrrl vn muhc W
17 Hmnk an adverse mvarencs under seeuon 114(9) cnhe Ewaence Acl
1950 can be drawn agamst P (or her failure to do sn. Especially smce P
m her pleading had afleged that n was Rohavzal who had dean with D and
would produce ewdenue av me same dunng |naL However, P lanes: to
produce any such evidence.
“a saya msngalakan hahawa memandaflgkan «mu l:n4\uny ad: um my
menu-qukxan nevenaan us-uman aeugan En Ruhiwzat oxen ||u Puzm
(Idak a-pan mangemukalun sebamng kelemngnn tenung nerkam
luslhul
A Ya“
1a A! paragraph 6 0! her Statsmem ov Clam P meaden:
'5 Aflenhe PLIIMM recerved a may ohhe WrIlolSummons and suanememov
mam tneremaner reiemd m as The wm ov Summons), ma Plalnllll
cenunkd me ownlr M Mum. serum 5 noruxm, my wonuuz :-
Omman Mvevs ms mamm was merely . sahnsd winner at mm mm
Pln‘ * wu mu. Inlomud hy umm.’ IBin Dlhmln who ma mm
m undulnkmn «e um um mum with ma nmmmu wlmaux
xmemnn mum’
19. At paragraphs 3 and 4 a! he! Repuy, P pleaded:
‘a On Paragraph 3 or Ihe Delendams Slalemenl av Defence‘ ma Halnlfl
avers man at an mammal mm me oevenaam haul xmwweage, know and
am: naa uaau wnh Mv Rohllul, wk x cm mm: M Mum. Slit Am
A nonmu ugavunva Du puvchlm |rlnsi1:lmn no me iuflnwmg pmnemes
Locmad m Mnkxm ‘2 Dnemh Sebemng Perm um um... Pmang as
lollows
. Lul No 2170, GM539
u Lol No 2771,GM54D
. Lol No 2772. cm 541
w Ln| No 2773. en su
V Lol No 2m. SM 544
w Lowe 2117. 5»: ms
vn LoINa 2450‘ Geran No 40495
4 The Plainlm will pnaducn m.4.~c. mu slninm-mx in um um wlll
Ihuw that en. Dnfuudlm wu ...u..u .suu...g with Mr Rahnnt Em
Olhman and have knowledge .egamm Mr Rnnauan Em Omman where
every uamenm and swans regar-dmg me was menlnoned m Pavaarapn 2
ahnve was made beflore me wamm had nomad Mews Saw. An! 1.
Rnhawzal As a matter 0! Van, ma mamw had me: doafl wnh Inn
Daiendam regarding moss uansacmm
5
sm mxvsunsn-vaKPww2a/HA
«mm. smuw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
20. thterestrngly, P tn her pteadtngs reters to Rdhaizat as the owner at
the sard Law Finn, although Rohatzal had been stmek act the retts.
Further, P pleaded that she rehed on Rohetzats assurance that he wdutd
‘settle the matter wtth D wrthout inydmng 9'. Well, the matter was tndeed
semed‘ in a rnahner at speaking, by way at the Consent .ludgmert| taut
now‘ P edrnptarna about the setttentent and the cdnsent Judgment
2t F had tett rt [0 Rdharzat to engage satrcrtore and sort out matters
pen hung to the Satd sutt Yet. P conceded that as a detendant in the
5 d suit. she had to drhgentty detend the said surt. However. the
evtdence show that P had taken a tackaderereat atttuda and ten the
conduct at the sand sutt Io Rdhatzat. worst, P admitted that she dtd not
tmther to find out about the pmgress oi the Satd Sutt
o ox. Iak apa, Puart rwm tam n at that. Jam‘ seltttu say: tatmn hahawa
Puatt tatan manyevahknn hutarbulal kapada En Roltitzat wdtaupdn aettau
bukan ptgulm ands tettta an dan wan adatan mkart kangst nnna yang
tent. dtsnman dteh pthak Dshndan‘ taetuw
va
Puan adatan swung pegusm
va
Bttkin my person, Puan tak vsmalt unyn ndakah En trnran tetan turtun
nemhetaanr vak parnah tanyaa
A Fembelaavtr malt‘
ODD >
22 F contrrnted that she had amrmed 3 attrdayrta at the request at her
eotrcttor, FW 3 one afltdavtl was sworn by her on 3 9.2019, betme the
reoordtng at the Oonserfl Judgment Notably, two more affidavtls dated
2 32020 were sworn by P atter the reeordtng ot the consent Judgment.
Ao Ttdak wan, setsmstvya Ptmh says mpuk kepada psvanggatt ‘H mm D:
datarn parsnggitr '11 mt. senate nngkas Pttavr mnngatakan hahawa Puavt
tatan msnglkvirknn andavn tetsabut atas pvmtnlnan dteh Eh Muhanrad
nrnan, helm’! seeara rtnakasnyav
A vs hetut
23 P adnntted that she had amrrned all the 3 athdayits wtthodt any
duatrne. And wrthout any protest that PW 3 was on record representtng
her
‘Q ox Soalah saya seluju atd.yrtterset=utd.sedratan man How nntartacav
Seluttt
va Yang pad: wnkm m: an meow umuk psguim sebngat veduarn Fuatt,
octuw
Vn. belul
D)
SIN rNt<Psupet'hyaKPww2t:t/HA S
«ma a.r.r ...n.ryn .. d... w my .. annnn an. dnuuvtmt Vfl .nuna v-mat
Din selum hahawa se\epns Puan mama Msdnvul mrsebm pnhak Rush
lsmaxl a Ca lelah memianlkan aflflawl lzrsebul new mm Puan
sum
semu oanawa anaam ml yang Fuan mama" Am mu.» dukmriun
stbemm plnghaluman ps...:..,u.n m..mm.. pad: so/mzzmm
am:
o>c>o
Dan semm hahawe Puan max Demah Dmlesl mmadan Pe"'4akIIan mm.
lsmml a. Ca memaknl vmak Puan alauvlm penysdlaan afidavll terxabuh
ss1uJu7
A samu-
24 What Is sfarlling .s P’: adrmsswon ul herwllliul blmdness m lesvmg me
affairs of lhe Sand Law Fm |o Ruhaiza\ In shun, P \s the author of her
own preducamem
“o ox, selemsnya‘ Fuarv says mm wan, apawa Puan mangmakan Eu
Rohalzat swan pemnk mm: |eI:ebu\ pada mau Puan mam: mm
kangsl. secali Imk lzmgsung Fuzm lelnh memhenalknn semang yang
um belkelnynkan .m mengm Ann Punn dakwn semarw yang udak
nemewayaxan. an unaulhansed person unluk mengendahkan musan mma.
Pm semllfl
Saluiu
Jam Im mlrupakzn wumx m.m..m- mlknany: pm mm» mm. spa am
nakbual mu.» sew... ke mu Bonus: Puan pun semhksn bu\n|—hu\a|
men. seoranfi yang udak bemelayakan un|u|( mengenflalnkan uruszn
mm mm: sedamkan Puan aflalah rakan knmzsw yanw memvunyax
Isabmu Puan cenan msnumv setmah Mala‘ Puan mamanapa my ma mm.
mm mu IIdak7
A Balm‘
or
25 F candwdly summed mac maltars between herand nersanumrs m the
Said sun ws unrelated to D And lhal he! grievance m relalmn to the
Consent Judgmenl should be dwected to her sol urs Ie the 5 sum
soncuars.
-o ox. Puan, says ada lew more uueshnns mmadap Puan. Panama, ray!
mefiwalakan urusan venunaxmn rekod unluk mevekndkan vsnahuuman
Davsalujuan adalah mus... dl smara mum Gan was anak guam. um
mallbalkzn Dufwdan ublgaw Pmak K , selupfl
Sehqu
0 Dan saya menualakan seknanya Puan mempunyaw smrana kemnsn
umupun lmdakan, Puan pun. mangamnu lmdakan Iemadap vefillam Fuln.
En Muhamad lmnn dam ma firma mu man a. Co
A Va‘
7
sm mxwsunsnnakwwzo/HA
«mm. Snr1I\nauhnrw\HI>e HIQG w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
Thu unnnmny of PW 3. me sonclnuv In charm at the Said sun
25. PW a was me sohcinuv who ease «or F In me said suin He ennended
com on 30 10.2019 no record nne Consent Judgmenn.
27 n=w 3 Ieshfisd «nan he had umy dean wim and taken nnsnrueniuns lmm
Rohanzal and me send Law Firm. on beneI1oH=.And non «mm P dnrecnly
-n Soalan snya, ednen En Imran kemukzkan xvi-ans wnran Varmkan danpad-I
pnhik Planmwsendnrfl Pmuk plamhl denen kes W
A Danpada pmak Flamm sendnli. lndak ada Apa yang saya pdnyen danpada
En nananzen pads kelnka nnu, because pmak raya ad. nnnnne dannada behau
ram salnnan Mam pulnh unnux menuvuukkan bahuwa plhak fivma darn nun:
riksn-mkean nmngsn nevisbul ad: nnenennnn plhlk siyn darn pmak says nenen
dnsenaman dengavn Salli writ Iinukxn yang dneenxen onenn En Fuhinznl
kepada pnhak ray:
0 on Jim. nepe yang membayar yuran guamin kepada En lmmrn unnuk
mengendalnkan guman (arsenal?
En Rnha\za|'
28. PW 3 nesnined man an Ihe day 0! me recordnng 0! me Consenl
Judgment, Rohalzal gave mm a wetter msndalmg sememenn PW 3 had
rehed on me said Weller and me reprasematnon made by Ronenzen
a an snapakah never-den-Denende» ylng hmnrsemasa nankh penghaknman
pelseluman nsvsshumwekadkan fll hadapan Vang Am rnenmn
A Pada nankh purvghaklman persemjuan nu mvekodkan, nuemenmeneman
mam ya. ml Ame Emu Main din Nasdml umen mak nemn secava
swam merela nenepn pmak saya mampunyal saw En Rohanzan new
man darn En nnmanzan lelah mengemukakan kepzda nay. um suml
aeneeda fimna guamlnnyi sekah Wag! yang mevvyanakan bahiwa me
mampunyan Manda! nm|uk bemndak bag: pmak rnmne dan was nevenuan
wennenne den Deflendan Kez an dalam negennennenn umuk Ines lersabul
0 Ads kamu menda en eeeepe persemguan danpaoa me n unluk
merekodkan wen. min venseluthan nersebul"
A Pads mu. merekndkan penqhaklman paviaiunuan Ianebul serndm, plhak
nay. M-nk mendepaflnan, ltdak wnen bamnkap alaupun mendapankan
pellflujuan danpada Flawml mere kendmnnya memandangkan uyi rely
kepadu swan darn jugs nepvexemasl yenn annual onen En Rnhanznliersebul
kepada plhak s.Iya'
29 The abcve—menInonet1 Ieuer was nendened as evidence m me course
nuns: and marked as exhnhnn P1‘ In was a Iennevdened 2210 2019 on me
Iennernead 0! me send Law Firm whnen reeds.
“Leam pmceedlnqs agims| M/s sen AM! 5. Rohanzat med :1 e nnnnn
SIN rN><PsupenwaKPww2a/HA B
“Nana Snr1|\nuvnhnrw\HI>e med e mm .. nnun em. dnuumnl Vfl mnma we
Ar-nomnmem o1Roh.mza(b 01hm.m as repvesemaxlve 1:! M/s Saul Am a. Rohawzat
wun reverence «.2 me above we we to Amorm you that uurfirm neuey Iypaxm
Ronalzat n Olvuman Nmc nnsmovsws as our raousuntatwe came abevelznd
pvuosedmgs and I or meauuun pmcledmgs and been auxhonzed in make any
aeauun Daflimmg to me name‘
30. N50 tendered as evidence m the course e! ml was a Iener dated
10 7 2019 en me Ienemeaa e1 me Sam Law Firm addressed to the Sand
sun Sullmlors‘ when was marked as exhibit ‘D2’ The sad wetter reads
'LsIIeIoVAw0\mmam m cm: Sun Fanalla mgr. Cour! Nu FA-12NCvC-15s-
06/21:13
Ferd: vemme. mempemea SIM and V 1 M/s SmlAnN& Ranmzal, 2 Azure en
men, 3 Nasdrm Llmurb smmem Huda 4 San1axulMuzaIman mmuslava
wnn reverence ya me abuva we hereby wunm Hka to avflemt yum gund nflica In
veDeun|1“,2"‘ and 3'“ Delendam wnh mmmana eweex
A: such.kmaIynI1end.nc|md no me needim larlhe anavesam pmnesdmgs and
lens hnve upaexe abaunhe stains ewe same '
31. FW 3 (eenfisd that P never raised any Issue about being represented
by mm m me sex: sun P had amrmee all the affidavns he had prepared
hr her when he reqmred her tn do so.
-n Adaksh sebnmnq pmiex dnnpafl: PM hum —
mea
Dan behau Iemh eengan ma mengwkrarxan amavn |9rsehm7
Ya.
Vang anaevmyang kedui mm
Dan mum yang kemn yewnh perkarn tersehul hermula nan pmak suya
lelah cubs un|u|( bevjumpa eengau En Ranaua: dzn pmak say: lalah
menymakan bemywa mam nenumna denwan Pn Azure mam can say:
|e|an nenun-De denaan r-n Alum den Fn Alma (mall mengmamn afidavll
lerwbm sendm
So‘ mam kedua ml, Fn Azuva men mengmman aeepes beuumna
dnngln En Inn...»
A eem smea-
>9. mg»
32. PW 3 also lsslmed that P had never queshoned his apnuinnmem as
her eouenm: nor me ceneem Judgment reoordsd by mm
o Adakzh um kehka mu n=.. Mm: memvenukaxkan Delannkan En Res»
sorvy En mm sebagav peg-am’?
A Tmak
9
sm mxvsunsn-vakvwwzo/HA
«we. see lunhnrwm a. med e may he nflmnlflly mum: flnuamnl VI .r\uNa we
e um Dan mam behau mempersoalkan (envsng Dellghzkmvan
pevselugunn Ieuehufi xerana afiflavd «mam memm kevada
penghnkumian Dersetuluan
A va
0 Adakah buhau mrmpelsnaflmn |en|ang pmnamm... persemuan
|arsabul’7
A, Fan: kehkn mu Imak
a max. ya Makuh sebarang swat danpada Fn Azura yang, ataupun mm;
lensehul sand mm, :95 ml. S-Ifl AM nnnauzax, yang mampemkmkan
lenlang penghu man pel::1u;uan(eISebu('7
A: naus-
nu Law an Pamm-ship Lllblllly
33. As a parlnev arms Sam Law Firm at me ma|ena| «me, P 15 ;oInIly and
ssvemlly llable towards Ihe Sswd Law Fm‘: awairs
34. In this msunnce, F Iesmfied man she had left me avvaivs nflhe sam Law
mm to Rahalzzn. uespme knuwmg that he was struck o« from me roHs due
m emhszz\smen| av cl\en1s' mo s Having mmwn caubon a» me wmd, P
cannot now cry com and attempt |o deny D's right In me Cunsem
Judgment.
35 The com u1Appsa\ m Ton Fong Cheng & Ors v Pang Chocn Kia! 5
Or: and another appeal [2020] MLJU 1476 said
“[136] Sactron 11 nfme F.snneIshwAc11F51nvakesamM pannm cum rm
hams /mnlly or an «am and uohgalrorvs am. am rnmned whne he :5 . pm:-er
as mmm
mmm o/pamms
u Evury partner m a my 1.5 hams pmny mm the omerparmers for an dams
and ablrgallms ollha mm mcunad mm. A. rs a paflnen and a/Iarlus naam hr:
estate rs also xewrallylmmu m a we caurse oladrrumsbatrorv for such mm and
nohgalrons, so law as may mmam unsauavrsa but subject m the Dnarnaymenl or
ms uplmlz debts V
[L17]Ns!msr wow! the ma olpanrmsllm hers ma: ah: salamd pmmvm or
us, make my ammm Wham lmbmly rs ooncsrmd n rs lor on m get me
nsoessary mdemmry from me pdncuzal parlml Mmm FL no in ma mm or
bsmg ma, ma. maaaa me had as can be sun .: page 472 RR Endoruru 1
m ha: empmyman: as a sa/amt: pannov aflnctvw from a 5 2019 Na Imuun! of
nmsngamsnls between ma psmmrs Intense whether as ralansd, oonlmtuvun or
eqully partners m chug: a/mama prwscls or assrgnrnervls arbrsnches wowd
mlucnm woddnl fiarge that deals wvlh ms panrvsrsnw ls . wnms Hem us and
as war: sand 1.: be partners on me Kulla Lumnm mam or ma Lard Fwm
wmnus: oz and D4 wow paflrmls m tho Pals/mg ./aye mm a: my milnnnl
1
SIN rN><PsupenwaKPww2a/HA D
«W. smw nunhnrwmbeuledlx:vuIV1ltnenrW\n|H|)/IMMI aaa.".m..n_.Na W
| 2,134 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-22C-87-08/2017 | PLAINTIF MALAYSIAN BIO-XCELL SDN BHD DEFENDAN LEBAS TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD | Enclosure 73. The Defendant has via its Notice of Application in enclosure 73 (Enclosure 73) applied for various orders in accordance with Order 14 A and/or Order 33 rule 5 and/or Order 18 rule 19 (1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 on inter alia whether res judicata exists in the Civil Suit (“CS”) before this court and specifically on the Questions of law. | 15/11/2023 | YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f31b5dd9-7af3-4134-a17c-e61ca2a401dc&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - 36. Malaysian Bio X Cell.O14A - appeal (1)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA
CIVIL SUIT NO.: WA-22C-87-08/2017
BETWEEN
MALAYSIAN BIO-XCELL SDN BHD
(Company No.: 877135-M)
[In Liquidation] …PLAINTIFF
AND
LEBAS TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD
(Company No.: 909169-V) …DEFENDANT
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 73)
Introduction
[1] The Defendant has via its Notice of Application in enclosure 73
(Enclosure 73) applied for various orders in accordance with Order
14 A and/or Order 33 rule 5 and/or Order 18 rule 19 (1)(a), (b), (c)
and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 on inter alia whether res judicata
exists in the Civil Suit (“CS”) before this court and specifically on the
following Questions of law:-
1.1 Question 1
15/11/2023 12:26:32
WA-22C-87-08/2017 Kand. 102
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Whether the Final Award under the 1st Arbitration create any
obligation on the Defendant to deliver the Equipment to the
Plaintiff upon the payment of the Arbitration Sum awarded?
And if this Honorable Court answers Question 1 in the
negative against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant,
that the following order be granted:-
i. That the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim be
Struct Out.
1.2 Question 2
Whether the Plaintiff is estopped of and/or waived and/or
abandoned its rights to pursue this action?
1.3 Question 3
Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the defence of
Laches under Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1953?
1.4 Question 4
Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the Doctrine of
Election and the Principles of Res Judicata?
1.5 Question 5
Whether this is a fit and proper case to be dismissed for want of
prosecution in light of the Plaintiff’s inordinate and inexcusable
delay (to prosecute) which has gravely prejudiced the Defendant
in the conduct of its defence?
1.6 Question 6
Whether this is a fit and proper case to be dismissed for want of
prosecution in light of the Plaintiff’s contumelious conduct of
abusing court process?
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
And if this Honorable Court answers Questions 2 to 6 in
the affirmative against the Plaintiff and in favour of the
Defendant, that the following order be granted:-
i. That the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim
be Struck Out.
[2] The grounds in support of Enclosure 73 are as follows:-
a) Grounds in Support of the Application for Disposal of Case on
Point of Law
i. The questions posed are suitable for determination without full
trial of the action; and
ii. Such determination will finally determine or dispose of the
entire cause or matter of any claim or issue in the Plaintiff’s
claim against the Defendant.
b) Grounds in Support of the Application to Strike out the Pleadings
i. The Plaintiff has no reasonable cause of action against the
Defendant;
ii. The Plaintiff’s conduct / suit is frivolous and/or vexatious to the
Defendant;
iii. The Plaintiff’s action / suit was intentionally filed and
maintained to prejudice and embarrass the Defendant; and
iv. The Plaintiff’s action / suit is an abuse of the Court process.
Brief Background
[3] The Plaintiff and MetEx had entered into a Build, Lease and Transfer
Agreement dated 01.11.2010 (“the BLT Agreement”).
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[4] Pursuant to the BLT Agreement, the Plaintiff was to design, build,
equip, test and commission facility for the production of propanediol
(“PDO”) for MetEx on a parcel of the Plaintiff’s land held under PTD
171839, Mukim Jelutong, Daerah Johor Bharu.
[5] Pursuant to the BLT Agreement, the Plaintiff had appointed the
Defendant as the main contractor under the EPCC Contract dated
21.06.2011 (“Engineering, procurement, Construction and
Commissioning Contract”) [“the EPCC Contract”] to carry out the
engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of a
biotechnology facility to produce PDO (“the Project”).
[6] In accordance to the provisions of the EPCC Contract, MetEx was
appointed as the Project Manager and as the Plaintiff’s
representative to supervise and manage the Project.
[7] Premised upon the terms and conditions of the EPCC Contract, the
Project Manager acting within its authority had on 06.02.2013 issued
2 Notices of Correct (“the Notice to Correct”) to the Defendant
requiring the Defendant to perform its obligations under the EPCC
Contract within 14 days.
[8] Upon of the Defendant’s failure and/or refusal to comply with both of
the Notice to Correct, the plaintiff had on 15.03.2013 terminated the
EPCC Contract.
[9] The Defendant had disputed the termination of the EPCC Contract
and referred the matter of the termination of the EPCC Contract by
the Plaintiff for arbitration.
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[10] In the arbitration proceedings, the Defendant had claimed against the
Plaintiff, amongst others, the cost of the equipment ordered by the
Defendant from suppliers abroad under the EPCC Contract for the
purposes of the Project.
[11] The particulars of the said equipment are as follows:-
(a) Process Control System from ABB France amounting to
RM2,564,669.31;
(b) Salts Removal process from Buss SMS Canzler Gmbh
amounting to RM8,480,850.00; and
(c) Water Removal Process from GEA Wiegand Gmbh
amounting to RM6,672,750.00.
( “the Equipment”).
[12] Throughout the arbitration proceedings, the Defendant asserted that
the Defendant was ready, willing and able to perform its obligations
under the EPCC Contract and was able to supply the Equipment.
[13] The Learned Arbitrators had rendered an Arbitration Award dated
02.02.2015 (“the Arbitration Award”) and held that the Equipment
which were to be supplied and/or ordered by the Defendant for the
Project should be given full value as claimed by the Defendant and
the Plaintiff was required to make payment to the Defendant for the
said Equipment.
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[14] The Defendant had, amongst others, claimed in the arbitration
proceedings the full value of the Equipment amounting to
RM18,162,321.45.
[15] The Arbitration Award allowed the Defendant’s claim for the price of
the Equipment and held that upon on the final account, the Plaintiff
was liable to pay the Defendant:-
(a) RM6,559,440.37 (“the Arbitration Sum Awarded”) after
deducting an amount of RM32,798,505.64 which had already
been paid to the Defendant as “milestone payments” under the
EPCC Contract;
(b) Interest on the sum of RM6,559,440.37 at the rate of 5% per
annum from the date of the Arbitration Award until the dated of
full payment; and
(c) the cost of arbitration in the sum of RM601,850.00.
Findings
Law
[16] This court has the power under Order 14 A of the Rules of Court 2012
to dispose a case on appoint of law so long as it will determine the
entire claim. The said Order provides:
(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:
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(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.
Questions Posed
[17] The questions posed to this court are as follows:-
(a) Question 1:
Whether the Final Award under the 1st Arbitration crate any
obligation on the Defendant to deliver the Equipment to the
Plaintiff upon the payment of the Arbitration Sum awarded:
And if this Honourable Court answers this question in the
negative against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant,
that the following order be granted:-
i. That the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim be struck
out.
(b) Question 2:
Whether the Plaintiff is estopped or and/or waived and/or
abandoned its rights to pursue this action?
And if this Honourable Court answers this question in the
affirmative against the plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant,
that the following order be granted:-
i. That the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim be struck
out.
(c) Question 3:
Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the Defence of
Laches under Section 32 of the Limitations Act 1953?
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
And if this Honourable Court answers this question in the
affirmative against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant,
that the following order be granted:-
i. That the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim be struck
out.
(d) Question 4:
Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the Doctrine of
Election and the Principles of Res Judicata?
And if this Honourable Court answers this question in the
affirmative against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant,
that the following order be granted:-
i. That the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim be struck
out.
(e) Question 5:
Whether this is a fit and proper case to be dismissed for want
of prosecution in light of the Plaintiff’s inordinate and
inexcusable delay (to prosecute) which has gravely prejudiced
the Defendant in the conduct of its defence?
And if this Honourable Court answers this question in the
affirmative against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant,
that the following order be granted:-
i. That the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim be struck
out.
(f) Question 6:
Whether this is a fit and proper case to be dismissed for want
of prosecution in light of the Plaintiff’s contumelious conduct of
abusing court process?
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
And if this Honourable Court answers this question in the
affirmative against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant,
that the following order be granted:-
ii. That the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim be struck
out.
[18] Looking at the questions posed by the Defendant in Enclosure 73, I
find that the 6 questions posed are clear and precise and would at
the end of the day determine or dispose the Plaintiff’s claim in the CS.
Substantive Issues
[19] In essence the Defendant states the claim in the CS should have
been raised or done in the 1st Arbitration and referred this Court to
the Statement of Claim at enclosure 2 hereof at prayers 47 onwards.
[20] I have perused the said Statement of Claim wherein verbatim had
prayed as follows:-
(a) that the Defendant is ordered to deliver and/or to transfer
ownership of the Equipment to the Plaintiff and/or cause the
Equipment to be delivered and/or transferred to the Plaintiff
within 60 days from the payment of the sum of
RM6,559,440.37 (“the Arbitration Sum Awarded”) as awarded
in the arbitration proceedings between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant;
(b) in relation to paragraph (a) above, that the Plaintiff is at liberty
to make payment of the Arbitration Sum Awarded to a
stakeholder or otherwise as directed by this Honourable Court:
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
(c) that in the event that the Defendant shall fail to deliver and/or
to transfer ownership of the equipment for Salts Removal
Process from Buss SMS Canzler Gmbh under the EPCC
Contract dated 21.6.2011 within the period specified in
paragraph (a) above, the Defendant shall then pay to the
Plaintiff the sum of RM8,480,850.00;
(d) that in the event that the Defendant shall fail to deliver and/or
to transfer ownership of the equipment for Watr Removal
Process from GEA Wiegand GMBH under the EPCC Contract
dated 21.06.2011 within the period specified in paragraph (a)
above, the Defendant shall then pa to the Plaintiff the sum of
RM6,672,750.00;
(e) further and/or in the alternative, that damages be assessed
and paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff;
(f) pre-judgment interest at the rate and period which is deemed
just and proper by this Honourable Court;
(g) post-judgment interest at the rate of 5% from the date of
judgment until the date of full settlement;
(h) that the Plaintiff be given liberty to apply;
[21] The Plaintiff in its opposition to Enclosure 73 has in return argued
that:
(i) their pleadings in the Statement of Claim are on the primary
question of the validity of the termination of contracts and the
secondary issue therein is as to quantum as well as whether
the Defendant is liable to deliver the Equipment,
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(ii) their CS was filed subsequent to the findings in the Arbitration,
and which questions were never an issue nor canvassed
and/or dealt with in the 1st Arbitration.
(iii) it has never been the situation where the Plaintiff has
attempted to stifle the matter as they have actively sought to
determine the dispute since the year 2017
(iv) the issues could not have arisen during the 1st Arbitration as
they were not live issues then.
[22] In reading paragraphs 22 to 24 and 26 to 32 of the Statement of Claim
I have found that the said paragraphs related to inter alia
22.1 the Arbitration Award dated 2.2.2015 and the sum awarded
therein which was RM6,559,440.37 after deducting
RM32,798,505.64 which had been paid to the Defendant plus
an award for interest and costs
22.2 the issue of the delivery of possession of the Equipment
[23] I have also perused the Award in exhibit A of enclosure 74, and find
that:
(i) the primary question in the Arbitration was the validity of the
termination of the contract between the parties where the
Defendant undertook to carry out engineering, procurement,
construction and commissioning works for the Plaintiff in
respect of a facility known for the production of PDO in a bio
technology park in the Mukim of Jelutong in the district of Johor
Bahru for a contract sum of RM106,931,000 (originally RM
106,169,000)
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(ii) the Plaintiff had never pleaded nor claimed for the transfer of
the ownership of the Equipment
(iii) this is a point which is undisputed by both parties
(iv) consequently, that there is no actual decision on this point in
the Award there is a finding by the Tribunal that the Plaintiff had
failed to accept the delivery of the Equipment and that it was e
(v) entirely the Plaintiff’s fault for the failure of delivery
Res Judicata & Estoppel
[24] The main issue before this Court in disposing Enclosure 73 is in my
view whether the causes of action or issues raised in the CS could
have been raised in the 1st Arbitration with reasonable diligence. To
this I was referred to and have looked at Agensi Pekerjaan DZH Sdn
Bhd & Anor v Genting Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] MLJU
2289 which was decided by Justice Mohd Arief Emran Ariffin JC (as
he then was) who had held as follows:
“C. Applicable Law on Res Judicata
[22] I have dealt with the principles applicable when a Court of law
must deal with the issue of whether a party is barred from relitigating
the claim due to the doctrine of Res Judicata in Aminah binti
Abdullah v Nur Anis binti Jamaludin (Writ of Summons No:
22NCVC-381- 05/2021). I summarise the applicable as follows: -
(i)“When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated by a
Court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are not
permitted to litigate once more the res judicata, because the
judgment becomes the truth between such parties, or in other
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
words, the parties should accept it as the truth” – please refer Asia
Commercial Finance v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 CLJ 783.
(ii)“The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not
only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the
parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every
point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which
the parties, exercising reasonable diligence might have brought
forward at the time.” – the could have and should have principle as
laid down by Wigram, V.C., in the case of Henderson v.
Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 115 (emphasis mine).
(iii)The purpose of the Res Judicata principle is to prevent abuse of
process. – please refer to Loh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Peglin
Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1984] 1 CLJ Rep 211 and Virgin
Atlantic Airways Limited v Zodiac Seats [2013] UKSC 46.
(iv)This principle is not limited to only to the parties appearing in the
earlier suit. They could also be applicable to parties who are so
closely connected to the litigants in the earlier trial, that they could
be “privies” to the aforesaid litigants – please refer to Dr Aishah Tul
Radziah L Hussain v Dr Suresh Kumarasamy & ors [2015] 10 CLJ
222.
[23] I am reminded that when this Court Order 18 rule 19 (1)(a) (b),
(c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012is tasked with determining
whether the matter has been litigated or should have been litigated
or asserted in the original action, it is the duty of this Court to
“undertake a minute examination of the history of the prior litigation”.
See Chung Khiaw Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v Tio Chee Hing [2004]
3 CLJ 59. I also refer to Tractors Malaysia Bhd v Tio Chee
Hing [1975] 2 MLJ 1, Raja Zainal Abidin v British American Life &
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
General Insurance Bhd [1993] 3 CLJ 606 and Ho Hup Construction
Company Berhad v Zen Courts Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 340.”
[24] I also refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Metreco
Industries Sdn Bhd v Low Peck Lim & Ors [2019] 12 MLJ 164,
where Zabariah Mohd Yusof JCA (as she then was) held: -
“[40] The fact that the second suit involves other defendants is not
a basis to say that the second suit against the third defendant is
different from the first suit. Regardless, the principle of res
judicata is not affected by the absence of the other parties in the
first suit. What is clear is that the second suit without doubt, involves
the same facts, the fact that the parties are different from the first
suit does not disentitle the third defendant from invoking the
doctrine of issue estoppel to bar the plaintiff from relitigating a
specific issue that had been litigated in the first suit. Here, the third
defendant was a party in the first suit and also a party in the second
suit, except that he is being sued with other defendants. The
doctrine seeks to prevent abuse of the process of court by
attempting to take a second bite of the cherry by relitigating the
same issues and reliefs based on the same subject matter for which
judgment had been given.”
[25] I can go no further than to respectfully, accept the above as being the
law in respect of res judicata which has been so succinctly stated by
my learned brother in the above case.
[26] I have further perused the case of Barbara Lim Cheng Sim v Uptown
Alliance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2013] 10 MLJ 1 where Justice Su Geok
Yiam J held:
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
“[81] The law on res judicata is founded on the rationale that it
would be unjust to allow a party a second bite of the cherry”.
[27] From the facts before me, I have observed that the same set of facts
and the same parties were existing in the Arbitration Proceedings as
is in the CS before this Court.
[28] After carefully considering the issues, facts and documents before
me, as well as the respective submissions advanced by learned
counsels for the respective parties, I find that the issue of the
ownership of the Equipment could and should have been brought up
in the Arbitration Proceedings had the Plaintiff herein exercised
reasonable diligence at the said Arbitration Proceedings.
[29] This specific issue belongs to and should have been litigated in the
1st Arbitration Proceedings and is now, in my view, an attempt to
relitigate this point in this CS apart from being an attempt to litigate in
instalments.
[30] Thus, I hold that the subject of the litigation between the parties
herein, i.e the ownership of the Equipment, is bound by the doctrine
of res judicata and that the issue cannot and should not be reopened
in the CS as per Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands
Police and Ors [1982] AC 529 at page 542 per Lord Diplock which
was quoted with approval by our then Supreme Court in
Superintendent of Pudu Prison & Ors v Sim Kie Chon [1986] 1 MLJ
494; [1986] CLJ 256 where it was stated:
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
“…. 11] The attempt by way of the instant proceedings to relitigate
and re-open the earlier action is a clear instance of an abuse of the
process of the court.”
[31] This principle was further explained and expounded by Eusoffe
Abdoolcader SCJ who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Superintendent of Pudu Prison & Ors (supra) where His Lordship:
“The earlier action instituted by the respondent on 2 July 1985 and
which was struck out sought relief on the ground of discrimination
in breach of article 8 of the Constitution but in the present
proceedings the grounds for relief have been augmented and
declarations sought to the effect we have indicated earlier. The
appellants plead res judicata in this regard and we think the point is
well taken and is supported by authority, and we would refer to the
pronouncement of the Privy Council in Hoystead & Ors v
Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155(at pp 165–166) and a
catenation of cases to the like effect, namely, that the plea of res
judicata applies, except perhaps where special circumstances may
conceivably arise of sufficient merit to exclude its operation, not
only to points upon which the court was actually required by the
parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every
point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which
the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought
forward at the time.
There is moreover the inherent jurisdiction of the court in cases
where res judicata is not strictly established, and where estoppel
per rem judicatam has not been sufficiently pleaded, or made out,
but nevertheless the circumstances are such as to render any
reagitation of the questions formally adjudicated upon a scandal
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
and an abuse, the court will not hesitate to dismiss the action, or
stay proceedings therein, or strike out the defence thereto, as the
case may require. It would suffice in this regard to refer to the
judgment of the Privy Council delivered by Lord Wilberforce
in Brisbane City Council and Myer Shopping Centres Pty Ltd v
Attorney-General for Queensland [1979] AC 411 (at p 425):
The second defence is one of 'res judicata'. There has, of course,
been no actual decision in litigation between these parties as to the
issue involved in the present case, but the appellants invoke this
defence in its wider sense, according to which a party may be shut
out from raising in a subsequent action an issue which he could,
and should, have raised in earlier proceedings. The classic
statement of this doctrine is contained in the judgment of Wigram
V-C in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 and its existence
has been reaffirmed by this Board in Hoystead & Ors v
Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155. A recent application of it
is to be found in the decision of the Board in Yat Tung Investment
Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd [1975] AC 581. It was, in the judgment
of the board, there described in these words:
… there is a wider sense in which the doctrine may be appealed to,
so that it becomes an abuse of process to raise In subsequent
proceedings, matters which could and therefore should have been
litigated in earlier proceeding (p 590.) (Emphasis added.)
The attempt by way of the instant proceedings to relitigate and re-
open the earlier action clearly reflects the appositeness of the
caption suggested for this matter in the prelude to this judgment
and would appear to us to be as clear an instance of an abuse of
the process of the court as one can find within the connotation
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
thereof enunciated in the speech of Lord Diplock in Hunter v Chief
Constable of the West Midlands Police and Ors [1982] AC 529 (at
p 542).”
[32] In light of the above I further hold that the doctrine of issue estoppel
is equally applicable to bar the Plaintiff from relitigating a specific
issue that could and should have been litigated in the 1st Arbitration.
[33] Consequently, this Court also holds that the Plaintiff should not be
allowed to take advantage of the issue of the ownership of the
Equipment at the CS, as this election should have been done in the
1st Arbitration itself.
Laches & Want of Prosecution
[34] As to the issue of laches as contended by the Plaintiff, I agree with
the learned counsel for the Defendant that the Plaintiff did not institute
its claim for delivery of the Equipment as in my findings on this herein
above in my written grounds.
[35] The Plaintiff only instituted this CS on 8.8.2017 i.e more than 2 years
after the Award in the 1st Arbitration was delivered on 2.2.2015 and
the re instatement of the CS was only done on 28.1.2022 eventhough
they could have done so after the 2nd Arbitration was terminated on
18.6.2019, being a period of again more than 2 years.
[36] I also agree with the Defendant, from the facts before me, that the
CS was only reinstated when the Plaintiff received a letter of demand
dated 25.1.2022 from the Defendant.
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
[37] From the above I hold that there has been an inordinate delay in to
initiate the Plaintiff’s claim and thus the Plaintiff is guilty of laches.
[38] Such delay by the Plaintiff is in my opinion prejudicial to the
Defendant as the Defendant would have difficulty in preparing their
defence to the CS when the relevant documents and witnesses may
no longer be available due to the delay stated.
[39] Following from this, it is also my decision that there has been no
legitimate explanation as to the inordinate delay in filing the CS
and re instating the same. Hence, the contention of there being a
Want of Prosecution is thus justified when the Plaintiff had sat on its
rights.
[40] My other reason for deciding that there is a Want of Prosecution is
there the Equipment was designed specifically for the MetEx Project
and it would now not be possible for the Plaintiff to utilise these
Equipment.
Abuse of Process
[41] All in after examining and deciding on all of the above, I find that the
CS is thus an abuse of court process, which was filed to delay and
frustrate payment of the sum awarded under the Arbitration, more so
when the Plaintiff has to-date failed to pay the Defendant the sum
awarded under the Award.
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
Decision
[42] In the circumstances I answer the questions posed as follows:-
Question 1
Whether the final Award under the 1st Arbitration create any
obligation on the Defendant to deliver the Equipment to the Plaintiff
upon the payment of the Arbitration Sum awarded?
The answer is no.
Question 2
Whether the Plaintiff is estopped and/or waived and/or abandoned
its rights to pursue this action?
The answer is yes.
Question 3
Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the defence of laches
under section 32 of the Limitations Act 1953?
The answer is yes.
Question 4
Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely on the Doctrine of Election
and the Principles of res judicata?
The answer is yes.
Question 5
Whether this is a fit and proper case to be dismissed for want of
prosecution in light of the Plaintiff’s inordinate delay (to prosecute)
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
which has gravely prejudiced the Defendant in the conduct of its
Defence?
The answer is yes.
Question 6
Whether this is a fit and proper case for want of prosecution in light
of the Plaintiff’s contumelious conduct of abusing court process?
The answer is yes.
[43] I therefore order that the Plaintiff’s Civil Suit (“CS”) herein be struck
out Order 18 rule 19 (1) (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 with no liberty
to file afresh and that costs be awarded to the Defendant.
Dated: 08th day of September 2023
sgd.
NADZARIN WOK NORDIN
HIGH COURT JUDGE
CONSTRUCTION COURT 1
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Gavin Jay Anand and Sivanandini Sreegantham
[Messrs Gavin Jayapal]
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Leonard Raj and Sivabalan Sankaran
[Messrs Tan Swee Im, Siva & Partners]
S/N 2V0b8/N6NEGhfOYcoqQB3A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 31,485 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-22NCC-61-05/2022 | PLAINTIF LIM SIM EE DEFENDAN 1. ) DSI NORTHERN SOURCE SDN BHD 2. ) LOO SAY HOCK 3. ) Datuk Ng Kwok Siong | COMPANY LAW: Security for costs - Test to be applied - Matters to be consideredCIVIL PROCEDURE – Costs-Security for costs-Foreign plaintiff-Failure to disclose permanent address-No property within the jurisdiction- Whether plaintiff able to pay costs if claim dismissed and costs ordered against plaintiff -Whether sufficient plaintiff is a citizen of a participant’s country listed in the First Schedule, Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958-Absolute discretion of Court- Rules of Court 2012, O. 23 r.1(1)(a) | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Jamhirah binti Ali | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c058f008-7274-4d3c-96b6-157ec4e8e0a8&Inline=true |
GOJ-BA-22ncc-61-05-2022-LIM SIM EE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM
IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
WRIT NO.: BA-22NCC-61-05/2022
BETWEEN
LIM SIM EE … PLAINTIFF
(Singapore Passport No. K0123592R)
AND
1. DSI NORTHERN SOURCE SDN BHD
(Company No.: 201501044273 (1169594-X))
2. LOO SAY HOCK
(NRIC No.: 811129-10-5313)
3. DATUK NG KWOK SIONG
(NRIC No.: 700528-10-5087) … DEFENDANTS
GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. The Defendants filed enclosure 67, which is an application pursuant
to Order 23 rule 1(1)(a) of Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012), for an
order that the Plaintiff be required to provide security for costs
amounting to RM100,000.00 or such other sum as is deemed fit.
15/11/2023 17:53:24
BA-22NCC-61-05/2022 Kand. 112
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
2. The current legal action initiated by the Plaintiff is premised on
allegations of oppressive conduct of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
against the Plaintiff in their management of the 1st Defendant and its
subsidiaries.
3. The Plaintiff seeks remedies and relief for purported losses incurred
as a minority shareholder in the 1st Defendant and its subsidiaries
due to the alleged oppressive conduct of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
in their management of these entities. These remedies include
orders for declarations, transfer of shares in various companies, and
claims for damages.
4. It is important to note that the issues raised by the Plaintiff involve
not only the Defendants but also extend to other companies not
explicitly named in this action, namely Bumi Segar Indah Sdn. Bhd.
and Salam Murni Holdings Sdn. Bhd.
THE LAW
5. The Court holds the absolute discretion to determine whether to
order security for costs, having regard to all the circumstances of
the case. Order 23 rule 1 of the ROC 2012 grants this Court the
power to order security for costs against the Plaintiff and the said
Order states as follows:
“(1) Where, on the application of a defendant to an action
or other proceedings in the Court, it appears to the
Court—
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
(a) that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the
jurisdiction;
(b) that the plaintiff (not being a plaintiff who is suing
in a representative capacity) is a nominal plaintiff
who is suing for the benefit of some other person
and that there is reason to believe that he will be
unable to pay the costs of the defendant if ordered
to do so;
(c) subject to paragraph (2), that the plaintiff’s
address is not stated in the writ or originating
summons or is incorrectly stated therein; or
(d) that the plaintiff has changed his address during
the course of the proceedings with a view to evading
the consequences of the litigation,
then, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case,
the Court thinks it just to do, it may order the plaintiff to
give such security for the defendant’s costs of the action
or other proceedings as it thinks just.”
6. In the case of Adarsh Pandit v Viking Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
(1996) 1 LNS 350, Zainun Ali J (as Her Ladyship then was) referred
to an illustration from renowned Judge, Lord Denning M.R., in the
case of Aeronave S P A & Westland Charters [1971] 1 WLR 1146
where it was expressed:
"It is the usual practice of the Courts to make a foreign
plaintiff give security for costs. But it does so, as a matter
of discretion, because it is just to do so. After all, if the
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
defendant succeeds and gets an order for his costs, it is
not right that he should have to go to a foreign country to
enforce the order."
Even assuming the plaintiff has property within
jurisdiction, it is not sufficient ground for this Court to
disallow security. Moreover, the mere fact of Plaintiff
owning property in a country which has reciprocal
enforcement of judgment agreement with Malaysia, is not
also a ground for the Court refusing to order security, since
the enforcement is not automatic."
[emphasis added]
7. The legal principles in this particular area of the law align with and
have remained in accordance with those in other jurisdictions, as
evidenced by the English House of Lords case of Porzelack KG v
Porzelack (UK) Ltd. (1987) 1 ALL ER 1074, where Sir Nicolas
Browne-Wilkinson V-C stated on page 1076:
“The purpose of ordering security for costs against a
plaintiff ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction is to
ensure that a successful defendant will have a fund
available within the jurisdiction of this court against which
it can enforce the judgment for costs. It is not, in the
ordinary case, in any sense designed to provide a
defendant with security for costs against a plaintiff who
lacks funds. The risk of defending a case brought by a
penurious plaintiff is as applicable to plaintiffs coming
from outside the jurisdiction as it is to plaintiff’s resident
within the jurisdiction.”
[emphasis added]
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
8. In relation to the recent case of Nandine-Erdene Khoskhulug v
Hazrul Hizham Ghazali & Satu Lagi (2021) 1 LNS 421, Azimah
Omar J (as Her Ladyship then was) stated the following:
“[39] Dengan kedudukan Plaintif seorang warga Mongolia
yang langsung tidak mempunyai sebarang aset dalam
bidang kuasa Mahkamah ini, maka pemakaian prinsip
dalam kes New Malaya Co. Ltd. v. Abu Bakar [1961] 1 LNS
72; [1961] 1 MLJ 151 adalah jelas. Mahkamah dalam kes
New Malaya Co. Ltd di muka surat 152 telah memutuskan
berikut:
Since therefore it has been established that the
Plaintiff is resident in Singapore out of the
jurisdiction and since the normal practice where the
plaintiff is resident abroad is to order the plaintiff to
give the defendant security for costs. The
application must be granted and the plaintiff must
pay the costs”.
[emphasis added]
9. Further in the case of Raju Rajaram Pillai (t/a Dhanveer
Enterprise) v MMC Power Sdn. Bhd. & Anor (2000) 6 MLJ 551
Abdul Malik Ishak J (as His Lordship then was) held:
“My research shows that the case of Pray v. Edie [1786] 1
TR 267, 99 ER 1087 was the first case of its kind where the
practice of requiring foreign litigants to provide security
was first mooted. This basically was due to the enormous
difficulties of enforcing orders of the English courts in
foreign jurisdictions. In Crozat v. Brogden, the plaintiff
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
tirelessly sought to enforce a judgment which he had
obtained in France. Despite the existence of that judgment,
the plaintiff was still required to relitigate the matter once
again. To confound the matter further, Davey LJ refused to
examine the merits of the case and forthwith ordered the
plaintiff to provide security.
The law developed with the time. Eventually in England a
practice was evolved which require a litigant who was
resident abroad to provide security unless the litigant had
fixed and permanent assets within the jurisdiction or was
a co-plaintiff. In Re Alabama Portland Cement Co. Ltd
[1909] WN 157, the court was of the view that a litigant
residing abroad was considered not to be within the
jurisdiction in order to be governed by the procedure for
costs and so the litigant must provide security.
…
Pure and simple, the plaintiff was outside jurisdiction. Not
only that the plaintiff too had no assets in Malaysia and this
fact was not disputed at all. It would simply be a matter of
pure discretion nay to be exercised judicially, having
regard to all the circumstances of the case, to decide
whether to order security for costs or otherwise. In the
words of Hill JA in Shaik Ali v. Shaik Mohamed [1963] MLJ
300 at p 301:
It is quite clear that the court has a discretion in the
matter. It is also clear that in the case of a plaintiff,
and the applicant should be treated as a plaintiff in
the present circumstances, who is out of the
jurisdiction and who has no property or assets in the
country, that the discretion seems to be invariably
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
exercised in favour of making an order for security
for costs.
and I share the sentiments expressed by his Lordship and,
accordingly, the plaintiff here should be ordered to pay
security for costs. This was a case of a foreign plaintiff with
no property at all in Malaysia (Hudson Strumpffabrik
G.m.b.H. v. Bentley Engineering Co. Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 460;
[1962] 2 QB 587; and Mavani v. Ralli Bros Ltd [1973] 1 WLR
468).
…
Zainun Ali JC (now judge) in Adarsh Pandit v. Viking
Engineering Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 AMR 1009 had occasion to
address the issue of security for costs and there her
Ladyship ordered the foreign plaintiff to pay RM45,000 as
security for costs, approximately about 1/4 of the plaintiff's
claim of RM200,000. At p. 1016 to p. 1017 of the report, her
Ladyship examined the relevant authorities and said:
Thus following the principles as are found in
authorities such as Lek Swee Hua v. American
Express [1991] 2 MLJ 151 and Slazenger v. Seaspeed
Ferries [1987] 1 WLR 1197, the court has a discretion
to order security for costs to be furnished by a
foreigner plaintiff even where there are co-plaintiffs
resident within the jurisdiction.
In the present case, there is not even the presence
of a co-plaintiff resident in these parts, who could be
relied upon should the need arise to meet claims, if
any.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff has no property
within jurisdiction. As case laws such as Shaik Ali v.
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Shaik Mohamed [1983] MLJ 310 and Ace King Pte.
Ltd. v. Circus Americano Ltd. & Ors. [1985] 2 MLJ 75
have shown, courts are more likely to order security
for costs to be given to the defendant in such
circumstances, since it is clear as illustrated by Lord
Denning M.R. in Aeronave S P A & Westland
Charters [1971] 1 WLR 1146 that:
‘It is the usual practice of the courts to make a
foreign plaintiff give security for costs. But it
does so, as a matter of discretion, because it
is just to do so. After all, if the defendant
succeeds and gets an order for his costs, it is
not right that he should have to go to a foreign
country to enforce the order’
Even assuming that the plaintiff has property within
jurisdiction, it is not sufficient ground for this court
to allow security. Moreover the mere fact of the
plaintiff owning property in a country which has
reciprocal enforcement of judgment agreement with
Malaysia, is not also a ground for the court refusing
to order security, since the enforcement is not
automatic. This point is illustrated in the case of
Faridah Begum [1995] 2 MLJ 404 and Ng Hui Lip
[1951] MLJ 57, which is distinguished from Coldham
v. Raub Australian Gold Mining Co Ltd [1940] MLJ
50.
At p. 1018 of the report, her Ladyship continued in serious
vein:
The plaintiff made much also of the nature of this
application, stating that it is oppressive to him and
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
would suppress his claim which is said to be
genuine.
This question though relevant, does not arise here.
In any case, the question of oppression alone even
if it exists, is not sufficient reason not to grant the
order.
The Plaintiff made much also of the likelihood of the
plaintiff’s success in this matter. The Plaintiff
submitted that this is based as it were, on the
plaintiff’s success in O14 application both before the
registrar and before the Judge in Chambers. The
Plaintiff argued that the Federal Court did not hear
the merits of the case but proceeded to grant
conditional leave to the defendant.
I will say this here and now, that it is not in every
application such as this that the merits of the case
will be examined.
As clearly illustrated in the case of Porzelack KG v
Porzelack UK (Ltd) [1987] 1 All ER 1074, parties
should not attempt to go into the merits of the case
unless it can clearly be demonstrated one way or
another that there is a high degree of probability of
success”.
THE PARTIES CONTENTION
10. The Defendants’ application was solely under Order 23 rule 1(1)(a)
ROC 2012.
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
11. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff is a Singaporean
citizen, and he has acknowledged that he possesses no real estate
or movable assets within Malaysia, except for the shares he holds
in the 1st Defendant in this action.
12. The Plaintiff has initiated previous legal actions against the
Defendants herein, among others, BA-24NCC-77-07/2020
(Previous Action).
13. In the Plaintiff’s Previous Action, a court order dated 30.04.2021,
mandated the Plaintiff to pay RM1,000.00 to the Defendants.
Despite a demand for this sum, as communicated in a letter from
the Defendants’ solicitor dated 31.05.2021, the Plaintiff failed to
fulfill this obligation.
14. Additionally, in the Plaintiff’s Previous Action, an order issued on
20.05.2021 required the Plaintiff to provide security for costs
amounting to RM20,000.00 to the Court within 14 days from the date
of the order. However, the Plaintiff did not adhere to this order, even
though the Defendants' solicitors have delivered the said order to
the Plaintiff's solicitors through a letter dated 21.07.2021.
15. The Plaintiff’s residential address, No. 2, Jalan Sungai Kelubi
32/106a, Kemuning Greenhills, 40460 Shah Alam, differed from the
address previously stated in the affidavits affirmed by the Plaintiff on
16.07.2020 (Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons ex-
parte) and 23.11.2020 (Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply to the application
to set aside the ex-parte Order) in the Plaintiff's prior legal action.
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
16. Additionally, the Plaintiff's Malaysian Resident Pass was valid only
from 04.11.2022, until 27.08.2023, without specifying the type of
resident pass he held - whether it pertained to family relations with
a Malaysian citizen, permanent residency, or former Malaysian
citizenship.
17. Moreover, the Plaintiff only provided details about his employment
position, along with the address and phone number of his employer
in Singapore but omitted such details for his employment in
Malaysia (exhibit LSE-2). Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not
disclosed any information about his permanent residence in either
Singapore or Malaysia. The omission appeared intentional to hinder
potential execution proceedings, if necessary.
18. In support of the Defendants’ submission, the learned counsel for
the Defendants referred to the case of Kasturi Palm Products v
Palmex Industries Sdn. Bhd. [1986] 2 MLJ 310, which held as
follows:
"The plaintiff firm carries on business in Bangalore, India.
Its managing partner, an Indian national, also resides there.
The plaintiff seeks to enforce the award of Arbitration No.
1917 dated January 28, 1980 adjudicated by the Arbitrators
in London. The defendants are contesting the legality of
the Arbitration award and are applying for an order
requiring the plaintiff to furnish security for costs before
the main application is heard. The question is whether it is
just to order security for costs.”
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
In his decision, Mohamed Dzaiddin J. (as he then was)
stated as follows on page 311,
“… Order 23 Rule 1(i) provides that the Court may order
security for costs "if, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case, the Court thinks it just to do
so." "These words have the effect of conferring upon the
Court the real discretion and indeed the Court is bound, by
virtue thereof, to consider the circumstances of each case,
and in the light thereof to determine whether and to what
extent or for what amount a plaintiff may be ordered to
provide security for costs. It is no longer, for example, an
inflexible or rigid rule that a plaintiff resident abroad should
provide security for costs." (Supreme Court Practice 1985
Vol. 1 p.384). In exercising its discretion, it is clear that the
Court will have regard to all the circumstances of the case.
For the circumstances, see per Lord Denning M.R. in Sir
Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd [1973] 2 All ER
273. …
In the present case, the question is simply whether
or not it is just to order security for costs? In my
opinion, two major considerations clearly merit my
attention. The first consideration is of course the fact
that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of this
jurisdiction. Admittedly, under Rule 1(i), security for
costs cannot now be ordered as of right from a
foreign plaintiff, but only if the Court thinks it just to
order depending on the circumstances of the case.
Secondly, it is material to consider one of the
grounds of the defendants in disputing the plaintiff's
main application. It is deposed by Mr. Chan that the
enforcement of the award is contrary to public policy
and the laws of Malaysia. Here, it is pertinent to ask
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
whether or not the plaintiff has complied with Order
69 Rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. … The
inference here is that the plaintiff may not have
complied with Order 69 Rule 6. Undoubtedly, this is,
of course, one of the issues to be contested in the
main application as being contrary to the laws of
Malaysia. …”
[emphasis added]
19. On the contrary, the Plaintiff argued that, despite being a
Singaporean citizen, he has consistently maintained ordinary
residency in Malaysia ever since the incorporation of the 1st
Defendant. At the time of initiating this action, the Plaintiff clearly
communicated his place of ordinary residence as No.2, Jalan
Sungai Kelubi 32/106a, Kemuning Greenhills, 40460 Shah Alam,
Selangor.
20. Furthermore, the Plaintiff holds dual roles as the Leader for South
East Asia and the General Manager for Sales and Commercial
Excellence in South East Asia within the Johnson Controls group of
companies. In these capacities, he oversees business operations in
South East Asia, including Malaysia.
21. The Plaintiff has presented his Malaysia Residence Pass (No.
AA0829187) issued by the Immigration of Malaysia as attached in
exhibit LSE-1. He also affirmed that, throughout the relevant
periods, he was a taxpayer in Malaysia, with his income tax account
registered under number SG2389238070.
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
22. Additionally, the Plaintiff asserted that, aside from the shares he
holds in the 1st Defendant, he maintains two active banking accounts
in Malaysia with account numbers 164481219400 at Malayan
Banking Berhad and 7072385313 at OCBC Bank Malaysia.
23. In support of the Plaintiff’s contention, the learned counsel for the
Plaintiff referred to the High Court decision in the case of Abdul
Fattah Mogawan & Anor v MMC Power Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [1997]
5 CLJ 1.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
24. After a thorough examination of the case documents, the filed
affidavits, submissions from both parties, and after hearing their
arguments, I granted the Defendants' application. Here are my
reasons.
25. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff is a Singaporean citizen.
26. The Plaintiff has not provided any permanent addresses in either
Singapore or Malaysia. Affidavits filed for both this application and
the Previous Action revealed different addresses in Malaysia.
27. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate his financial capacity to cover
potential costs awarded by this Court. He has not declared
ownership of any assets within the country, except for the shares in
the 1st Defendant involved in this dispute. While he mentioned
having two (2) active bank accounts, he has not furnished any
documentary proof of their existence and the balance in each
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
account. In short, the Plaintiff has not presented any documentary
evidence supporting his financial stability to pursue this claim.
28. The Plaintiff has not presented any cogent evidence that he is
ordinarily resident in Malaysia. The residence pass provided by the
Plaintiff was only valid till 27.08.2023, which was close to expiration
when this application was heard and decided. The extended
Residence Pass, Appendix A, attached in the Plaintiff’s Submission
in Reply is not acceptable as evidence, as it lacks credibility.
29. No evidence has been presented to confirm that the Plaintiff is
indeed a taxpayer in Malaysia, as claimed. Besides mere
assertions, the Plaintiff has not produced any supporting documents
to prove his contention.
30. Additionally, the business card exhibited indicates that the Plaintiff
is employed by a company in Singapore. There is no evidence to
substantiate his ordinary residence in Malaysia while carrying out
his roles as Leader for South East Asia and General Manager for
Sales & Commercial Excellence in South East Asia, as asserted by
the Plaintiff.
31. I am guided by the precedent in the decided cases, which I have
discussed above. It is a usual practice of the Court to make a foreign
Plaintiff give security for costs if it is just to do so. Given the
circumstances of this case, I find it just to order the Plaintiff to
provide security for costs, taking into consideration the potential
prejudice to the Defendants, as there is no evidence supporting the
Plaintiff’s ordinary residency in Malaysia.
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
32. Based on the circumstances of this case, it is my considered view
that if this application is disallowed, it would be prejudicial to the
Defendants, as there is a risk that if the Defendants succeed, they
may face difficulties in enforcing the judgment for costs. Though
Singapore is named as a participant in the list of the Reciprocal
Enforcement Judgement Act 1958, nevertheless, the enforcement
is not automatic.
33. Therefore, based on the circumstances of this case, I find the
amount of RM40,000.00 as security for costs is justified. The said
amount is to be paid within 21 days from the date of this order.
Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s suit (as
per Prayer (b) enclosure 67).
34. For the reasons above, I ordered that the Defendants' application
for security for costs in enclosure 67 be allowed on the
abovementioned terms, with costs of RM5,000.00.
Dated: 15th November 2023
-sgd-
JAMHIRAH ALI
JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER
High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam
(NCVC 1)
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
To the parties’ solicitors:
For the Plaintiff : Teoh Bi Shan
(Messrs. Bishan & Partners)
For the Defendants : Loo Say Hock
(Messrs. K.H. Wong, Chin & Cheah)
S/N CPBYwHRyPE2WthVxOjgqA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 25,136 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-22NCC-163-11/2019 | PLAINTIF SKYWORLD HOLDINGS SDN BHD DEFENDAN Neurogine Sdn Bhd | Plaintiff engaged Defendant to develop a social lifestyle mobile application-contract sum agreed upon at RM 2.3 million-App to be developed in 2 phases-Defendant claims in the course of developing app, change requests caused the contract sum to be increased by another RM 980,000-Plaintiff claims that when app delivered, it was not functional-denies increase in contract sum-claims for refund of monies paid for failure of consideration-Defendant claims app delivered in accordance with contractual obligations but could not proceed further with second phase due to Plaintiff’s refusal to pay towards progress of work-issues-whether the app was delivered in accordance with contract obligations-whether increased contract sum acknowledged by Plaintiff through its conduct in making payment towards invoice-whether Defendant entitled to be paid for work done in developing app. | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Alice Loke Yee Ching | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5a77d5d2-d124-4a95-a26d-fbd2dfa14e2d&Inline=true |
Skyworld Holdings v Neurogine Sdn Bhd
1
DALAM PERKARA MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
GUAMAN NO: BA-22NCC-163-11/2019
ANTARA
SKYWORLD HOLDINGS SDN BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT: 1220848-T) …PLAINTIF
DAN
NEUROGINE SDN BHD
(NO SYARIKAT: 1096643-U) …DEFENDAN
DIGABUNG DAN DIDENGAR BERSAMA
DALAM PERKARA MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
GUAMAN NO: BA-22NCC-174-12/2019
ANTARA
NEUROGINE SDN BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT: 10964943-U) …PLANTIF
DAN
SKYWORLD HOLDINGS SDN BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT: 1220848-T) …DEFENDAN
15/11/2023 15:24:08
BA-22NCC-163-11/2019 Kand. 94
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The claims of the parties were filed in two suits, which have been
consolidated in these proceedings. Skyworld Holdings Sdn.
Bhd.(“Skyworld”) filed Civil Suit: BA-22NCC-163-11/2019 (“Suit
163”), whereas Neurogine Sdn. Bhd. (“Neurogine”) filed BA-
22NCC-174-12/2019 (“Suit 174”).
[2] Skyworld engaged Neurogine to develop a social lifestyle mobile
application system (“the app”) for Skyworld’s use. The app was
intended for the use of Skyworld’s customers by allowing them to
interact with one another through an electronic messaging platform
and also to make payment online. The app was to be developed
in 2 phases. Skyworld was billed during the progress of the app
development, to which it made part payments.
[3] The dispute between parties was triggered when Neurogine
requested for further payments for work done. Several invoices
were issued demanding payment. Skyworld refused to make
payment towards the invoices. Instead it alleged that the app
Neurogine developed failed to fulfill the specification parties
agreed upon. It further claimed that the app could not be used and
requested for refund of the monies paid thus far to Neurogine.
[4] Skyworld then filed the instant suit to claim for a refund. Neurogine
on the other hand, sued for the balance sum owing for developing
the app, which had yet to be paid by Skyworld.
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Skyworld’s claim in Suit 163
[5] Sometime in early 2018, Skyworld requested the services of
Neurogine to develop an app titled Design & Development Of Sky
Chat, Wallet & Payment Gateway with Cloud Base Project. (“the
Project”). Pursuant thereto, on 5.2.2018, Neurogine issued a
quotation to the Skyworld detailing the specifications of the Project
and the costing involved. The total cost of the Project stipulated in
the quotation was RM 2,316,100.00.
[6] The Project comprised of two phases, the development of the
SkyChat module and the e-wallet and Red Packet function module.
The Project was to be completed and delivered to the Plaintiff within
6 months.
[7] Between March 2018 and October 2018, Skyworld made various
payments to Neurogine totaling RM 1,666,050.00, towards the total
cost of the Project.
[8] As Skyworld did not have the necessary expertise on the
development of applications, it appointed iNetSOHO as its technical
adviser and consultant. The representatives of iNetSOHO were
responsible in engaging with Neurogine in the development of the
app.
[9] On 2.7.2018, when the design and development of the app was
handed over by Neurogine to be tested by iNetSOHO, it was found
to be not functional, and failed to meet the specifications of the
Project. Thereafter, in spite of several requests by iNetSOHO to
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
improve on the app, Neurogine still failed to deliver a fully
functional app.
[10] In this action, Skyworld claims that Neurogine’s failure was a
breach of its obligations under the contract. It thereupon seeks a
refund of the amount of RM 1,666,050.00, which had been paid to
Neurogine. The delivery of a non-functioning app resulted in a total
failure of consideration and Neurogine is obliged to refund the
amount paid thus far. To allow Neurogine to retain the monies
would be tantamount to an unjust enrichment.
Neurogine’s defence to Suit 163 and its claim in Suit 174
[11] Neurogine denies Skyworld’s claim that the app was not functional.
It also denies that there was a time line of six months for
completion. The app was delivered in several stages from August
2018 to December 2018.
[12] The first phase of the Project comprising the SkyChat module, had
been completed. It had undergone several User Acceptance Tests
and Functional Acceptance Tests which was eventually signed off
by iNetSOHO. What remained to be attended to were merely bug
fixes, which did not affect the functioning of the Skychat module.
[13] However, Neurogine then encountered problems with the second
phase of the Project involving the development of the e-wallet and
Red Packet. Skyworld refused to make further payment. Although
Neurogine was the app developer, it was denied user access to
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
Google Play Store by iNetSOHO sometime in February 2019. In
view of this, it could not proceed to develop the app further.
[14] The Project cost of RM 2,316,100.00 represented by Neurogine’s
quotation issued on 5.2.2018 (“first quotation”), is not disputed
by the parties. Neurogine’s case is that the Project cost was
increased subsequently when Skyworld requested for additional
services and changes to be made to the Project. These changes
were outside the scope parties agreed upon when the first
quotation was issued. Pursuant thereto, Neurogine issued another
invoice on 1.8.2018 for the sum of RM 980,000.00 (“second
quotation”), which was acknowledged and accepted by Skyworld.
Skyworld even made part payment of RM 490,000.00 towards this
invoice.
[15] As work progressed, Neurogine issued several invoices for
payment of the work done. The details of the invoices issued are
as follows:-
Invoice No. Invoice Date Total
I-000051 5.2.2018 RM 300,000.00
I-000055 1.6.2018 RM 876,050.00
I-000062 1.8.2018 RM 490,000.00
I-000075 12.2.2019 RM 1,087,487.00
I-000080 1.5.2019 RM 144,690.00
I-000091 1.10.2019 RM 374,710.00
TOTAL RM 3,272,937.00
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[16] The first three invoices issued in 2018 totaling RM 1,666,050.00
have been settled by Skyworld. However, no payment was issued
for the invoices issued in 2019 totalling RM 1,606,887.00. This
amount forms the basis of Neurogine’s claim in Suit 174.
Skyworld’s Defence in Suit 174
[17] Neurogine’s claim for RM 1,606,887.00 as outstanding payment
for the Project is resisted by Skyworld. Apart from contending that
the app was not functional, Skyworld also contends that it had no
knowledge of the second quotation issued by Neurogine for the
amount of RM 980,000.00.
[18] The Plaintiff denies requesting for additional changes which were
outside the scope of work agreed upon by parties. It also denies
acknowledging the second quotation by making a part payment of
RM 490,000. It contends that this payment was in fact towards
the contract sum of RM 2,316,100.00 stated in the first quotation.
[19] Skyworld further contends that Neurogine’s claim is without basis
as the contract sum parties agreed upon was only RM
2,316,100.00. The claim of RM 1,606,887.00 in Suit 174 is
unreasonable as Skyworld had already paid RM 1,666,050.00 for
the Project.
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
Issues in this case
[20] Two issues arise for this court’s determination. The first is whether
the Neurogine failed to deliver a functional app in breach of its
obligations under the contract, which would entitle Skyworld to a
refund of the sums paid towards the Project as claimed in Suit 163.
If it is proven otherwise, whether Neurogine is entitled to be paid
the value of the work done for the Project, billed at RM
1,606,887.00.
Analysis and decision of this court
[21] At the outset, I observed that the issues for determination are
factual issues rather than questions of law, requiring an evaluation
of the oral evidence and documentary evidence adduced at the
trial.
[22] It is trite law that the burden of proof lies throughout on the party
who asserts that the facts exists. It is only when the party on whom
the burden of proof lies has discharged that burden that the
evidential burden shifts to the other party (See: Section 101 of the
Evidence Act, 1950, Hong Yik Trading v Liziz Plantation Sdn.
Bhd. [2017] 8 CLJ 491, Federal Court).
[23] As both Skyworld and Neurogine are Plaintiffs in Suits 163 and
Suits 174 respectively, the burden lies on them to establish some
preponderance of evidence in their favour if their claims are to
succeed. I shall now deal with the issues arising from both suits.
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Whether Neurogine failed to deliver a functional app
[24] PW1, a director and shareholder of Skyworld stated in his
evidence that the parties had agreed that the Project was to be
completed and the app delivered within 6 months from the
issuance of the quotation dated 5.2.2018. However,
notwithstanding that RM 1,666,050.00 had been paid, Neurogine
failed to deliver a functional app within the stipulated time frame as
per the specification agreed upon.
[25] In support of its claim that Neurogine failed to deliver a functional
app, Skyworld called PW2 and PW3 to testify on this fact. Both
were in the employment of iNetSOHO at the material time.
iNetSOHO has since ceased operations.
[26] PW3 was involved with the Project from its development stage until
October 2018. PW3 stated in his evidence that by October 2018,
Neurogine yet to revert to Skyworld with a working app together
with its source code. At the time he left the employment of
iNetSOHO in October 2018, PW3 had yet to see the app published
in Google Play or Apple Store.
[27] PW2 who employed by iNetSOHO from November 2018, took over
the handling of the Project from PW3. He testified that when he
was assigned to the Project, it was at the User Acceptance Test
stage as the product features were found to be still problematic
during testing. Some of the intended features were not in a
deliverable stage, and the Project had exceeded its timeline for
completion.
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[28] To counter the allegations of Skyworld, Neurogine called DW1
who was the solution architect and the subject matter expert for
the Project. DW1 stated that the Project was intended as a mobile
app supported by Android and IOS operating system. There were
3 components to be developed, i.e the SkyChat Module, the cloud
hosting service and the e-wallet. He added that the Project was to
be completed in two phases. The SkyChat Module was in Phase
1, whereas the e-wallet and Red Packet was in Phase 2. Phase 1
was completed when two User Acceptance Tests on 2.7.2018 and
23.7.2018 were signed off by iNetSOHO, with only minor bugs
fixes to be attended to. iNetSOHO also signed off the Functional
Acceptance Test on 8.10.2018. The SkyChat Module was then
published on Google Play Store and Apple App Store on
30.1.2019.
[29] Upon completion of the SkyChat Module, Neurogine proceeded to
Phase 2 of the Project, which involved the development and
implementation of the e-wallet and Red Packet. However, upon
completion of the user interface for e-wallet and Red Packet,
Skyworld refused to make further payment as invoiced. To
compound matters, Neurogine’s access as the mobile application
developer to Google Play Store was removed by iNetSOHO on
February 2019. As a result of this, Neurogine could not proceed to
implement the e-wallet features into the Project.
[30] Notwithstanding that it was denied access by iNetSOHO,
Neurogine continued with its services of bug fixes, updating the
SkyChat module version and also maintenance work of the
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
Project, for which the invoices in 2019 were issued to Skyworld.
No payment was made towards these invoices.
[31] In his evidence, he also stated that there were additional change
requests made by the iNetSOHO team which led to the issuance
of the second quotation on 1.8.2018.
[32] In addition to DW1, Neurogine called DW2, its Business
Development Manager. She was directly involved in the Project.
She explained that contrary to Skyworld’s claim, there was no
deadline stipulated for completion of the Project. The quotation
issued by Neurogine dated 5.2.2018 did not specify the completion
date. However, there was an internal timeline set by iNetSOHO
which was subject to change as the Project progressed due to
change requests and the need to secure registration with the
relevant authorities.
[33] She confirmed the evidence of DW1 that Neurogine’s part in the
Project was completed as the SkyChat Module had gone live on
Google Play Store and Apple App Store on 30.1.2019. As for the
e-wallet and Red Packet module, specification documents for e-
wallet was signed off by iNetSOHO on 9.8.2018. Thereafter,
specification documents for e-wallet & Red Packet API was signed
off on 18.12.2018. The SNS Top-Up API allowing for transfer and
top-up points for the Project was made ready on 16.1.2019.
[34] As for the change request referred to in the second quotation, the
latest version of the SkyChat module had incorporated the
requested features and presented to iNetSOHO on 23.4.2019.
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[35] In the course of developing the app, the relationship between the
parties had become less than amicable as a dispute arose on the
non-payment of Neurogine’s fees. Several letters were exchanged
between their solicitors. DW2 stated that as payments were not
forthcoming after February 2019, it became impossible for
Neurogine to continue rendering their services for free.
[36] Having considered the evidence by both parties on the question
whether the app was functional, I find that Neurogine had
performed its part of the contract. The oral assertion of
Neurogine’s witnesses as to the progress of work was supported
by the documentary evidence referred to in the evidence of DW1
and DW2. There is documentary evidence showing the signing off
by iNetSOHO after the User Acceptance Test and the Functional
Test. The SkyChat module was also shown to have been
published on Google Play Store Apple App Store. In addition, the
specification documents for the e-wallet module were signed off by
iNetSOHO.
[37] There was no credible challenge by Skyworld to the contents of
these documentary evidence. Skyworld’s claim that the app was
not functioning relies on the mere oral assertion of its witnesses.
In contrast, Neurogine’s defence as to the progress of its work for
the Project is borne out by documentary evidence. I therefore find
Neurogine’s evidence to be more convincing and plausible.
[38] With regard to the timeline of six months for the completion of the
Project, I accept the evidence of DW2. She explained that there
was no timeline specified in the quotation. Further the evidence
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
shows that the parties were in constant communication on the
progress of the app until early 2019. This supports DW2’s
evidence that the timeline was revised as work progressed and
parties adopted a flexible approach with regard to the timeline for
completion.
[39] Skyworld relied on the evidence of PW3 that the app was not
functional as the source code was not given by Neurogine for the
app to be downloaded from Google Play Store or Apple App Store.
However, in cross examination, he conceded that the requirement
as to source code was not mentioned in the quotation. When
pressed further, he agreed that the contract sum of RM
2,316,100.00 did not include the source code for the app.
[40] PW3 was then asked as to the User Acceptance Test conducted
in October 2018. He admitted that based on the test, the majority
of the functions for the Project fulfill the specification documents.
What was left to attend to, were merely bug fixes.
[41] PW2 who subsequently took over from PW3 in handling the
Project, conceded in cross examination that on 17.12.2018, he
sent an email to DW2 to arrange for the app to be uploaded on the
Apple App Store. He further admitted that bug fixes could be dealt
with even after the app was uploaded.
[42] The evidence viewed in its entirety, clearly substantiates
Neurogine’s case that they had done all that was required on their
part to launch the app. The failure to complete the Project
particularly the e-wallet and Red Packet module was not due to
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
any breach on their part. Rather, it was consequent upon
iNetSOHO’s actions in denying access to Google Play Store due
to payment issues.
[43] On a balance of probabilities, I find that Neurogine had fulfilled its
part in developing the app. It was only when Skyworld failed to
make further payment towards the Project that the dispute as to
the functionality of the app was raised. I note that it was
Neurogine’s solicitors who first issued a demand for payment for
payment in January 2019. The demand was resisted by Skyworld.
A series of discussion ensued thereafter in an attempt to resolve
matters so that work could progress. Unfortunately, these efforts
were unsuccessful. Sometime in October 2019, Neurogine made
another demand for payment. It would appear that Skyworld’s
response was to commence Suit 163.
[44] Upon duly evaluating the evidence, I am not convinced of the
congency of the evidence in support of Skyworld’s allegation that
a non-functioning app was delivered due to Neurogine’s failure. It
was more probable that Neurogine had fulfilled their obligations
under the contract but could not progress further due to Skyworld’s
default. Consequently, Skyworld’s claim for a refund of RM
1,666,050.00 due to a total failure of consideration must fail.
Whether Neurogine is entitled to the value work done
[45] Having dealt with the first issue, I shall now consider the merits of
Neurogine’s claim in Suit 174.
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[46] Neurogine contends that after work had commenced on the
Project, there were change requests made by Skyworld. This
entailed additional costs on its part for which the second quotation
was issued. Skyworld made part payment, acknowledging the
increased contract sum. Neurogine therefore claims that Skyworld
is liable to pay towards the total value of the work done of RM
3,272,937.00. As Skyworld had paid RM 1,666,050.00, an amount
of RM 1,606,887.00 is still outstanding.
[47] Skyworld on the other hand, denies knowledge nor any agreement
to the additional contract sum of RM 980,000.00. It maintains that
the contract sum was at all material times, only RM 2,316,100.00.
[48] In support of Neurogine’s contention, it referred to various change
requests made by Skyworld for additional services. They were
chat enhancements on the Chat Module which included broadcast,
multimedia attachment, voice recording, mute, search keywords,
hide contract and share function. These requests were made in
writing.
[49] Work pertaining to the change requests were completed when
Neurogine released the Chat Module version 3.1.6. The relevant
reports were also tendered in evidence.
[50] I have also examined the various documents titled “Change
Request” referred to by Neurogine’s witnesses, and find them to
substantiate Neurogine’s claim that the requests were at the
instance of Skyworld. However, Skyworld claims that these
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
requests were within the scope of the original works for the
contract sum of RM 2,316,100.00.
[51] Neurogine on the other hand, contends that the change requests
were additional work done beyond the scope of the first quotation,
for which it issued the second quotation. Skyworld’s conduct in
making payment towards the second quotation is relevant.
[52] Having examined the documentary evidence as to payment made
by Skyworld, I find it to establish the following facts. The terms of
the first quotation stipulated the payment term as “50% upon
receipt of PO and 50% upon UAT signed off within 30 days from
the invoice date.” The fact that there was no Purchase Order is
not an issue in this case. Neurogine issued the first 2 invoices
namely no. I-000051 and no. I-000055 on 5.2.2018 and 1.6.2018
for a total amount of RM 1,176,050.00. Skyworld paid this sum.
[53] Subsequent to the abovementioned invoices, a third invoice no. I-
000062 was issued for the amount of RM 490,000.00. The date of
the invoice was the same date of the second quotation stating an
amount of RM 980,000. Again, the same payment terms were
stated wherein 50% was payable upon receipt of the Purchase
Order. Subsequent to the third invoice, Skyworld issued a cheque
for the sum of RM 490,000.00 on 3.10.2018, an amount equivalent
to 50% of the additional contract sum. It is by no means a
coincidence that the amount paid was consistent with the payment
terms of the second quotation.
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[54] Skyworld’s defence to Neurogine’s contention was given through
the evidence of PW1, its director and also shareholder. He denied
any knowledge of the second quotation. He claimed that the
amount of RM 490,000.00 could not possibly be payment towards
the second quotation as the cheque was issued earlier on
10.3.2018.
[55] However, when he was challenged in cross-examination, he
admitted that the date on the cheque was in fact 3.10.2018. The
cheque was tendered in evidence. Having examined CIMB cheque
no. 000192 for the amount of RM 490,000.00, I find it to be clearly
issued on 3.10.2018. It was probably issued towards the second
quotation. This fortifies Neurogine’s contention that Skyworld
acknowledged the increased cost of the Project.
[56] The evidence relating to the cheque is material evidence, one
which I would not expect PW1 to have made a mistake about,
particularly where it would have an impact on his credibility.
[57] PW1’s oral evidence is thus inconsistent with the documentary
evidence. In this regard, I am guided by the oft quoted judgment
of the Federal Court in Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar
Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229, which held that it is safer to rely on the
evidence of documents which are contemporaneous with the
event, than the recollection of a witness.
[58] In the circumstances, I am convinced that the payment of RM
490,000.00 was towards the second quotation. This would
demolish the Skyworld’s claim that it had no knowledge of the
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
second quotation. This in turn renders plausible Neurogine’s case
that the contract sum had been increased by RM 980,000.00.
[59] This leaves me to consider if Neurogine has succeeded in proving
its claim for work done to the value of RM 3,272,937.00 of which
RM 1,606,887.00 remains unpaid.
[60] Neurogine’s claim is based on three invoices issued in 2019.
There is ample documentary evidence that work continued to be
done in 2019. Parties were still in communication on the
development of the app.
[61] Apart from denying that it agreed to the second quotation,
Skyworld adduced no evidence to rebut the value of the work
done. This is not surprising in view of its stance that the contract
sum was only RM 2,316,100.00. In the absence of any credible
challenge as to the claim based on the three invoices, the evidence
therefore weighs in favour of Neurogine. I therefore find its claim
based on the invoices to be proven.
Conclusion
[62] Premised on the foregoing reasons, the following orders are
made:-
(i) Skyworld’s claim in Suit 163 is dismissed;
Payatu t
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
(ii) Neurogine’s claim in Suit 174 for the amount of RM
1,606,887.00 is allowed, with interest at the rate of 5% from
the date of judgment until realization;
(iii) Skyworld is to pay Neurogine costs of RM 30,000 in respect
of Suit 163 and Suit 174.
Dated : 14th November 2023
-sgd-
...………………..…....
Alice Loke Yee Ching
Judge
High Court of Malaya
at Shah Alam
Counsel for the Plaintiff : Mr. Bani Prakash
(Miss S. Shanti and Miss Deva Premila
Devadasan with him)
Messrs S.San & Co
Counsel for the Defendants : Mr. Alex Anton Netto
(Mr. Heng Kian Tee with him)
Messrs Anton & Chen
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
S/N 0tV3WiTRlUqibfvS36FOLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 27,326 | Tika 2.6.0 |
CB-45-7-09/2019 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH TAN CAR CHUN | Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah s. 39B, 12 (2) ADB 1952 - Dadah ditemui dalam bilik hotel - Terdapat CCTV yang menunjukkan terdapat beberapa orang individu - Saksi penting yang ada bersama OKT1 ketika membawa beg yang dikatakan terdapat dadah - OKT2 ditangkap beberapa jam selepas kejadian ketika OKT1 berada dalam bilik - OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebaskan dan dilepaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie | 15/11/2023 | YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=090b6f5e-ab7c-450b-8683-ff328031dbe6&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - CB-45A-4-09-2019 PP v TAN CAR CHUN & OOI ZHE XIAN edited
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: CB-45A-4-09/2019,
CB-45-6-7-09/2019 DAN CB-45-7-09/2019
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
1. TAN CAR CHUN
(NO. K/P: 831018146655)
2. OOI ZHE XIAN
(NO. K/P: 871130025171)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Kes ini adalah berkaitan dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen
39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya (ADB) 1952 terhadap kedua-dua Orang
Kena Tuduh (OKT), seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 dan seksyen 9(1) Akta
Racun 1952. Pertuduhan-pertuduhan adalah seperti berikut:
15/11/2023 17:02:52
CB-45-7-09/2019 Kand. 14
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Kes No. CB-45A-4-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya berat
bersih 103.77 gram methamphetamine, dan dengan itu kamu
telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a)
Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah
seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen
34 Kanun Keseksaan.
Kes No. CB-45-7-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya berat bersih 0.44 gram ketamine dan dengan itu kamu
telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta
Dadah berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen
12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun
Keseksaan.
Kes No. CB-45-6-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu racun jenis
Etizolam seberat 169.11 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah
melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 9(1) Akta Racun
1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 32(2) Akta yang sama
dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
[2] Pertuduhan-pertuduhan telah dibacakan pertama kalinya pada
05.11.2019. Setelah beberapa kali pengurusan kes dijalankan, akhirnya
kes ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan pada 17 hingga 22.10.2020.
[3] Selepas daripada tarikh tersebut, perbicaraan kes ini tidak dapat
dijalankan dengan lancar ekoran daripada Pandemik Covid-19. Di
samping itu, terdapat penangguhan disebabkan oleh peguam OKT
yang telah menghidapi Covid-19 serta tidak dapat hadir ke mahkamah.
Pada masa yang sama OKT1 dan OKT2 juga terpaksa menjalankan
perintah kuarantin di penjara dan tidak dapat hadir ke mahkamah. Ini
telah menyebabkan kes ini hanya dapat dimulakan pada 24.03.2022.
[4] Perjalanan kes ini dari tarikh OKT-OKT dikemukakan di
mahkamah, perbicaraan dimulakan dan berakhir tidak sewajarnya
mempengaruhi mahkamah dan penentuan kes ini. Mahkamah
hendaklah memutuskan kes ini berdasarkan kepada keterangan-
keterangan saksi-saksi, eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan prinsip
undang-undang dan pemakaiannya dalam kes ini.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[5] Adalah sesuatu yang penting ditekankan bahawa keghairahan
untuk menyelesaikan sesuatu kes yang lama seperti ini tidak boleh
mengenepikan prinsip undang-undang dengan semata-mata untuk
menggambarkan penampilan statistik penyelesaian yang meyakinkan.
Begitu juga mahkamah tidak boleh memanggil OKT-OKT untuk
membela diri semata-mata bagi mendengar versi pembelaan
sedangkan satu kes prima facie telah tidak berjaya dibuktikan oleh
pihak pendakwaan. Ini adalah merupakan tonggak utama dalam
pentadbiran keadilan jenayah yang perlu ditegakkan dan dilaksanakan
dengan sepenuhnya.
Keterangan
[6] Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan 9 orang saksi sebelum
menutup kes pendakwaan. Ia melibatkan para pegawai dan anggota
polis, ahli kimia dan saksi-saksi awam. Di samping itu, rakaman CCTV
iaitu P39A juga dikemukakan sebagai keterangan pendakwaan.
Mahkamah ini dipertontonkan dengan rakaman CCTV tersebut.
Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa kejadian ini berlaku di dalam bilik
sebuah hotel.
[7] Pada 28.10.2018, bilik nombor 20963 Tingkat 20, Tower 3, First
World Hotel, Genting Highlands telah didaftarkan atas nama Tan Car
Chun iaitu OKT1. SP4 mengesahkan catatan check out date adalah
pada 29.10.2018. SP4 juga menyatakan bahawa bilik tersebut juga
dikongsi dengan seorang yang bernama Low Siew Yuen, (eksibit
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
P28A). Namun SP4 tidak pasti sama ada Low Siew Yuen mempunyai
akses kepada bilik tersebut. SP6 mengesahkannya.
[8] Pada 29.10.2018, SP5 telah membuat pemeriksaan di bilik
nombor 20963 Tingkat 20, Tower 3, First World Hotel, Genting
Highlands. Setelah SP4 dan pengurus hotel mengetuk pintu bilik
tersebut, ia telah dibuka oleh Tan Car Chun yang dicamkan sebagai
OKT1.
[9] SP5 menyatakan bahawa semasa memperkenalkan dirinya
sebagai pegawai polis, OKT1 telah cuba menutup pintu. SP5 telah
membuat laporan polis berkenaan insiden tersebut seperti di eksibit
P29. SP5 juga semasa ditunjukkan gambarajah kasar iaitu eksibit P36
dan telah menandakan “X2” adalah tempat di mana sebuah beg merah
hitam jenama Mayflower, eksibit P14A(1) yang di dalamnya terdapat
dadah.
[10] SP7 pegawai keselamatan hotel tersebut telah mengemukakan
rakaman CCTV berkenaan pergerakan di bilik 20963. Rakaman CCTV
tersebut telah ditayangkan di mahkamah. Ia menunjukkan pergerakan
beberapa orang individu keluar dan masuk ke bilik tersebut. Ringkasan
rakaman CCTV itu dinyatakan dalam penyataan saksi SP7 (PSSP7) di
muka surat 6 hingga 8.
[11] SP8 seorang saksi awam, dia telah menginap di bilik nombor
20962. Dia hadir ke situ atas panggilan ibu saudaranya, Normalis. SP8
saksikan OKT1 telah keluar dari bilik 20963 untuk membantu SP8
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
membuka pintu bilik 20962. SP8 sahkan seorang yang bernama Lim
Yee Chuan adalah kekasih Normalis. Lim Yee Chuan tidak
dikemukakan di mahkamah.
[12] P29 iaitu laporan polis oleh SP5 yang turut menyatakan
kenyataan kata-kata amaran OKT1 dan OKT2 kepada SP5 yang telah
diputuskan ditandakan sebagai P28B. Dalam P28B tertera seperti
berikut:
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
[13] SP2 ahli kimia dalam keterangannya telah mengesahkan
menerima barang-barang kes dari pegawai rampasan di eksibit P16
yang menurut beliau barang-barang kes itu adalah dadah berbahaya
jenis Heroin, Methamphetamine, Ketamin dan Etizolam.
[14] SP9 pegawai penyiasat telah mengambil tindakan yang dilakukan
semasa siasatan, iaitu lawatan ke tempat kejadian, pemperolehan
barang-barang kes, mengemukakan barang-barang kes kepada
Jabatan Kimia dan penggeledahan. SP9 sahkan bahawa Ooi Zhe Xian
iaitu OKT2 telah ditangkap melalui laporan polis P30.
[15] SP9 juga mengesahkan dia telah berusaha mengesan penama
Lim Yee Chuan tetapi gagal. SP9 telah ditayangkan dengan rakaman
CCTV. SP9 menyatakan siasatan menunjukkan bahawa bilik 20963
adalah didaftarkan atas nama OKT1. SP9 juga nyatakan siasatan
terhadap rakaman CCTV menunjukkan SP5 telah mengetuk pintu bilik
20963. OKT1 membuka pintu bilik diiringi oleh Lim Yee Chuan.
[16] Keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa kesan cap jari telah
diambil gambar di eksibit P21(1-12). Laporan hasil pemeriksaan cap
jari adalah tidak boleh dibuat perbandingan kerana tidak cukup sifat
seperti yang dinyatakan di P41.
[17] Ujian acupakai pakaian yang dijumpai di tempat kejadian telah
dimaklumkan pakaian itu diambil dari beg hitam merah yang dijumpai
dalam beg tersebut. Ia dapat di lihat 8 keping gambar di P46(1-8).
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
Analisa
[18] Adalah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap bahawa di akhir kes
pendakwaan adalah menjadi tugas pendakwaan untuk membuktikan
satu kes prima facie. Frasa prima facie telah dijelaskan di
bawah seksyen 180 KPJ seperti berikut:
"180 Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution
(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."
[19] Pendekatan yang perlu digunakan oleh mahkamah ketika
memutuskan sama ada terdapatnya satu kes prima facie di akhir kes
pendakwaan telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam
kes Abdullah Atan v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 9 CLJ 151 yang
menyatakan bagi tujuan untuk menentukan sama ada terdapat
kes prima facie mahkamah perlu menggunakan anggapan inferen,
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
selain daripada itu keterangan langsung bagi membuktikan satu
kes prima facie. Ini dinyatakan seperti berikut:
“[42] The purpose of s. 180(4) CPC was thus not to exclude
the use of presumptions, inferences, or anything other than
direct evidence, to establish a prima facie case. On the
contrary:
(i) the Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau itself expressly envisaged
that inferences may be drawn from the primary facts adduced,
and the court must presume such inferences to be true at the
close of the prosecution's case; and
(ii) statutory presumptions have often been invoked by the
prosecution in order to establish a prima facie case of drug
trafficking in previous cases. No concern was raised in
Parliament as to the use of presumptions when considering
amendments to s. 180 of the CPC (see Mohamad Radhi
Yaakob v. PP [1991] 3 CLJ 2073; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 311;
[1991] 3 MLJ 169; and Tan Boon Kean v. PP [1995] 4 CLJ
456; [1995] 3 MLJ 514).
[43] Section 180(4) of the CPC must be read in light of its
context and legislative purpose. By so doing, the phrase
"credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence"
in s. 180(4) means that the prosecution may prove each
ingredient of the offence either:
(i) by adducing credible direct evidence of that ingredient;
(ii) by drawing inferences of fact, ie, adducing credible
circumstantial evidence, from which the ingredient can be
inferred; or
(iii) by invoking presumptions of law, ie, adducing credible
evidence of the relevant basic facts, to invoke a statutory
presumption that the ingredient exists.
[44] As to what constitutes 'a prima facie' case, the judgment
of Vincent Ng J (as he then was) in PP v. Ong Cheng Heong
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[1998] 4 CLJ 209 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong
(supra) was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we
respectfully endorse His Lordship's views, at p. 225:
What then constitutes a 'prima facie case'? 'Prima facie'
means on the face of it or at first glance.... perhaps the
most appropriate definition of 'a prima facie case' could be
found in the Oxford Companion of Law (p. 987), which has
it as: "A case which is sufficient for an answer. While prima
facie evidence is evidence which is sufficient to establish a
fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but is
not conclusive". It would follow that there should be
credible evidence on each and every ingredient of the
offence. Credible evidence is evidence which has been
filtered and which has gone through the process of
evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be acted
upon, should be rejected. (emphasis added)
At p. 224, His Lordship said:
... to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation,
on a prima facie basis, of each and every essential
ingredient of the charge as tested in cross-examination. In
other words, maximum evaluation connotes quantitative
rather than qualitative evaluation of the evidence; with
focus more on the evidential burden in terms of evidence
led, rather than the persuasive burden in terms of
qualitative degree of proof."
Elemen Kesalahan
(a) Dadah yang dijumpai adalah dadah berbahaya
[20] Dalam kes ini fakta bahawa dadah-dadah yang ditemui di bilik
tersebut adalah merupakan dadah merbahaya sudah terang lagi
bersuluh berdasarkan kepada laporan kimia yang disediakan oleh ahli
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
kimia. Dalam laporan tersebut dinyatakan bahawa dadah-dadah yang
diperiksanya setelah dihantar oleh pegawai penyiasat adalah
merupakan dadah berbahaya yang dijadualkan di bawah ADB 1952. Ini
bermakna elemen pertama bagi kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan
terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan.
[21] Pada masa yang sama mahkamah juga mengambil perhatian
kepada soalan-soalan balas yang dikemukakan oleh peguam OKT-OKT
terhadap ahli kimia yang mencadangkan bahawa ujian yang dilakukan
oleh beliau adalah tidak tepat. Oleh itu laporan yang disediakan oleh
ahli kimia tersebut adalah cacat dan tidak tepat. Namun demikian
mahkamah berpendapat soalan-soalan sedemikian tidak dapat
menggoyahkan keterangan ahli kimia. Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa
ujian yang dijalankan adalah teratur dan keputusan yang dikeluarkan
melalui laporan kimia tersebut dan keterangan ahli kimia diterima oleh
mahkamah ini. Oleh itu Pendakwa Raya telah membuktikan elemen
pertama pertuduhan-pertuduhan terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2.
(b) Pemilikan dadah
Adakah dadah-dadah tersebut dalam pemilikan OKT1 dan OKT2
[22] Keterangan SP5 menunjukkan bahawa semasa serbuan dibuat di
bilik 20963, OKT1 berada dalam bilik tersebut di mana dadah-dadah
dijumpai. SP5 menyatakan bahawa OKT1 cuba menghalang pintu itu
dari dibuka.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
[23] Selain daripada itu imej dalam rakaman CCTV, eksibit P39A(2)
juga telah disahkan oleh SP5 dan SP7 serta SP9 mendapati OKT1
dilihat ada memasuki bilik tersebut. Kali terakhir OKT1 dilihat memasuki
bilik tersebut pada 29.10.2018, 0728-0729 hours. Ini ditambah pula
dengan keterangan SP5 yang mengesahkan dadah-dadah tersebut
ditemui berdekatan dengan OKT1 seperti gambarajah kasar, P36.
[24] Seterusnya keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa acupakai
pakaian yang ditemui dalam bilik tersebut adalah berjaya dilakukan ke
atas OKT1 dan OKT2.
[25] Selain daripada itu SP4 mengesahkan kunci bilik 20963 itu
diberikan kepada OKT1. Ini turut disahkan oleh SP8 yang menyatakan
orang yang membantunya untuk membuka pintu bilik 20962 adalah
OKT1 yang keluar dari bilik 20963.
[26] Keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut
berada di tempat dalam gambarajah kasar semasa OKT1 dijumpai
berada dalam bilik tersebut.
[27] Namun begitu, laporan cap jari tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa
cap jari OKT1 ada para barang kes tersebut bagi menyokong OKT1
mempunyai kawalan atau milikan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut.
[28] Sementara bagi OKT2 pula, keterangan SP5 menyatakan
bahawa OKT2 ditangkap pada jam 10.30 pagi seperti yang dinyatakan
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
dalam laporan polis Genting Highlands/005252/18, eksibit P30. OKT1
telah ditangkap pada jam 9.50 pagi seperti di P29.
[29] Dalam kes ini tayangan CCTV di mahkamah menunjukkan imej
beberapa orang lelaki yang telah dicamkan oleh SP7, SP5 dan SP6.
Imej tersebut menunjukkan ada di antara mereka yang masuk ke bilik
20963 ada yang membawa beg. Ini menunjukkan bahawa selain
daripada OKT1 dan OKT2 salah seorang individu yang dilihat melalui
CCTV itu ialah Lim Yee Chuan dan menurut keterangan pegawai
penyiasat penama Lim Yee Chuan mengiringi OKT1 membuka pintu
bilik tersebut yang dapat dilihat daripada rakaman CCTV. SP9
menyatakan:
S : Kita pergi ke klip yang pertama 28.10.2018 pada jam
2228 hours. Boleh Inspektor terangkan kepada
mahkamah klip ini berkenaan apa?
J : Pada tarikh 28.10.2018 masa 2228 hours di mana
suspek Tan Car Chun dan Lim Yee Chuan telah masuk
ke bilik 20963 dan Tan Car Chun membawa beg
sandang warna hitam merah dan beg silang warna
kuning coklat.
S : Melalui rakaman ini boleh Inspektor terangkan yang
mana satu penama Tan Car Chun dan yang mana satu
penama Lim Yee Chuan?
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
J : Tan Car Chun iaitu yang sedang menggalas beg dan
Lim Yee Chuan yang berada di sebelah yang
menggalas beg tersebut.
S : Kita pergi kepada klip yang kedua ini. Okay boleh
berhenti. Untuk rakaman klip yang seterusnya apa
keterangan rakaman tersebut?
J : Rakaman tersebut dilihat Lim Yee Chuan telah keluar
dari bilik 20963.
S : Seterusnya saya pohon dimainkan rakaman 0025
hours. Apa keterangan rakaman? Boleh Inspektor
terangkan berkenaan rakaman tersebut?
J : Rakaman tersebut telah dilihat 4 individu iaitu Tan Car
Chun yang telah keluar dari bilik 20963. Turut kelihatan
di depan bilik tersebut adalah penama Syawal Rizal,
penama Alif iaitu rakan kepada Rizal dan juga penama
Yasir, kawan kepada Rizal juga.
[30] Keterangan yang juga menunjukkan SP9 hanya cuba mengesan
Lim Yee Chuan pada tahun 2023 melalui laporan polis Gemencheh
373/23, eksibit P43. Sementara itu carian daripada Jabatan
Pendaftaran Negara dibuat pada 05.05.2023. Pada tahun 2019, SP9
sahkan dia tidak mencari Lim Yee Chuan. Adalah didapati tiada
keterangan sebelum 2023 usaha pengesanan Lim Yee Chuan.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[31] SP9 mengesahkan bahawa di bilik 20963 pintunya dibuka oleh
OKT1. SP9 menyatakan Lim Yee Chuan mengiringi OKT1 tetapi OKT1
yang membawa beg merah di mana dadah-dadah itu ditemui.
Ketiadaan Lim Yee Chuan menyebabkan tiada kepastian bahawa beg
merah itu adalah kepunyaan OKT1 atau Lim Yee Chuan. Keterangan
yang menunjukkan OKT1 membawa beg merah tersebut pada hemat
mahkamah tidak dapat menolak kemungkinan dadah-dadah itu berada
dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan Lim Yee Chuan. Keterangan
menunjukkan OKT2 tidak berada dalam bilik tersebut semasa serbuan
dan hanya ditahan kemudian.
[32] Mahkamah juga perlu meneliti kenyataan OKT1 dalam P28B yang
menyatakan bahawa dadah itu bukan kepunyaannya tetapi hanya
dadah di atas meja sahaja. OKT1 juga mengesahkan bahawa bilik
tersebut disewa olehnya. Adakah dengan kenyataan OKT1 ini telah
mengesahkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut adalah dalam milikan
OKT1. Dalam kes ini mahkamah perlu membezakan di antara hakmilik
dadah-dadah tersebut dengan dadah-dadah itu berada dalam milikan
OKT1 dan OKT2. Mahkamah merujuk PP v Denish Madhavan [2009]
2 CLJ 209 dan Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] MLJ 237.
[33] Mahkamah ini juga perlu meneliti kenyataan OKT1 melalui eksibit
P28B apabila dikemukakan soalan-soalan seperti berikut:
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
[34] SP5 semasa pemeriksaan balas berkenaan isu ini iaitu berkaitan
dengan perkataan dadah yang dilihat ditambah masuk dalam
kenyataan tersebut telah menjelaskan seperti berikut:
S : Sekarang lihat kepada dokumen kata-kata amaran yang
telah kamu kemukakan sebagai eksibit P28B. If I may
read soalan 1, lihat kepada soalan 1. Soalan: Adakah
awak ada simpan barang salah dadah di dalam bilik?
Jawapan: Barang itu bukan saya punya. Perkataan yang
mustahak di sini adalah itu. Itu maksudnya barang sudah
dijumpa. That barang.
J : Bukan maksud itu Yang Arif.
S : Jadi mengapa ada perkataan itu di sini?
J : Tertuduh pada masa itu Tertuduh tahu ada sesuatu
barang di simpan di dalam bilik.
S : Don’t explain to much into this. Jawab soalan ini sahaja.
Tidak ada soalan tentang tentang pengetahuan Tertuduh.
Just soalan ini, Adakah awak ada simpan barang salah
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
dadah di dalam bilik? Jawapan dia adalah barang itu
bukan saya punya which means that things is not mine,
yang membawa maksud pada masa soalan ini ditanya
barang kes dadah sudahpun dijumpai?
J : Tidak setuju.
S : Now soalan kedua, dimanakah barang kes dadah awak
simpan jawapan saya punya barang dan ada tambahan
perkataan dadah, nampak tak ada tambahan, is an
addition, betul?
J : Betul.
S : Perkataan dadah tersebut merupakan satu tambahan ya?
Lihat pada dokumen itu?
J : Apa maksud tambahan?
S : Additionlah, maksud dia, it is not in the same line?
J : Dadah itu yang ditulis saya …
S : Merupakan satu tambahan kepada ayat yang asal?
J : Sebelum … Ayat tidak lengkap saya telah tambah
semula.
S : Soalan saya perkataan dadah di jawapan kedua
merupakan satu tambahan kepada jawapan yang telah
diberi?
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
J : Ini adalah jawapan yang Tertuduh bagi dan saya tuliskan.
S : Boleh tolong jawab soalan saya tak? I think you
understand my question. Please answer my question and
don’t play around like a fool. Soalan saya adalah
perkataan dadah yang terdapat di jawapan nombor 2
merupakan satu tambahan kepada jawapan yang telah
diberi mula-mula oleh Tertuduh?
J : Bukan.
S : Bukan tambahan?
J : Bukan tambahan.
S : So maksud dia kalau bukan tambahan Tertuduh
perkataan asal telah menyatakan saya punya barang
dadah simpan atas meja sahaja. Is it?
J : Tertuduh yang nyatakan.
S : Dan mengapa ada dadah tidak selari atau tidak sama
dengan perkataan-perkataan lain dalam ayat tersebut?
J : Maksudnya masa saya tulis, saya mahu tulis dadah, terus
tulis simpan maksudnya tercicir dadah.
S : Tercicir okay. Saya mencadangkan kepada kamu
perkataan dadah yang terdapat pada ayat pada jawapan
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
nombor 2 adalah satu tambahan yang dibuat
terkemudian?
J : Tidak setuju.
[35] Mahkamah ini juga meneliti salinan asal penyataan tersebut
mendapati tiada sebarang tandatangan ringkas bagi mengesahkan
siapakah yang telah meletakkan perkataan dadah dalam penyataan
tersebut. Adakah ia dibuat oleh SP5 atau dibuat sendiri oleh SP5 atau
ditulis atas penyataan yang dibuat oleh OKT1.
[36] Pada hemat mahkamah kenyataan yang dibuat di bawah P28B
adalah keterangan mustahak untuk mengaitkan dadah-dadah tersebut
dengan OKT1. Ini bermakna sekiranya mahkamah menerima eksibit
P28B itu maka ia sudah menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya hubungan
di antara OKT1 dengan dadah-dadah tersebut, sekurang-kurangnya
dadah-dadah yang dikatakan berada di atas meja. Oleh yang demikian
mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dan memastikan bahawa tiada terdapat
sebarang kecurigaan terhadap kandungan kenyataan tersebut.
[37] Mahkamah tidak boleh dengan sewenang-wenangnya menerima
kenyataan di P28B tersebut. Ia boleh dilakukan sedemikian sekiranya
tiada sebarang petanda yang boleh menimbulkan kecurigaan kepada
kesahihan kenyataan yang dinyatakan dalam P28B tersebut
terutamanya penambahan perkataan dadah di situ. Mahkamah perlu
berhati-hati dan memberikan sebarang faedah kesangsian (benefit of
doubt) terhadap P28B ini kepada OKT1. Dalam kes ini mahkamah
berpendapat P28B tidak menunjukkan bahawa OKT1 mempunyai
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut.
Mahkamah ini tidak boleh bersandarkan kepada P28B untuk
memutuskan bahawa OKT1 mempunyai pemilikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan dadah-dadah tersebut.
[38] Begitu juga dengan kenyataan yang diberikan oleh OKT2.
Mahkamah ini berpendapat seperti yang dinyatakan terhadap
kenyataan OKT1, mahkamah harus berhati-hati dalam menerima
keterangan ini terhadap OKT2. Mahkamah mendapati terdapat
keraguan terhadap dokumen dan isi kandungannya yang dikemukakan
sebagai P28B tersebut. Oleh itu pihak pendakwaan tidak dapat
menunjukkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut adalah dalam milikan,
kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 dengan bersandarkan
kepada dokumen P28B.
Adakah kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi-saksi
terutamanya Lim Yee Chuan adalah membolehkan pemakaian
seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai
[39] Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa budi bicara untuk
memanggil seseorang saksi adalah terletak kepada pihak pendakwaan.
Pihak pendakwaan boleh menimbangkan saksi yang difikirkan perlu
dikemukakan di mahkamah. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Khoon
Chye Hin v PP [1961] 1 MLJ 105 di mana Yang Amat Arif Thomson,
Ketua Hakim Negara menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
“It is, of course, well settled that in a criminal case prosecuting
counsel, provided there is no wrong motive, has a discretion
as to whether or not to call any particular witness and in
particular has a discretion not to call in support of his case a
witness whom he does not believe to be a witness of truth.”
[40] Ini juga telah dinyatakan terlebih dahulu dalam kes Adel
Muhammed El Dabbah v A-G for Palestine [1944] AC 156 di mana
Lord Thankerton menyatakan seperti berikut:
“While their Lordships agree that there was no obligation on
the prosecution to tender these witnesses, and, therefore, this
contention of the present appellant fails, their Lordships doubt
whether the rule of practice as expressed by the Court of
Criminal Appeal sufficiently recognizes that the prosecutor
has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called for the
prosecution, and the court will not interfere with the exercise
of that discretion, unless, perhaps, it can be shown that the
prosecutor has been influenced by some oblique motive.”
[41] Ia juga telah dinyatakan juga oleh Mahkamah Agong dalam kes
Ti Chuee Hiang v PP [1995] 2 MLJ 433 yang menjelaskan budi bicara
pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil saksi perlu dilakukan bagi
kepentingan keadilan. Ini dinyatakan oleh YA Hakim Edgar Joseph JR
seperti berikut:
“We recognize that the function of the prosecution is to
prosecute, and that does not mean that it must discharge the
functions both of the prosecution and the defence.
On the other hand, it is clear law that the prosecution must
have in court all witnesses from whom statements have been
taken, but they have a discretion whether to call them or not.
(See Teh Lee Tong v PP [1956] MLJ 194.) That discretion,
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
however, must be exercised having regard to the interests of
justice, which includes being fair to the accused (per Lord
Parker CJ in R v Oliva [1965] 3 All ER 116 at p 122; [1965] 2
WLR 1028 at p 1035), and to call witnesses essential to the
unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is
based, whether the effect of their testimony is for or against
the prosecution (per Lord Roche in the Ceylon Privy Council
case of Seneviratne v R [1936] 3 All ER 36 at p 49, applied
in R v Nugent [1977] 3 All ER 662; [1977] 1 WLR 789).”
[42] Malahan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Rosli bin Yusof v
PP [2021] 4 MLJ 479 telah menyatakan budi bicara pihak pendakwaan
untuk memanggil saksi dengan tanggungjawab pihak pendakwaan
untuk membuktikan kes pendakwaan seperti berikut:
“[38] In our view, it is settled law based on the authorities
cited to us by the learned counsel for the appellant in his
submission that the prosecution has discretion whether to call
any particular witness, but such discretion is subject to two
limitations, vis: (a) the discretion must be exercised with due
regard to considerations of fairness and good faith; and (b)
the witnesses who had been investigated by the police and
from whom the statements have been recorded must be
offered to the defence.”
[43] Adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa budi bicara memanggil saksi-
saksi adalah dalam ruang lingkup budi bicara pendakwaan. Namun ia
tertakluk kepada tanggungjawab Pendakwa Raya untuk membuktikan
kesnya dan apa yang lebih penting ialah sama ada kegagalan
memanggil saksi tersebut juga perlu dikaitkan dengan kepentingan
keadilan. Sekiranya kegagalan memanggil saksi tersebut
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
menyebabkan keadilan tidak dapat ditegakkan ia boleh mengatasi budi
bicara Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan saksi.
[44] Dalam kes ini Lim Yee Chuan adalah saksi yang terlibat langsung
dalam kejadian ini. Ia dapat dilihat melalui keterangan saksi-saksi yang
melihat Lim Yee Chuan masuk bersama-sama ke dalam bilik di mana
OKT1 ditahan dan OKT2 ditangkap selepas itu. Ini bermakna kehadiran
Lim Yee Chuan adalah penting kepada kes pendakwaan bagi
menunjukkan dadah-dadah tersebut di dalam milikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan OKT1, OKT2 atau berada dalam milikan, pengetahuan
dan kawalan Lim Yee Chuan. Ia adalah berkaitan langsung dengan isu
yang seterusnya iaitu akses kepada bilik tersebut yang akan dinyatakan
selepas ini.
[45] Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa SP9 telah membuat
percubaan untuk mengesan Lim Yee Chuan hanya pada tahun 2023.
Pegawai penyiasat dalam keterangan menyatakan beliau tidak
mengesan pada tahun 2018, 2019 2020, 2021 dan 2022. Mahkamah
juga mendapati bahawa tiada alasan yang memuaskan diberikan oleh
pegawai penyiasat berkenaan kegagalan beliau mengesan saksi ini
lebih awal.
[46] Persoalannya ialah adakah mahkamah ini boleh menerima alasan
kegagalan mengemukakan Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi adalah
sesuatu yang wajar. Mahkamah berpendapat berdasarkan keterangan
dan usaha pengesanan Lim Yee Chuan serta kedudukannya sebagai
saksi penting dalam kes ini tidak membolehkan ketidakhadiran saksi
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
tersebut dipandang enteng disebabkan ia akan menimbulkan
ketidakadilan kepada OKT-OKT berkenaan milikan, pengetahuan dan
kawalan dadah-dadah tersebut serta berkait dengan isu askes kepada
bilik tersebut.
[47] Selain daripada itu tiada juga keterangan yang menunjukkan
bahawa Lim Yee Chuan adalah seorang pemberi maklumat (informer)
yang tertakluk kepada peruntukan di bawah seksyen 40 ADB 1952.
Namun begitu mahkamah juga perlu menimbangkan bahawa
kegagalan Pendakwa Raya memanggil saksi-saksi bukanlah
semestinya faktor yang akan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. Misalnya
dalam kes (1) Namasiyiam (2) Rajindran (3) Goh Chin Peng and (4)
Ng Ah Kiat v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 336 salah seorang saksi yang dikatakan
rakan sejenayah telah tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi dalam kes tersebut.
Namun demikian Mahkamah Agong berpendapat ianya tidak
menjejaskan kes pendakwaan disebabkan terdapatnya keterangan-
keterangan lain di mana ketiadaan saksi tersebut tidak membawa apa-
apa perbezaan.
“Clearly, Francis was a particeps criminis, an accomplice in
the true sense of the word. It was submitted that the absence
of Francis at the trial would raise the presumption
under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act unfavourable to the
prosecution. Be that as it may, in the light of overwhelming
prosecution evidence as stated earlier, we do not think that
the presence of Francis, had he been available, would have
made any difference.”
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
[48] Sebaliknya dalam kes ini kehadiran Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi
akan mengubah keadaan kes ini dan mahkamah dapat menentukan
sama ada milikan dadah-dadah tersebut adalah OKT1, OKT2 atau
orang lain iaitu Lim Yee Chuan. Sekiranya tiada keterangan daripada
rakaman CCTV yang menunjukkan keberadaan Lim Yee Chuan maka
ketiadaan Lim Yee Chuan tidak akan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan.
Namun begitu dalam kes ini kehadiran Lim Yee Chuan dan beberapa
orang saksi lain yang disahkan oleh pegawai penyiasat yang tidak
dirakam percakapan mereka adalah sesuatu yang mustahak diberikan
perhatian oleh mahkamah dalam menentukan sama ada dadah-dadah
tersebut berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 atau
OKT2.
[49] Oleh itu mahkamah ini berpendapat kegagalan pihak
pendakwaan mengemukakan Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi penting
dalam kes ini adalah mewajarkan pemakaian anggapan di bawah
seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950. Mahkamah sedar bahawa
pemakaian seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak boleh
sewenang-wenangnya digunakan terhadap pendakwaan seperti yang
dinyatakan dalam kes Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492 seperti
berikut:
“Adverse inference under that illustration can only be drawn if
there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not
merely on account of failure to obtain evidence. It may be
drawn from withholding not just any document, but material
document by a party in his possession, or for non-production
of not just any witness but an important and material witness
to the case.”
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
[50] Dalam kes Munusamy (supra) keterangan menunjukkan bahawa
seorang ahli kimia yang tidak dapat mengemukakan perakuan ujian
ketepatan alat sukatan daripada Merinyu (Inspektor) Timbang dan
Sukat. Ini adalah disebabkan ahli kimia tersebut mengesahkan bahawa
dia tidak mempunyai butiran berkenaan alatan tersebut sebelum tahun
1985. Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seksyen 114 (g) Akta
Keterangan 1950 tidak terpakai dapat kes tersebut.
[51] Sebaliknya, Lim Yee Chuan adalah saksi penting dalam kes ini.
Dia telah diketahui oleh pegawai penyiasat dan imejnya dapat dilihat
melalui rakaman CCTV semenjak 2018 dan hanya dikesan pada 2023.
Ia jelas menunjukkan bahawa keterangan Lim Yee Chuan tidak
diketengahkan untuk penelitian mahkamah ini bagi membantu
mahkamah meneliti keterangan Lim Yee Chuan bersama-sama dengan
keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan yang lain. Oleh itu mahkamah
mendapati seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai kepada
pihak pendakwaan.
Akses
[52] Dalam kes ini keterangan yang ada ialah OKT1 diserahkan kad
kunci bilik tersebut, OKT1 berada dalam bilik tersebut semasa serbuan
dibuat, OKT1 bersama seorang Lim Yee Chuan. OKT2 hanya bersama-
sama OKT1 di bilik tersebut. Rakaman CCTV menunjukkan pergerakan
keluar masuk bilik tersebut oleh beberapa orang individu lain. Individu-
individu yang dikenalpasti itu ada yang tidak dapat dikesan dan ada
yang tidak diambil keterangannya.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
[53] Adakah keterangan OKT1 di P28B itu dapat menunjukkan
bahawa dadah-dadah itu dalam milikan OKT1? Hakikat yang tidak
dapat dinafikan bahawa bilik tersebut dapat diakses oleh individu-
individu yang lain sepanjang rakaman CCTV sebelum bilik tersebut
diserbu oleh pihak polis. Ini adalah seperti apa yang berlaku dalam kes
Lee Chee Meng v PP [1992] 1 MLJ 322 di mana Mahkamah
Persekutuan menyatakan:
“The totality of the evidence did not support the justification.
Firstly, it is to be stressed that the burden on the appellant
was merely to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution
case. Where the presumption under s 37(da) is invoked the
burden on the defence was only on the balance of
probabilities.
The other aspect of the evidence in this case must be
examined. It would seem that the learned trial judge did not
consider the evidence that the said Yoong Thien Soong
(tenant of room A) was also arrested at the same time with
four packets of drugs found in the room. Although the learned
judge recognized the evidence relating to the contention that
the door to room B could not be locked with the key at the
material time, yet he did not give sufficient consideration to
that evidence. In fact contrary to the evidence, the learned trial
judge made a number of speculations to justify his conclusion,
namely, that the padlock (exh P28) could be used to padlock
room B, and that the appellant could have purchased another
padlock and holding that the air-cooler and the mini-compo
were valuable items and that the shoe boxes were meant for
storage of drugs. In fact, the doubt as to exclusive use of room
B by the appellant alone could be sufficient ground to allow
the appeal.”
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
[54] Sementara itu dalam kes Abdullah Zawawi bin Yusoff v PP
[1993] 3 MLJ 1 kewujudan orang lain yang berkemungkinan
mempunyai akses kepada kawasan pembinaan yang belum siap telah
diputuskan sebagai keadaan yang menunjukkan terdapatnya
kemungkinan akses oleh pihak lain.
“The judge was of the view that though the house was still
under construction there was no evidence to show that there
had been access to the house through the uncompleted part.
With respect, given the fact that this was a case where the
police were acting on a tip-off, undoubtedly by an informer,
who might have been a paid informer, and the further fact that
the house was still under construction, the onus was not on
the defence to prove possibility of access by others but on the
prosecution to exclude such possibility. Of course, the
defence could besides taking advantage of infirmities in the
prosecution case in this regard, have gone further, and shown
the possibility of access by others, but this they were not, in
law, obliged to do.
To return to the judgment, in fairness to the judge, he did
pursue the point about the possibility of a plant. What he said
was this:
Counsel also makes a faint insinuation of the possible
involvement of Mohammad bin Mohd Amin in the
commission of the alleged offence, and that could be the
reason why he is scared to come to court. I have given a
thorough thought to such a possibility but am unable to
accept it as I find there is no conceivable reason for
Mohammad to frame the first accused. Most of the time
when he was in Gua Musang, he stayed with the first
accused. He even worked for him and more or less
regarded himself as part of the family. I cannot by any
stretch of imagination think of him having a plan to
implicate the person who had been more than a friend to
him. There is nothing to show that he would stand to gain
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
by it. The insinuation without more remains only an
insinuation, without any evidence to link Mohammad with
the alleged offence.
We recognize the force of the judge's reasoning, but motive is
not always an easy matter to prove, and there was the
testimony of ASP Haji Hamzah bin Awang (PW10), who took
over investigations in the case, that he had attempted to
secure the attendance of Mohammad at the trial but failed
because Mohammad, who was by then living in Kampong
Dusun Nyior, Narathiwat, Thailand, did not dare to come to
Malaysia. There was also evidence that most of the time when
he was in Gua Musang, Mohammad stayed with the
appellant. In other words, he had liberal access to the house.
Then, again, there was the evidence of his presence in the
house at the time of the police raid and his arrest by the police.
These are matters upon which we did not place undue stress
and we therefore mention it, only in passing, to show that
Mohammad was a possible suspect.
But there was more substance in the point (not raised by
counsel or considered by the judge) that the wife of the
appellant might have concealed the drugs in the box without
the appellant being a party to such act even though he might
have known about it. The charge, be it noted, was trafficking
in dangerous drugs and it will be recalled, that it was the
conduct of the wife which led to the discovery of the drugs,
and certainly the case for the prosecution was that she was
involved, for why else was she prosecuted jointly with the
appellant? Indeed, the judge ruled, at the close of the case for
the prosecution, that she had a case to answer though,
admittedly, at the close of the case for the defence, he did
acquit her saying in the final part of his judgment:
However, I am satisfied the second accused has
succeeded in rebutting the presumptions, thereby
creating a doubt on the case against her. I therefore
acquit and discharge her. There is no appeal against her
acquittal.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
He did not, however, give any reasons for that conclusion and
we note that the wife did not implicate the appellant in any
way, nor was there any evidence that they were acting in
concert.”
[55] Seterusnya dalam kes Gooi Loo Seng v PP [1993] 2 MLJ 137
Mahkamah Agong memutuskan bahawa kehadiran teman wanita
Tertuduh yang mempunyai kunci telah menunjukkan bahawa
terdapatnya akses kepada bilik tidur tersebut oleh orang lain
menyebabkan sabitan telah diketepikan.
“Had the trial judge approached the prosecution case in the
manner we have indicated, we cannot confidently say that he
would or must inevitably have rejected the appellant's version
that he had no knowledge of the presence of the heroin in the
bedroom and that it could have been hidden there by others
having access to the bedroom in his absence.
We need hardly add, that even if the appellant had known of
the presence of the heroin in his bedroom, that by itself would
not have been sufficient to establish that he was in possession
or in control of it given the fact that others too, and certainly
his girlfriend Tan Ah Kwai, had access to the bedroom and
could have concealed the heroin there. At the end of the day,
this was a case of the proverbial cap which might have fitted
not just the head of the appellant but that of others as well.”
[56] Dalam kes ini tindakan beberapa orang individu-individu keluar
masuk bilik tersebut menunjukkan bahawa bilik tersebut boleh diakses
oleh orang lain selain daripada OKT1 dan OKT2. Namun mahkamah
juga tidak sewajarnya secara automatik menyatakan bahawa orang lain
mempunyai akses kepada bilik tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan kad bilik
tersebut diserahkan kepada OKT1 dan OKT2 juga menjadi penghuni di
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
bilik tersebut. Ini ditambah pula dengan tiada keterangan yang
menunjukkan bahawa semasa keluar masuk bilik tersebut oleh individu-
individu tersebut beg yang mana dadah-dadah itu ditemui telah juga
dibawa keluar oleh mana-mana individu tersebut semasa keluar masuk
dari bilik tersebut.
[57] Selain daripada itu tiada keterangan yang dikemukakan
berkenaan apakah yang berlaku dalam bilik tersebut semasa individu-
individu tersebut dikatakan berada dalam bilik tersebut. Oleh yang
demikian keterangan individu-individu yang dilihat memasuki bilik
tersebut adalah mustahak untuk mengesahkan bahawa dadah tidak
mempunyai kaitan dengan saksi-saksi tersebut melainkan ianya adalah
berkaitan dengan OKT1 dan OKT2 sahaja.
[58] Hakikatnya ialah terdapatnya beberapa orang yang mempunyai
akses kepada bilik tersebut. Ketiadaan individu-individu sebagai saksi
telah menyebabkan terdapat kemungkinan dadah-dadah tersebut
bukannya berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan
OKT2. Ini ditambah pula dengan laporan cap jari dan DNA yang tidak
dapat menunjukkan kaitan OKT1 dan OKT2 dengan dadah tersebut.
Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa ketidaaan pengemukakan
laporan cap jari dan DNA tidak sewajarnya dijadikan alasan untuk
menyatakan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes
prima facie. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v.
Mansor Md. Rashid & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 233 seperti berikut:
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
“We also find ourselves in agreement with the learned Deputy
Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge had erred in law
when he faulted PW13 the investigating officer for not lifting
the finger prints off the wrappings of the cannabis and for not
taking photographs of the street light in front of the house No.
129. Where the identity of a culprit is in question or required
to be proved, fingerprint evidence would be of great
significance and immense value. In the present case under
appeal, however, the charge alleged trafficking in the form of
sale and there is evidence indicating the identities of the
alleged offenders and the sale transaction. Fingerprint
evidence on the newspaper wrapping, white plastic and the
loytape, therefore, assumes little value or significance.”
[59] Namun demikian dalam kes tersebut keterangan pendakwaan
ialah terdapatnya urus niaga pembelian dan penjualan dadah-dadah di
mana identiti Tertuduh tidak menjadi isu dalam kes tersebut. Prinsip
dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Mansor Md. Rashid & Anor (supra)
telah diikuti oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes PP v Ebrahim
Mirzaie Hj Ebrahim Deh Mokhtar [2017] 1 CLJ 575 dan PP v Rosli
Rikidin [2023] 1 LNS 1849.
[60] Dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati bahawa kegagalan untuk
memanggil saksi-saksi yang mempunyai akses kepada bilik tersebut
menyebabkan pihak pendakwaan tidak dapat membuktikan bahawa
OKT-OKT mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan kepada
dadah-dadah tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan persoalan berikut akan
timbul iaitu:
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
(a) Adakah dadah-dadah tersebut dimiliki oleh individu-individu
yang dilihat dalam rakaman CCTV tersebut yang telah
masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut; dan
(b) Adakah dadah-dadah itu dibawa masuk ke dalam bilik
tersebut bersama-sama dengan beg yang dibawa oleh
OKT1 seperti yang tertera dalam rakaman CCTV atau
dibawa oleh individu lain.
[61] Ia boleh menyebabkan mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa
dadah-dadah tersebut tidak dibuktikan berada dalam milikan, kawalan
dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 sebaliknya dadah-dadah tersebut
berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan individu-individu lain
yang tertera imej mereka dalam rakaman CCTV tersebut. Oleh itu
kehadiran saksi-saksi tersebut adalah penting bagi bagi menyokong kes
prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan dan membuktikan elemen
pemilikan dadah-dadah tersebut.
[62] Oleh itu penelitian kepada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan
dan eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan mahkamah berpendapat pihak
pendakwaan gagal membuktikan OKT1 dan OKT2 mempunyai milikan,
kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut di akhir kes
pendakwaan.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
(c) Pengedaran Dadah
[63] Setelah mahkamah ini meneliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan
mahkamah berpendapat pendakwaan gagal membuktikan bahawa
dadah-dadah tersebut berada di dalam milikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 maka anggapan pengedaran dadah-
dadah tersebut di bawah seksyen 37 (da) ADB 1952 tidak dapat
digunakan oleh mahkamah ini bagi membuktikan pengedaran dadah
berbahaya seperti pertuduhan. Seksyen 37 (da) ADB 1952 seperti
berikut:
“(da) any person who is found in possession of-
(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin;
(ii) 15 grammes or more in weight of morphine;
(iii) 15 grammes or more in weight of
monoacetylmorphines;
(iiia) a total of 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin,
morphine and monoacetylmorphines or a total of 15
grammes or more in weight of any two of the said
dangerous drugs;
(iv) 1,000 grammes or more in weight of prepared opium;
(v) 1,000 grammes or more in weight of raw opium;
(va) a total of 1,000 grammes or more in weight of
prepared opium and raw opium;
(vi) 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis,
(vii) 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis resin;
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
(viii) a total of 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis
and cannabis resin;
(ix) 40 grammes or more in weight of cocaine;
(x) 2,000 grammes or more in weight of cocoa leaves;
(xi) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2-Amino-1-(2, 5-
dimethoxy-4-methyl) phenylpropane;
(xii) 50 grammes or more in weight of Amphetamine;
(xiii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2, 5-
Dimethoxyamphetamine (DMA);
(xiv) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Dimethoxybromoamphetamine (DOB);
(xv) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-
ethylamphetamine (DOET);
(xvi) 50 grammes or more in weight of Methamphetamine;
(xvii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 5-Methoxy-3, 4-
Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MMDA);
(xviii) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA);
(xix) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-ethyl MDA;
(xx) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-hydroxy MDA;
(xxi) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-methyl-l-(3, 4-
methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine;
(xxii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 3,4-
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA);
(xxiii) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA);
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
(xxiv) 50 grammes or more in weight of 3,4,5-
Trimethoxyamphetamine (3, 4, 5-TMA); or
(xxv) a total of 50 grammes or more in weight of any
combination of the dangerous drugs listed in
subparagraphs (xi) to (xxiv),
otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act
or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug”
[64] Namun begitu mahkamah ini perlu meneliti sama ada terdapat
keterangan yang ada dapat menunjukkan terdapatnya pengedaran
seperti yang ditafsirkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 seperti berikut:
“"trafficking" includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug
otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the
regulations made under the Act”
[65] Ini adalah disebabkan terdapat keterangan daripada SP5 dan imej
daripada rakaman CCTV yang dipertontonkan di dalam mahkamah
terbuka terdapat individu yang membawa sebuah beg di mana beg
tersebut dikatakan dadah-dadah tersebut dijumpai. Ia membawa
maksud adakah tindakan individu tersebut yang didakwa sebagai OKT1
dalam kes ini telah membawa (carrying) dadah-dadah tersebut. Ini juga
perlu dipertimbangkan bersesuaian dengan keterangan yang
menyatakan dadah-dadah itu telah berada dalam bilik tersebut. Apakah
ianya tergolong dalam tindakan menyimpan dadah-dadah tersebut yang
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
boleh termasuk dalam takrifan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB
1952.
[66] Mahkamah ini dalam meneliti keterangan bagi maksud
penggunaan seksyen 2 ADB 1952 dipandu oleh keputusan Mahkamah
Persekutuan dalam kes Teh Geok Hock v PP [1989] 3 MLJ 162 seperti
berikut:
“It is quite clear then that although the learned judge accepted
the evidence that the appellant was a drug addict, he rejected
his explanation of the ten packets of heroin found on his
person. He was satisfied that the appellant was trafficking in
the drugs as charged and convicted the appellant. 'Trafficking'
is defined in the Act as follows:
'Trafficking' includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug.
True, the definition in the Act sounds artificial and not
according to the ordinary meaning of the word 'trafficking'
which is normally understood to mean to trade in, buy or sell,
any commodity, albeit often with sinister implication. See also
the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The definition of
'trafficking' in the Act is wide and includes not only buying and
selling, but also carrying, concealing and keeping. It is totally
different from the definition of the word 'traffic' in the
Singapore Misuse of Drugs Act. In the Singapore provision to
'traffic' in a controlled drug so as to constitute an offence of
trafficking involves something more than passive possession
or self-administration of the drug. See Ong Ah Chuan v Public
Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64.”
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
[67] Namun demikian Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Chow Kok
Keong v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 MLJ 337 telah menyatakan
perbezaan pandangan dengan keputusan dalam kes Teh Geok Hock
(supra) seperti berikut:
“In our view, both Cohen and Ng Chai Kem, have severely
watered down Teh Geok Hock in so far as it implies that
passive possession or self-administration can never be a
defence to a charge of trafficking under s 39B of our Act.
Having considered this point afresh, we preferred the views
expressed in Cohen and Ng Chai Kem to those in Teh Geok
Hock which we regarded as oversimplistic. We would add that
apart from the general consideration that the drugs legislation
is a piece of highly penal legislation and therefore any
ambiguity in it should be resolved in favour of the subject, in
accordance with long established canons of construction, it is
pertinent to note that the definition of 'trafficking' aforesaid
comes under s 2 of the Act, the very first line of which reads:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires ….
In our view the context of s 37(da)(i) which says:
any person who is found in possession of —
(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin; …
otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act
or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug;
does 'otherwise require' (italics supplied). If this were not so,
the provisions of s 37(da) which specifically confer upon the
accused the right to rebut the presumption of trafficking
arising from being found in possession of dangerous drugs in
excess of the statutory minimum, would be an empty
hypocrisy.”
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
[68] Di samping itu mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Ong Ah
Chuan v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 64 yang memutuskan bahawa pengedaran
dalam konteks seksyen 2 ADB 1952 itu perlu diteliti tujuan perbuatan-
perbuatan tersebut dilakukan. Ia tidak hanya sekadar menunjukkan
bahawa seseorang itu melakukan salah satu daripada 18 perkara yang
dinyatakan di bawah takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952. Di
samping itu mahkamah juga perlu melihat jumlah dadah-dadah yang
terlibat bagi menyatakan bahawa ianya bukan untuk tujuan penggunaan
sendiri melainkan semata-mata untuk tujuan pengedaran. Ini
dinyatakan oleh Lord Diplock seperti berikut:
“This is a very wide descriptionof acts that may be treated as
equivalent to the substantive offence of trafficking;
nevertheless, in their Lordships' view, it is clear from the
structure of the Drugs Act and the distinction drawn between
the offence of having a controlled drug in one'spossession
and the offence of trafficking in it, that mere possession of
itself is not to be treated as an act preparatory to or in
furtherance of or for the purpose of trafficking so as to permit
the conviction of the possessor of the substantive offence.
Tobring the provisions of sections 10 and 3(c) into operation
some further step or overt act by the accused is needed,
directed to transferring possession of the drug to some other
person; and it is a consequence of the clandestine nature of
the drug trade andthe means adopted for the detection of
those engaged in it, that the further step that the prosecution
is most likely to be able to prove in evidence is the act of the
accused in transporting the drug to some place where he
intends to deliver it to someone else,whether it be the actual
consumer or a distributor or another dealer.
Proof of the purpose for which an act is done, where such
purpose is a necessary ingredient of the offence with which
an accused is charged, presents a problem with whichcriminal
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
courts are very familiar. Generally, in the absence of an
express admission by the accused, the purpose with which he
did an act is a matter of inference from what he did. Thus, in
the case of an accused caught in the act of conveying from
one placeto another controlled drugs in a quantity much larger
than is likely to be needed for his own consumption the
inference that he was transporting them for the purpose of
trafficking in them would, in the absence of any plausible
explanationby him, be irresistible — even if there were no
statutory presumption such as is contained in section 15 of
the Drugs Act.
As a matter of common sense the larger the quantity of drugs
involved the stronger the inference thatthey were not intended
for the personal consumption of the person carrying them, and
the more convincing the evidence needed to rebut it. All that
section 15 does is to lay down the minimum quantity of each
of the five drugs with which it deals at which theinference
arises from the quantity involved alone that they were being
transported for the purpose of transferring possession of them
to another person and not solely for the transporter's own
consumption. There may be other facts which justify the
inferenceeven where the quantity of drugs involved is lower
than the minimum which attracts the statutory presumption
under section 15. In the instant cases, however, the quantities
involved were respectively one hundred times and six
hundred times the statutory minimum.
Whether the quantities involved be large or small, however,
the inference is always rebuttable. The accused himself best
knows why he was conveying the drugs from one place to
another and, if he can satisfy the court, upon the balance of
probabilitiesonly, that they were destined for his own
consumption he is entitled to be acquitted of the offence of
trafficking under section 3.”
[69] Ia juga telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes
Johar bin Mustapha v Public Prosecutor [2009] 6 MLJ 593 yang
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
42
menjelaskan berkenaan pemakaian pendekatan tujuan yang diutarakan
dalam kes Ong Ah Chuan (supra) seperti berikut:
“[44] We feel it is appropriate at this juncture to refer to the
'purpose approach' in the judgment of Lord Diplock in the
celebrated case of Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor; Koh
Chai Cheng v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64 where it was
held (at p 69) as follows:
Proof of the purpose for which an act is done, where such
purpose is a necessary ingredient of the offence with
which an accused is charged, presents a problem with
which criminal courts are very familiar. Generally, in the
absence of an express admission by the accused, the
purpose with which he did an act is a matter of inference
from what he did. Thus, in the case of an accused caught
in the act of conveying from one place to another
controlled drugs in a quantity much larger than is likely to
be needed for his own consumption the inference that he
was transporting them for the purpose of trafficking in
them would, in the absence of any plausible explanation
by him, be irresistible — even if there were no statutory
presumption such as is contained in s 15 of the Drugs Act
(see alsoPublic Prosecutor v Ouseng sama-Ae [2008] 1
CLJ 337). (Emphasis added.)”
[70] Mahkamah juga dapat melihat bagaimana keterangan yang
mencukupi untuk menyatakan bahawa OKT-OKT telah membawa
dadah seperti yang ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952. Ini dapat
dilihat dalam kes Sathya Vello v. PP [2022] 5 CLJ 659 di mana
Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan fakta kes tersebut seperti
berikut:
“[4] The facts are straightforward and may be summarised as
follows. At the time and place specified in the two charges, the
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
43
appellant and the second accused had just arrived from
Chennai, India by AirAsia flight AK1258. The appellant was
seen pushing a trolley and heading towards the customs
clearance area with the second accused beside him. On the
trolley were two luggage bags.
[5] As the appellant and the second accused were behaving
suspiciously, Corporal Pannir Selvam a/l Subramaniam
(PW3) who was on duty at the airport together with ASP
Mohideen bin Ismail (PW2) stopped them and requested them
to have their bags scanned at the scanning machine. This was
done and the scan showed suspicious images on the monitor
screen even after the contents of the bags were emptied.
When PW2 lifted the empty bags, he found them to be
exceptionally heavy. He also noticed that the fabric at the
bottom of the bags were bulging. He then decided to carry out
a physical examination on the two bags in the presence of the
appellant and the second accused.”
[71] Berdasarkan fakta tersebut Mahkamah Persekutuan telah
memutuskan bahawa ia adalah memadai untuk membuktikan OKT
membawa dadah-dadah tersebut bagi maksud seksyen 2 ADB 1952
dengan menyatakan seperti berikut:
“[15] The appellant's act of carrying the drugs was clearly an
act of trafficking by definition: See s. 2 of the DDA, which
reads:
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
"trafficking" includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug
otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the
regulations made under the Act;
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
44
[16] Since "trafficking" is statutorily defined, which definition is
to be applied unless the context otherwise requires, there is
no necessity for the court to look for its common law meaning,
if there is any. If the appellant could prove, in rebuttal of the
presumption under s. 37(d) of the DDA, that he had no
knowledge of the presence and of the nature of the drugs, he
would of course be acquitted outrightly of the trafficking
charges despite being in physical possession of the drugs,
because without proof of knowledge, he committed no offence
under the DDA, not even the lesser offence of possession
under s. 12(2).”
[72] Dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan yang
menyatakan bahawa individu yang dikatakan OKT1 telah membawa
beg tersebut tanpa keterangan yang menyatakan apakah tujuan beg itu
dibawa masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut di samping terdapat individu-
individu lain yang bersama OKT1 semasa memasuki bilik tersebut tidak
dapat menunjukkan bahawa tindakan membawa beg tersebut oleh
OKT1 adalah termasuk dalam takrifan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2
ADB 1952. Begitu juga tiada keterangan yang dapat menyatakan
bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut disimpan atau disembunyikan dalam
bilik tersebut bagi memenuhi takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952.
[73] Oleh yang demikian mahkamah ini berpendapat pihak
pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan pengedaran seperti yang
ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952.
[74] Ini bermakna mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan
telah gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
45
Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 bagi dadah jenis
Ketamin dan seksyen 9 (1) Akta Racun 1952 untuk Etizolam
[75] Penelitian kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan di mahkamah
adalah didapati bahawa dadah ketamin yang menjadi asas kepada
pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 adakah dikatakan
dijumpai dalam bilik yang sama dengan dadah-dadah yang
dipertuduhkan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952. Ini bermakna dapatan
mahkamah ini berkenaan pemilikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan dadah-
dadah tersebut adalah sama dengan dapatan bagi pemilikan, kawalan
dan pengetahuan bagi dadah-dadah yang dituduh di bawah seksyen
39B ADB 1952. Mahkamah ini berpendapat tiada sebarang keterangan
lain yang boleh dinilai oleh mahkamah melainkan keterangan-
keterangan yang sama yang dikemukakan oleh pendakwaan. Ia akan
membawa kepada satu kesimpulan yang sama iaitu pihak pendakwaan
tidak dapat membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2. Ianya
mungkin berbeza sekrianya dadah-dadah bagi pertuduhan seksyen 12
(2) ADB 1952 itu ditemui di tempat lain dan terdapat keterangan-
keterangan lain yang berbeza dengan keterangan bagi pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 tersebut.
[76] Akhirnya mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pihak pendakwaan
tidak berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan
terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 dan
seksyen 9 (1) Akta Racun 1952.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
46
Penutup
[77] Adalah satu fakta yang perlu diakui oleh mahkamah bahawa
kesungguhan untuk mengatasi masalah pengedaran dan pemilikan
dadah adalah sesuatu yang berterusan. Ia dapat dilihat melalui
penambahbaikan peruntukan undang-undang di bawah ADB 1952
semenjak penggubalannya sehingga kini. Misalnya pengenalan
hukuman mati mandatori yang diperkenalkan pada tahun 1983
walaupun telah dimansuhkan melalui Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati
Mandatori 2023. Ia juga dapat dilihat kepada peningkatan hukuman
yang boleh dikenakan bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah ADB 1952
serta undang-undang yang berkaitan. Ini semua dilakukan bagi
membolehkan kegiatan pengedaran dadah dapat dibanteras dan
dilumpuhkan bagi menghalang kegiatan jenayah lain yang berkaitan
dengan dadah.
[78] Oleh itu adalah penting bagi siasatan yang melibatkan kes
pengedaran dadah dilakukan dengan professional, berhati-hati dan
sentiasa mematuhi peruntukan undang-undang. Ini bagi membolehkan
keterangan-keterangan tersebut dikemukakan mengikut undang-
undang semasa perbicaraan kelak. Sebarang ketidakpatuhan atau
kecuaian dalam penyiasatan akan membawa padah kepada kegagalan
pengemukaan keterangan yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang
semasa perbicaraan kelak. Pada masa yang sama pendakwaan
berkaitan dengan kes-kes dadah perlu dilakukan dengan mematuhi
prinsip undang-undang yang dinyatakan dalam Akta Dadah Berbahaya
1952, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan Akta Keterangan 1950 di samping
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
47
dipandu arah oleh keputusan-keputusan mahkamah atasan berkenaan
kes-kes dadah. Di samping itu para peguam yang mewakili anak guam
juga hendaklah membela anak guam mereka berdasarkan kepada
prinsip undang-undang bagi memastikan keadilan yang wajar dinikmati
oleh anak guam mereka dapat dipertahankan.
[79] Pada masa yang sama mahkamah yang mendengar kes-kes
pengedaran dadah-dadah juga perlu memastikan keterangan-
keterangan dikemukakan berdasarkan kepada Akta Dadah Berbahaya
1952, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan Akta Keterangan 1950 dan
mematuhi kepada keputusan mahkamah atasan berkenaan dengan
kes-kes dadah. Sesungguhnya kesepaduan di antara proses siasatan,
pendakwaan, pembelaan dan perbicaraan serta penghakiman yang
dilakukan dengan professional dan mengikut jalur undang-undang akan
memastikan hasrat untuk membanteras aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang
menjadi penyakit dalam masyarakat akan dapat dilaksanakan tanpa
menggadaikan prinsip keadilan yang wajar dinikmati oleh seseorang
yang dituduh di bawah ADB 1952.
[80] Dalam konteks ini Pendakwa Raya dan peguambela seharusnya
membantu mahkamah dengan mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan
dan pembelaan yang wajar bagi membolehkan mahkamah jenayah
yang mengendalikan perbicaraan kes-kes di bawah ADB 1952 dapat
melaksanakan tugas dan amanahnya dengan sempurna.
[81] Sebagai pelengkap adalah wajar untuk mahkamah meneliti
pandangan yang dikemukakan berkenaan dengan tanggungjawab dan
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
48
amanah yang perlu dilakukan mahkamah jenayah seperti yang
diutarakan dalam artikel The Need for a Criminal Division of the High
Court oleh David Ormerod, Current Legal Problems Vol. XX (2023)
1, halaman 2 walaupun artikel tersebut berkaitan dengan sistem
mahkamah tinggi jenayah di United Kingdom namun ia menarik untuk
direnungkan. David Ormerod menyatakan seperti berikut:
“There is no obvious reason to assume that judging criminal
cases is any easier than judging in any other branch of law. It
requires the same skills of statutory interpretation; indeed, it
is arguably more challenging in this respect given the volume
and frequency of legislative amendment. It demands agility in
applying the sometimes radically and frequently changing
core common law principles, affecting the gravest offences of
murder and manslaughter. Criminal trials also give rise to their
share of constitutional issues and Human Rights Act
challenges. There may be nothing special in these respects,
but there are, I suggest, other matters that do render ‘criminal
judgecraft’ truly distinctive.”
Perintah Akhir
[82] Akhirnya OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela
diri bagi kesemua pertuduhan.
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
49
Bertarikh: 15hb. November 2023
(ROSLAN MAT NOR)
HAKIM
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA
TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
PIHAK-PIHAK:
Bagi Pihak Pendakwaan
Ain-Nur ‘Amiyerra Awod Abdullah
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur
Bagi Pihak OKT1
G Ravishankar
Tetuan R Shankar Gandhi & Associates
Kuala Lumpur
Bagi Pihak OKT2
Mohd Taufik Md Tahir
Tetuan Rizal Hashim
Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur
S/N Xm8LCXyrC0WGg/8ygDHb5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 74,997 | Tika 2.6.0 |
CA-21NCvC-7-06/2023 | PLAINTIF 1. ) HARUN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) AMINUDDIN BIN SHAFEI 3. ) KALSUM BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) DAUD BIN ABDULLAH 5. ) HALIMAH BINTI ABDULLAH 6. ) SALMAH BINTI ABDULLAH 7. ) LIJAH BINTI AHMAD 8. ) IDRIS BIN ABDULLAH 9. ) MARIAM BINTI ABDULLAH 10. ) MAIMUNAH BINTI ABDULLAH11. ) AMIRULLAH BIN ABDULLAH1 2. ) BIBAH A/P ADAN1 3. ) MAK SIAH BINTI CANTIK1 4. ) SITI ZULAIHA BINTI ABDULLAH1 5. ) AKOB BIN ABAS1 6. ) FAUZI BIN ABDULLAH1 7. ) MOHD AMIN BIN IBRAHIM1 8. ) AMIR BIN SHAFEI1 9. ) BAHAROM BIN TAHIR20. ) TIJAH A/P SELAMAT21. ) ADI A/L MAN2 2. ) ROHAYA BINTI ABDULLAH2 3. ) SALINA BINTI SALLEH2 4. ) ALOK A/L BERAHIM2 5. ) SABARUDIN BIN SHAFEI2 6. ) SHAMSUDDIN BIN HARUN2 7. ) OMAR BIN MOHD TAHIR2 8. ) LATIPAH BINTI OSMAN2 9. ) ABDUL HASSAN BIN ABDUL GHANI30. ) HALIM BIN AMAN31. ) HUSIN BIN ISMAIL3 2. ) ASIAH BINTI KAMARULZAMAN3 3. ) ABDUL LATIF BIN ABDULLAH3 4. ) SITI FATIMAH BINTI AYUB3 5. ) HALIMAH BINTI ABDUL GHANI3 6. ) HASMAH BINTI KAMARULZAMAN3 7. ) KAMARUDDIN BIN AMIRULLAH3 8. ) DOLLAH BIN YUNUS3 9. ) LIHA BINTI YUNUS40. ) JALI BIN BUSU41. ) SAUFI BIN AMAN4 2. ) ALI BIN ABDUL GHANI4 3. ) KHAIRI BIN ISMAIL4 4. ) RAMLAN BIN AYUB4 5. ) MAZIAH BINTI HASHIM4 6. ) ROSLAN BIN SALEH4 7. ) UGI BINTI AMAN4 8. ) ZAHARAH BINTI ABDUL GHANI4 9. ) HASIN BIN YUNUS50. ) NORWATI A/P KARIM51. ) TIPAH BINTI ISMAIL5 2. ) MUHAMAD LUDIN BIN AMAN5 3. ) AZMAN BIN OSMAN5 4. ) SAID BIN YUNUS5 5. ) HASNAH BINTI IDRIS5 6. ) NUR AISYAH BINTI AYUB5 7. ) ISKANDAR A/L HARUN5 8. ) MINAH BINTI YUNUS5 9. ) LINA BINTI ALOK60. ) AHMAD FAUZIE BIN AZMI61. ) ROOKIAH BINTI BUSU6 2. ) ABDUL WAHID BIN HARUN6 3. ) MOHAMAD ARIF BIN ABU BAKAR6 4. ) KHAIRUDIN BIN IDRIS6 5. ) TIARA BINTI ABDULLAH6 6. ) KAMAL A/L ADI6 7. ) SITI AISYAH BINTI AYUB6 8. ) ROSLAN BIN AKOB6 9. ) MHD. KHAIRUDDIN BIN AMIRULLAH70. ) ABDUL MALIK BIN MOHD AMIN71. ) ABDUL SYUKUR BIN YUNUS7 2. ) ZULKIFLI BIN IDRIS7 3. ) ZAITON BINTI ABU BAKAR7 4. ) SALMIAH BINTI SABARUDIN7 5. ) ANI BINTI AKOB7 6. ) NUR AINI BINTI ADI7 7. ) ABDUL KADIR BIN OMAR7 8. ) NUR SYAFIKAH BINTI ALOK7 9. ) MINAH BINTI AMIRULLAH80. ) NOR HANIM BINTI IDRIS81. ) TIMAH BINTI ABU BAKAR8 2. ) SITI HAJAR BINTI ABDUL LATIF8 3. ) LUT BIN SABARUDIN8 4. ) ZULKIFLI BIN ADI8 5. ) IBRAHIM BIN IDRIS8 6. ) MOHAMAD FAIRUL BIN AKOB8 7. ) ISHAK BIN MOHD AMIN8 8. ) SITI MARIAM BINTI OMAR8 9. ) NORIZAH BINTI ABDUL LATIF90. ) ROGAYAH BINTI ALOK91. ) AHMAD ALIFF BIN ABU BAKAR9 2. ) SABRI BIN ADI9 3. ) SALIMA BINTI SABARUDIN9 4. ) MUHAMMAD SUKRI BIN ABDULLAH9 5. ) KARIM BIN MOHD AMIN9 6. ) FAIN9 7. ) MUHAMMAD ASROL BIN AKOB9 8. ) ADNAN BIN ADI9 9. ) MUHAMMAD ZAKI BIN SHAMSUDDIN100. ) NORYAHATI BINTI ALOK101. ) MUHAMMAD ZAKI BIN ABDUL LATIF10 2. ) MOHAMAD HAFIZ BIN SABARUDIN10 3. ) MELI BIN MOHD AMIN10 4. ) MUHAMAD ROSTAM BIN OMAR10 5. ) SULIMAN BIN ABDULLAH10 6. ) JOHARI BIN AKOB10 7. ) MOHAMAD DAFI BIN KHAIRI10 8. ) SITI RAIHAN BINTI ABDULLAH10 9. ) IZUAN BIN HASIN1 10. ) SUHAIMI BIN ABDULLAH111. ) ZAKARIA BIN ABDUL LATIF11 2. ) SITI NIKMAH BINTI ABDULLAH11 3. ) AMEER BIN HASIN11 4. ) MOHAMAD SYAWAL BIN SHAMSUDDIN11 5. ) ANIS BINTI OMAR11 6. ) RIZQ BIN ABDULLAH11 7. ) MOHAMAD HAIKAL BIN KHAIRI11 8. ) NOR DIANA BINTI ISKANDAR11 9. ) MUHAMMAD HAIQAL BIN ABDULLAH120. ) LIZAWATI BINTI HASIN121. ) SAKINA BINTI ABDULLAH12 2. ) MOHAMAD SHAHFITRY BIN KHAIRI12 3. ) EMMA BINTI SHAMSUDDIN12 4. ) AIDIL BIN ISKANDAR12 5. ) RISZUAN BIN ABDUL RAAFI12 6. ) MOHAMAD FAISAL BIN KHAIRI12 7. ) NASMI BIN HASIN12 8. ) NIZAM BIN ABDULLAH12 9. ) NURUL SYAFIKAH BINTI DOLLAH130. ) SUHAIMI BIN ABDUL LATIF131. ) MUHAMMAD NISHAM BIN KHAIRUDIN13 2. ) NURWATI BINTI ABDULLAH13 3. ) ZAKIRA BINTI ROSLAN13 4. ) NAZRI BIN DOLLAH13 5. ) ELYANA BINTI KHAIRI13 6. ) ZULAIKHA BINTI ISKANDAR DEFENDAN 1. ) BAKAR BIN UNUS 2. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli 3. ) JABATAN KEMAJUAN ORANG ASLI 4. ) Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang 5. ) Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 6. ) KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA | Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan satu Notis Permohonan (Lampiran 27) bagi satu perlanjutan masa selama tujuh (7) hari untuk memfailkan Afidavit Jawapan kepada Afidavit Sokongan Defendan-Defendan yang difailkan untuk menyokong Notis Permohonan Defendan-Defendan di Lampiran 13 dan Lampiran 14.Antara faktor-faktor yang dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah adalah bergantung kepada tempoh kelewatan, sebab-sebab kelewatan dan juga prejudis kepada pihak yang lain. Lampiran 27 difailkan pada 08 Julai 2023 dan kelewatan yang berlaku adalah selama lima (5) bulan iaitu selepas tamat tempoh masa yang telah diberikan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif iaitu 31 Januari 2023. Mahkamah memutuskan untuk menolak KM27 kerana terdapat kelewatan yang melampau oleh Plaintif-Plaintif di dalam memfailkan Notis Permohonan ini (Lampiran 27) dan Plaintif-Plaintif juga gagal memberikan alasan-alasan yang munasabah kenapa ianya berlaku dan kelewatan ini jelas memprejudiskan kesemua Defendan-Defendan. | 15/11/2023 | YA Dato' Haji Zainal Azman Bin Ab. Aziz | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0e655496-816c-41af-82b3-c5c5e0a0a53e&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - AP CA-21NCVC-7-06-2023 HARUN KM27 25.10
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUANTAN
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
GUAMAN SIVIL NO : CA-21NCVC-7-06/2023
ANTARA
(1) HARUN BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 610619-06-5173)
(2) AMINUDDIN BIN SHAFEI (NO. K/P: 751218-06-5993)
(3) KALSUM BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 521218-06-5354)
(4) DAUD BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 530619-06-5085)
(5) HALIMAH BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 531218-03-5496)
(6) SALMAH BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 541218-03-5532)
(7) LIJAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 560728-03-5448)
(8) IDRIS BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 601218-03-5665)
(9) MARIAM BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 641218-06-5468)
(10) MAIMUNAH BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 6121218-03-5698)
(11) AMIRULLAH BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 631218-06-5263)
(12) MARIAM BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 641218-03-5442)
(13) BIBAH A/P ADAN (NO. K/P: 650924-06-5520)
(14) MAK SIAH BINTI CANTIK (NO. K/P: 651129-03-5220)
(15) SITI ZULAIHA BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 651218-03-5556)
(16) AKOB BIN ABAS (NO. K/P: 661218-03-5459)
(17) FAUZI BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 700619-06-5201)
15/11/2023 13:05:20
CA-21NCvC-7-06/2023 Kand. 81
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
(18) MOHD AMIN BIN IBRAHIM (NO. K/P: 720619-06-5269)
(19) AMIR BIN SHAFEI (NO. K/P: 720619-06-5277)
(20) BAHAROM BIN TAHIR (NO. K/P: 730619-06-5065)
(21) TIJAH A/P SELAMAT (NO. K/P: 740926-06-5646)
(22) ADI A/L MAN (NO. K/P: 750619-06-5629)
(23) ROHAYA BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 751218-03-5992)
(24) SALINA BINTI SALLEH (NO. K/P: 751218-06-5534)
(25) ALOK A/L BERAHIM (NO. K/P: 760619-03-5023)
(26) SABARUDIN BIN SHAFEI (NO. K/P: 781218-06-5777)
(27) SHAMSUDDIN BIN HARUN (NO. K/P: 781218-06-5785)
(28) OMAR BIN MOHD TAHIR (NO. K/P: 791218-06-5629)
(29) LATIPAH BINTI OSMAN (NO. K/P: 801130-06-5874)
(30) ABDUL HASSAN BIN ABDUL GHANI (NO. K/P: 801231-06-6067)
(31) HALIM BIN AMAN (NO. K/P: 801231-06-6075)
(32) HUSIN BIN ISMAIL (NO. K/P: 811218-06-5771)
(33) ASIAH BINTI KAMARULZAMAN (NO. K/P: 811218-06-5974)
(34) ABDUL LATIF BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 821218-06-5615)
(35) SITI FATIMAH BINTI AYUB (NO. K/P: 821218-06-5754)
(36) HALIMAH BINTI ABDUL GHANI (NO. K/P: 821231-06-5708)
(37) HASMAH BINTI KAMARULZAMAN (NO. K/P: 831130-06-5644)
(38) KAMARUDDIN BIN AMIRULLAH (NO. K/P: 831130-06-5847)
(39) DOLLAH BIN YUNUS (NO. K/P: 831130-06-5855)
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
(40) LIHA BINTI YUNUS (NO. K/P: 841231-06-5896)
(41) JALI BIN BUSU (NO. K/P: 841231-06-6127)
(42) SAUFI BIN AMAN (NO. K/P: 851130-06-5837)
(43) ALI BIN ABDUL GHANI (NO. K/P: 851230-06-5623)
(44) KHAIRI BIN ISMAIL (NO. K/P: 851231-06-5633)
(45) RAMLAN BIN AYUB (NO. K/P: 851231-06-6525)
(46) MAZIAH BINTI HASHIM (NO. K/P: 861130-06-5078)
(47) ROSLAN BIN SALLEH (NO. K/P: 861231-06-5149)
(48) UGI BINTI AMAN (NO. K/P: 871231-06-7274)
(49) ZAHARAH BINTI ABDUL GHANI (NO. K/P: 881120-06-6120)
(50) HASIN BIN YUNUS (NO. K/P: 881231-06-6975)
(51) NORWATI A/P KARIM (NO. K/P: 910709-06-5606)
(52) TIPAH BINTI ISMAIL (NO. K/P: 911030-06-6076)
(53) MUHAMAD LUDIN BIN AMAN (NO. K/P: 911231-06-7411)
(54) AZMAN BIN OSMAN (NO. K/P: 911231-06-7489)
(55) SAID BIN YUNUS (NO. K/P: 921230-06-6061)
(56) HASNAH BINTI IDRIS (NO. K/P: 921231-06-7146)
(57) NUR AISYAH BINTI AYUB (NO. K/P: 930702-06-6188)
(58) ISKANDAR A/L HARUN (NO. K/P: 931231-06-6409)
(59) MINAH BINTI YUNUS (NO. K/P: 940425-06-5732)
(60) LINA BINTI ALOK (NO. K/P: 960616-06-5872)
(61) AHMAD FAUZIE BIN AZMI (NO. K/P: 960623-06-5387)
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
(62) ROOKIAH BINTI BUSU (NO. K/P: 961119-06-5550)
(63) ABDUL WAHID BIN HARUN (NO. K/P: 970512-03-5109)
(64) MOHAMAD ARIF BIN ABU BAKAR (NO. K/P: 970706-33-5089)
(65) KHAIRUDIN BIN IDRIS (NO. K/P: 971010-33-5157)
(66) TIARA BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 980101-06-6022)
(67) KAMAL A/L ADI (NO. K/P: 980330-06-5517)
(68) SITI AISYAH BINTI AYUB (NO. K/P: 981007-06-5458)
(69) ROSLAN BIN AKOB (NO. K/P: 990101-06-6187)
(70) MHD. KHAIRUDDIN BIN AMIRULLAH (NO. K/P: 990325-03-6323)
(71) ABDUL MALIK BIN MOHD AMIN (NO. K/P: 990721-06-6217)
(72) ABDUL SYUKUR BIN YUNUS (NO. K/P: 990912-06-6471)
(73) ZULKIFLI BIN IDRIS (NO. K/P: 000217-06-0347)
(74) ZAITON BINTI ABU BAKAR (NO. K/P: 001115-06-0906)
(75) SALMIAH BINTI SABARUDIN (NO. K/P: 010104-03-0052)
(76) ANI BINTI AKOB (NO. K/P: 010320-06-0520)
(77) NUR AINI BINTI ADI (NO. K/P: 010928-06-0094)
(78) ABDUL KADIR BIN OMAR (NO. K/P: 011107-03-0431)
(79) NUR SYAFIKAH BINTI ALOK (NO. K/P: 011211-06-0584)
(80) MINAH BINTI AMIRULLAH (NO. K/P: 011222-06-0732)
(81) NOR HANIM BINTI IDRIS (NO. K/P: 020609-03-0372)
(82) TIMAH BINTI ABU BAKAR (NO. K/P: 020703-03-0112)
(83) SITI HAJAR BINTI ABDUL LATIF (NO. K/P: 021116-03-0440)
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
(84) LUT BIN SABARUDIN (NO. K/P: 030817-06-0161)
(85) ZULKIFLI BIN ADI (NO. K/P: 040113-06-0453)
(86) IBRAHIM BIN IDRIS (NO. K/P: 040405-03-0969)
(87) MOHAMAD FAIRUL BIN AKOB (NO. K/P: 040912-06-0839)
(88) ISHAK BIN MOHD AMIN (NO. K/P: 050116-06-0343)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Mohd Amin Bin Ibrahim wakil litigasinya)
(89) SITI MARIAM BINTI OMAR (NO. K/P: 060118-06-0178)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Omar Bin Mohd Tahir wakil litigasinya)
(90) NORIZAH BINTI ABDUL LATIF (NO. K/P: 060212-06-0158)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Abdul Latif Bin Abdullah wakil litigasinya)
(91) ROGAYAH BINTI ALOK (NO. K/P: 060418-06-0444)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Alok a/l Berahim wakil litigasinya)
(92) AHMAD ALIFF BIN ABU BAKAR (NO. K/P: 060508-06-0333)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Halimah Binti Abdul Ghani wakil litigasinya)
(93) SABRI BIN ADI (NO. K/P: 061014-06-0207)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Adi a/l Man wakil litigasinya)
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
(94) SALIMA BINTI SABARUDIN (NO. K/P: 061124-06-0144)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Sabarudin Bin Shafei wakil litigasinya)
(95) MUHAMMAD SUKRI BIN ABDULLAH
(NO. K/P: 061118-06-0869) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Maziah Binti Hashim wakil litigasinya)
(96) KARIM BIN MOHD AMIN
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Mohd Amin Bin Ibrahim wakil litigasinya)
(97) FAIN (NO. K/P: 080106-06-0667)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa
melalui Saufi Bin Aman wakil litigasinya)
(98) MUHAMMAD ASROL BIN AKOB
(NO. K/P: 080112-06-0183) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Akob Bin Abas wakil litigasinya)
(99) ADNAN BIN ADI (NO. K/P: 080820-06-0715)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Adi a/l Man wakil litigasinya)
(100) MUHAMMAD ZAKI BIN SHAMSUDDIN
(NO. K/P: 090311-03-1093) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Shamsuddin Bin Harun wakil litigasinya)
(101) NORYAHATI BINTI ALOK (NO. K/P: 090509-06-0172)
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Alok a/l Berahim wakil litigasinya)
(102) MUHAMMAD ZAKI BIN ABDUL LATIF
(NO. K/P: 090531-03-0375) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Abdul Latif Bin Abdullah wakil litigasinya)
(103) MOHAMAD HAFIZ BIN SABARUDIN
(NO. K/P: 090610-03-0525) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Sabarudin Bin Shafei wakil litigasinya)
(104) MELI BIN MOHD AMIN (NO. K/P: 090711-06-0723)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Mohd Amin Bin Ibrahim wakil litigasinya)
(105) MUHAMAD ROSTAM BIN OMAR
(NO. K/P: 090728-06-0957) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Omar Bin Mohd Tahir wakil litigasinya)
(106) SULIMAN BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 090807-06-0947)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Maziah Binti Hashim wakil litigasinya)
(107) JOHARI BIN AKOB (NO. K/P: 100718-06-0263)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Akob Bin Abas wakil litigasinya)
(108) MOHAMAD DAFI BIN KHAIRI
(NO. K/P: 110718-03-0469) (seorang kanak-kanak yang
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
mendakwa melalui Khairi Bin Ismail wakil litigasinya)
(109) SITI RAIHAN BINTI ABDULLAH
(NO. K/P: 110523-03-0960) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Maziah Binti Hashim wakil litigasinya)
(110) IZUAN BIN HASIN (NO. K/P: 120209-03-0347)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa
melalui Hasin Bin Yunus wakil litigasinya)
(111) SUHAIMI BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 120425-06-4095)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa
melalui Iskandar Bin Harun wakil litigasinya)
(112) ZAKARIA BIN ABDUL LATIF
(NO. K/P: 121006-06-0158) (seorang kanak-kanak yang
mendakwa melalui Abdul Latif Bin Abdullah wakil litigasinya)
(113) SITI NIKMAH BINTI ABDULLAH
(NO. K/P: 130119-06-5676) (seorang kanak-kanak yang
mendakwa melalui Maziah Binti Hashim wakil litigasinya)
(114) AMEER BIN HASIN (NO. K/P: 130707-03-1069)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Hasin Bin Yunus wakil litigasinya)
(115) MOHAMAD SYAWAL BIN SHAMSUDDIN
(NO. K/P: 130818-06-0591) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Shamsuddin Bin Harun wakil litigasinya)
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(116) ANIS BINTI OMAR (NO. K/P: 131016-06-0746)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Omar Bin Mohd Tahir wakil litigasinya)
(117) RIZQ BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 140403-03-1237)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Rokiah Binti Busu wakil litigasinya)
(118) MOHAMAD HAIKAL BIN KHAIRI
(NO. K/P: 140723-06-0483) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Khairi Bin Ismail wakil litigasinya)
(119) NOR DIANA BINTI ISKANDAR
(NO. K/P: 150425-03-0154) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Iskandar A/L Harun wakil litigasinya)
(120) MUHAMMAD HAIQAL BIN ABDULLAH
(NO. K/P: 150428-06-0797) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Maziah Binti Hashim wakil litigasinya)
(121) LIZAWATI BINTI HASIN
(NO. K/P: 150714-06-0368) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Hasin Bin Yunus wakil litigasinya)
(122) SAKINA BINTI ABDULLAH
(NO. K/P: 160609-03-1118) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Roslan Bin Akob wakil litigasinya)
(123) MOHAMAD SHAHFITRY BIN KHAIRI
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
(NO. K/P: 160609-06-0023) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Khairi Bin Ismail wakil litigasinya)
(124) EMMA BINTI SHAMSUDDIN
(NO. K/P: 161119-06-0850) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Shamsuddin Bin Harun wakil litigasinya)
(125) AIDIL BIN ISKANDAR (NO. K/P: 170729-06-0393)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa
melalui Iskandar a/l Harun wakil litigasinya)
(126) RISZUAN BIN ABDUL RAAFI
(NO. K/P: 171214-06-0655) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Dollah Bin Yunus wakil litigasinya)
(127) MOHAMAD FAISAL BIN KHAIRI
(NO. K/P: 180701-03-0415) (seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa
melalui khairi bin ismail wakil litigasinya)
(128) NASMI BIN HASIN (NO. K/P: 180819-06-0441)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Hasin Bin Yunus wakil litigasinya)
(129) NIZAM BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 180914-06-0941)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Muhamad Ludin Bin Aman wakil litigasinya)
(130) NURUL SYAFIKAH BINTI DOLLAH
(NO. K/P: 190719-06-0240) (seorang kanak-kanak
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
yang mendakwa melalui Dollah Bin Yunus wakil litigasinya)
(131) SUHAIMI BIN ABDUL LATIF
(NO. K/P: 190913-06-1095) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Abdul Latif Bin Abdullah wakil litigasinya)
(132) MUHAMMAD NISHAM BIN KHAIRUDIN
(NO. K/P: 191227-06-0441) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Khairudin Bin Idris wakil litigasinya)
(133) NURWATI BINTI ABDULLAH
(NO. K/P: 200130-06-06-0586) (seorang kanak-kanak
yang mendakwa melalui Zulkifli Bin Idris wakil litigasinya)
(134) ZAKIRA BINTI ROSLAN (NO. K/P: 200713-06-0094)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Roslan Bin Akob wakil litigasinya)
(135) NAZRI BIN DOLLAH (NO. K/P: 210317-06-0585)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Dollah Bin Yunus wakil litigasinya)
(136) ELYANA BINTI KHAIRI (NO. K/P: 210613-06-0520)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Khairi Bin Ismail wakil litigasinya)
(137) ZULAIKHA BINTI ISKANDAR (NO. K/P: 210806-06-0754)
(seorang kanak-kanak yang mendakwa melalui
Iskandar a/l Harun wakil litigasinya) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
DAN
(1) BAKAR BIN UNUS
(2) KETUA PENGARAH ORANG ASLI
(3) JABATAN KEMAJUAN ORANG ASLI
(4) MAJLIS UGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT RESAM MELAYU PAHANG
(5) KERAJAAN PAHANG
(6) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PENGENALAN
1. Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan satu Notis Permohonan (Lampiran 27)
bagi satu perlanjutan masa selama tujuh (7) hari untuk memfailkan
Afidavit Jawapan kepada Afidavit Sokongan Defendan-Defendan
yang difailkan untuk menyokong Notis Permohonan Defendan-
Defendan di Lampiran 13 dan Lampiran 14.
2. Setelah menelitikam kertas-kertas kausa yang difailkan dan setelah
menimbangkan penghujahan kesemua pihak, Mahkamah telah
menolak Notis Permohonan Perlanjutan Masa Plaintif-Plaintif
tersebut.
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
FAKTA KES
3. Pada 28 September 2022, Plaintif-Plaintif telah memfailkan
tindakan terhadap Defendan-Defendan melalui Writ Saman di
Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur melalui Guaman Sivil No: WA-
21NCVC-104-09/2022. Di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur,
Defendan Keempat telah memfailkan Notis Permohonan (Lampiran
13) yang mencabar bidang kuasa Mahkamah. Manakala Defendan
Pertama, Kedua, Ketiga dan Keenam memfailkan Notis
Permohonan di Lampiran 14 untuk membatalkan tindakan Plaintif-
Plaintif ini.
4. Semasa Pengurusan Kes (e-Review) pada 13 Disember 2022 di
Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, pihak Mahkamah telahpun
mengarahkan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk memfailkan Afidavit Jawapan
kepada Afidavit Sokongan bagi Lampiran 13 dan Lampiran 14 pada
atau sebelum 31 Januari 2023. Arahan tersebut telah diberikan
dengan kehadiran Encik Fahri Azzat yang mewakili Plaintif-Plaintif.
5. Semasa Pengurusan Kes (e-Review) pada 09 Mac 2023 di
Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, Defendan Pertama, Kedua,
Ketiga dan Keenam dan juga Defendan Keempat telah diberitahu
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif tidak memfailkan apa-apa Afidavit
Jawapan. Defendan-Defendan telah mengemukakan bantahan
tersebut yang mana dibuat di hadapan Encik Fahri Azzat yang
mewakili Plaintif-Plaintif.
6. Seterusnya, di atas permohonan pihak Plaintif-Plaintif, Mahkamah
Tinggi Kuala Lumpur telah mengarahkan bahawa tindakan ini
dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Tinggi Kuantan pada 20 Mei 2023.
7. Semasa Pengurusan Kes (e-Review) pada 04 Julai 2023,
Defendan Pertama, Kedua, Ketiga dan Keenam dan juga Defendan
Keempat memberitahu bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif masih belum lagi
memfailkan apa-apa Afidavit Balasan dan peguam cara Plaintif-
Plaintif juga tidak hadir semasa sesi Pengurusan Kes (e-Review)
tersebut.
8. Pada 08 Julai 2023, Plaintif-Plaintif telah memfailkan Notis
Permohonan ini (Lampiran 27) bagi satu perlanjutan masa untuk
memfailkan Afidavit Jawapan berkaitan dengan Lampiran 13 dan
Lampiran 14.
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
PERTIMBANGAN DAN PENILAIAN MAHKAMAH
9. Berhubung dengan kuasa Mahkamah untuk memberi perlanjutan
masa adalah dengan merujuk kepada Aturan 3 Kaedah 5(1)
Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 yang berbunyi seperti berikut:
“Lanjutan masa (A. 3, k. 5)
5. (1) Mahkamah boleh, atas apa-apa terma sebagaimana
yang difikirkannya adil, melalui perintah melanjutkan atau
menyingkatkan tempoh yang di dalamnya seseorang itu
dikehendaki atau diberi kuasa oleh Kaedah-Kaedah ini atau
oleh manamana penghakiman, perintah atau arahan, untuk
melakukan apa-apa perbuatan dalam mana-mana
prosiding.”
10. Kuasa bagi Mahkamah untuk memberikan perlanjutan masa adalah
di atas budi bicara dan beban terletak di bahu Pemohon untuk
memberikan sebab-sebab kenapa Mahkamah harus memberikan
perintah seperti yang dipohon.
11. Di dalam kes Ratnam v Cumarasamy & Anor [1965] 1 MLJ 228
di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa :
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
“The Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed, and in order
to justify a court in extending the time during which some
step in procedure requires to be taken there must be some
material upon which the court can exercise its discretion.
If the law were otherwise, a party in breach would have an
unqualified right to an extension of time which would defeat the
purpose of the rules which is to provide a time table for the
conduct of litigation…”
12. Juga di dalam kes Ong Guan Teck & Ors v Hijjas [1982] 1 MLJ
105 di Mahkamah menyatakan bahawa :
“It is trite law that the court has an unfettered discretion to
grant or refuse an extension of time. The first principle is that
the rules of court must prima facie be obeyed and in order
to justify an extension of time, there must be some material
on which the court can exercise its discretion in favour of
the applicant. For otherwise the party in breach of the rules
would have an unfettered right to extension of time which would
defeat the very purpose and object of the rules on limitation of
period.”
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
13. Juga, di dalam kes Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v
Pasadena Properties Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [1991] 1 MLJ
111 di mana Mahkamah menyatakan antara lain bahawa :
“In my view it is left to the discretion of the court whether or
not to extend the time under the above rule. The discretion
to be exercised by the court is a judicial discretion. See The
Supreme Court Practice 1985 Vol 1, p 15; and Mallal's Supreme
Court Practice (2nd Ed) Vol 1, p 14. For the court to exercise
its discretion whether or not to enlarge the time, there must
be an affidavit to give reasons or to explain why the court
should make an order to enlarge the time…”
14. Adalah jelas bahawa di antara faktor-faktor yang dipertimbangkan
oleh Mahkamah adalah bergantung kepada tempoh kelewatan,
sebab-sebab kelewatan dan juga prejudis kepada pihak yang lain.
Ini jelas dengan merujuk kepada kes Ong Guan Teck & Ors v
Hijjas [1982] 1 MJ 105 di mana Mahkamah menyatakan antara
lain:
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
“In considering whether to grant or refuse extension of time the
length of time that has lapsed is always a material factor to
be considered by the court exercising the discretion. On the
facts of this case I was not able to honestly say that there was
any valid ground for the delay and therefore refused the
application for extension of time.”
15. Juga di dalam kes Punca Klasik Sdn Bhd v Seok Kim Leow
[1996] 5 MLJ 241 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa :
“In practice, an application to extend time is generally allowed
provided no injustice is caused and the other party can be
compensated by costs. However, there must always be before
the court cogent material to satisfactorily explain the delay
before the court will exercise its discretion to extend
time: Thamboo Ratnam v Thamboo Cumarasamy &
Anor [1965] 1 WLR 8. Thus, when an applicant failed to
advance any reason as to why the writ was not served
during the period of its validity, the court would not readily
exercise its discretion in favour of extending time to renew
the writ: Lloyd Triestino Societa v Chocolate Products (M) Sdn
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
Bhd [1976] 2 MLJ 27, FC. From the authorities both foreign and
local, two distinct principles can be garnered. The first
principle is the time honoured principle that the rules of
court and the associated rules of practice, devised by the
Rules Committee and developed by the courts over the
years to promote the expeditious despatch of litigation,
must be rigidly observed. The prescribed time limits are not
targets to be aimed at or expressions of pious hope but
rather requirements set which should be met rigidly by the
parties thereto. This time honoured principle is reflected in
a series of rules giving the court a discretion to dismiss on
failure to comply with a time limit. Thus, O 19 r 1 of the RHC
(default in service of statement of claim), O 24 r 16(1) of the
RHC (failure to comply with requirement for discovery etc), O 25
r 1 (4) of the RHC (failure of plaintiff to take out summons for
directions, then the defendant may apply to dismiss the action),
O 28 r 10(1) of the RHC (failure to prosecute proceedings with
despatch), and O 34 r 2 (2) of the RHC (failure of the plaintiff to
set down action for trial, the defendant may set down the action
for trial or may apply to the court to dismiss the action for want
of prosecution) are some examples set by the Rules Committee.
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
This principles is also reflected in the court's inherent juris
diction to dismiss for want of prosecution.
The second principle is that a plaintiff should not in the
ordinary way be denied an adjudication of his claim on its
merits because of procedural default, unless the default
causes prejudice to his opponent for which an award of
costs cannot compensate. This principle is clearly reflected in
the general discretion to extend time conferred by O 3 r 5 (1) of
the RHC as reproduced earlier on, and this discretion is to be
exercised in accordance with the requirements of justice in the
particular case. Broadly stated this principle is also reflected in
the liberal approach generally adopted in relation to the
amendment of pleadings.
In my judgment, these two principles expounded earlier are
not absolute. If the first principle were rigidly and
vigorously enforced, procedural default would lead to
dismissal of actions without any considerations of whether
the plaintiff's default had caused prejudice to the
defendant. But the court's approach and practice has been
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
and it will continue to be so in that it would treat the
existence of such prejudice as a crucial, and often a
decisive, matter. On the other hand, if the second principle
were followed rigidly without exception, a wealthy plaintiff
willing and able to meet orders for costs made against him
could flout the rules with impunity, confident that he would
not suffer any penalty until and unless the defendant could
demonstrate the presence of prejudice. And if this happens
it would certainly circumscribe the very general discretion
conferred by O 3 r 5 of the RHC; indeed it would involve a
substantial rewriting of the rule to the dislike of the Rules
Committee.”
16. Adalah jelas di sini bahawa terdapat kelewatan yang melampau
apabila Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan permohonan (Lampiran 27) ini
dan juga tiada apa-apa sebab yang munasabah kenapa kelewatan
tersebut berlaku. Kelewatan ini berlaku adakah menjejaskan atau
memprejudiskan kesemua Plaintif-Plaintif.
17. Lampiran 27 difailkan pada 08 Julai 2023 dan kelewatan yang
berlaku adalah selama lima (5) bulan iaitu selepas tamat tempoh
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
masa yang telah diberikan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif iaitu 31 Januari
2023. Oleh itu, kelewatan selama lima (5) bulan tersebut adalah
sesuatu yang amat tidak munasabah.
18. Menurut Plaintif-Plaintif, kelewatan tersebut berlaku akibat
kekeliruan bahawa Afidavit Jawapan tersebut telahpun difailkan
dan hanya menyedari sewaktu Pengurusan Kes pada 24 Julai 2023
bahawa Afidavit Jawapan tersebut masih belum difailkan.
Defendan-Defendan menyatakan bahawa kelewatan yang berlaku
adalah disebabkan oleh kelalaian Plaintif-Plaintif sendiri dan tidak
harus dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah ini.
19. Peguam Plaintif juga telah memilih untuk tidak hadir semasa sesi
Pengurusan Kes pada 04 Julai 2023 dan dengan itu alegasi oleh
peguam cara Plaintif bahawa beliau hanya menyedari tentang
kegagalan memfailkan Afidavit Jawapan tersebut pada sesi
Pengurusan Kes pada 04 Julai 2023 adalah tidak benar.
20. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Gurdev Kaur Bhag Singh v
BSN Commercial Bank (M) Bhd [2003] 1 CLJ 429 di mana
Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan bahawa :
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
“In any event we did consider the grounds advanced in support
of the two applications and we found no merit in them. In the
first motion the explanation given for the delay in filing the
proper notice of appeal against the order for sale is
squarely put to the former solicitor of the applicant in that
it was alleged that he did not do his work and did not keep
the applicant informed of the status of the case. That is not
a good reason for us to exercise our discretion and grant
leave. The applicant can always seek remedy elsewhere if she
has any grievance against her former solicitor. It is settled law
that mistake of one's solicitor is not necessarily a good
excuse. (See: Sinnathamby & Anor v. Lee Chooi Ying [1987] 1
CLJ 157; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 336; Brijkishore & Anor v. Lee Chooi
Ying [1987] 1 MLJ 110).
As for the delay in the second motion we are also of the
view that the reason given is unsatisfactory. Her solicitor
should have been more acquainted with the procedural aspect
of applying for an adjournment instead of merely writing a letter
to the court. Due diligence should have been shown to
enquire on the status of the application instead of waiting
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
for a few months to make a search. Such mistake or
omission is not ipso facto a reason for us to exercise our
discretion in favour of the applicant.”
21. Juga, di dalam kes Saeed U Khan v Lee Kok Hooi [2001] 5 MLJ
416 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan antara lain :
“It is a settled principle that for the court to exercise its discretion
under O 3 r 5(1) of the RHC, there must be cogent reasons
before the court to justify an extension of time. In his affidavit,
the defendant merely states that he did not take steps
earlier as he was unaware that the judgment of the
Singapore High Court was null and void and that the
registration of the judgment was bad in law (para 17 of encl
33). I am of the view that the defendant's mistake or lack of
awareness on a point of law cannot constitute sufficient
grounds for granting an extension of time.”
22. Kesemua Defendan Pertama, Kedua, Ketiga, Keempat dan Kelima
menyatakan bahawa mereka diprejudiskan bagi pendengaran
Lampiran 13 dan Lampiran 14 oleh sebab kelewatan pihak Plaintif
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
-Plaintif memfailkan Afidavit Jawapan tersebut. Oleh itu,
permohonan perlanjutan masa yang dipohon oleh Plaintif-Plaintif
tidak harus dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah.
KEPUTUSAN
23. Di atas alasan-alasan tersebut di atas, Mahkamah dengan ini
mendapati dan memutuskan bahawa terdapat kelewatan yang
melampau oleh Plaintif-Plaintif di dalam memfailkan Notis
Permohonan ini (Lampiran 27) dan Plaintif-Plaintif juga gagal
memberikan alasan-alasan yang munasabah kenapa ianya berlaku
dan kelewatan ini jelas memprejudiskan kesemua Defendan-
Defendan.
24. Oleh itu, Notis Permohonan Lampiran 27 adalah ditolak dengan
kos.
t.t
ZAINAL AZMAN BIN AB AZIZ
HAKIM
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUANTAN
PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
BERTARIKH : 11 OKTOBER 2023
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
Peguam Plaintif-Plaintif :
Encik Fahri Azzat bersama Encik Ivan Teng
Tetuan Fahri Azzat & Co
15, Jalan PJU 7/16A
Mutiara Damansara
47800 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Email : office@fahriazzatco.com
Ruj. : 0.77/FA.IT
Peguam Defendan Pertama, Kedua, Ketiga dan Keenam :
Tuan Mohammad Sallehuddin bin Md. Ali (Peguam Persekutuan)
Jabatan Peguam Negara
Bahagian Guaman
No. 45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4
62100 Putrajaya
Ruj. : PN/WKL/HQ/01/70/2022
Peguam Defendan Keempat :
Puan Syahidah Hanum binti Mohd Ghazali
Tetuan Syahidah Sharul & Marsyara
No. 30A, Aras 1, Persiaran Georgetown 1
Pusat Perdagangan Greentown
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
30350 Ipoh, Perak
Email : syahidahghazali.ssm@gmail.com
Ruj. : SSM/SH/0121/2022(SA)
Peguam Defendan Kelima :
Tuan Abdul Hafiz bin Razat (Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang)
Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pahang
Tingkat 3, Blok B, Wisma Sri Pahang
25000 Kuantan, Pahang
Email : hafiz.razat@agc.gov.my
Ruj. : PUN.PHG.F/100/32/2/67/2022(MT)
S/N llRlDmyBr0GCs8XF4KClPg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 31,576 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-25-377-05/2022 | PEMOHON Technoltic Engineering Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri 3. ) Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan | Revenue Law — Income tax — Appellant Deciding order of Special Commissioners — Applicant failed to file appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (“SCIT”) within 30 days of receipt – Application for extension of time (“EOT”) to Director General of Income Tax (“DGIR”) in Form “N” Revenue Law – Income Tax – Income Tax Act 1967 (“ITA”) – section 100 – No reasonable explanation given – DGIR forwarded Form “N” to SCIT – SCIT refused to grant EOT Judicial Review – Certiorari – Deciding Order made by SCIT – Whether Assessments served on the applicant – ITA – Section 96(1) of the ITA – Whether delay inordinate - Whether there was cogent reason for court to grant extension of time | 15/11/2023 | YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e4737ccd-8d04-47ed-94ab-a17d71804963&Inline=true |
15/11/2023 10:56:57
WA-25-377-05/2022 Kand. 34
S/N zXxz5ASN7UeUq6F9cYBJYw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N zXxz5ASN7UeUq6F9cYBJYw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N zXxz5ASN7UeUq6F9cYBJYw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N zXxz5ASN7UeUq6F9cYBJYw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N zXxz5ASN7UeUq6F9cYBJYw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N zXxz5ASN7UeUq6F9cYBJYw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N zXxz5ASN7UeUq6F9cYBJYw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA—25—377—05/2022 Kand. 34
15/11/2013 ]D:Sb'57
DALAM MANKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI KUALA LUMPUR
(BAHAGIAN RAVUAN DAN KIIASA-KUASA KNAS)
Pgnuononm SEIIIAKAN K§flAKIMAN N0 WA.«25»377-0511022
Dahm pemara Demmmnan am Txscrmomc
Evvumeermg Sdn End unmkwfluponmah
umuk Samakan Kehakman
um
Dam Derkara mengenaw Rayuan kepaaa
Pasumnayz Khas cum Pendnpaun No‘
mo; PKCP mu-7/2/43s.MoF won: 700
7/2/um‘ MOF PKCP voomzmo MDF.
wxcv 7007/2/M1‘ MOF vxcw mn-
7/2/uz, MOF PKCP 100.7/2/us. MDF
vxcp 1no.7/mu x. MOF was 7oo—
7/2/us
Dan
Dalam pm.“ mung P-nnun Fnmulua
henankh 1522022 yang mtenma pada
uzuzz
Dan
Dahm pemam mmgenax Alma» sz Kaedarr
x..a.n M-hlamah 2012
m ANTARA
TECHNOLYIC ENGINEERING SDN. EHD. ...PEMOHON
DAN
1. KERAJAAN MALAVSIA
2. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI ...RESPONDEN
3. PESURUHJAVA KHAS CUKAI PENDAPATAN —RESPONDEN
J_u_EGMENT
IN xxxzsAsM7u-uuuFm:vaJvw
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
lnlmducllun
U]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
The Director General o1 income Tax ('DG\R') nad raised an
assessment under s 9013) at lhe Income Tax Act 1967 (“mm
against tne applicant oompany tor the Years at Msessment rvw)
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. zuts and 2016.
Aggneved by me satd Assessments, me applicant med an
appltcaliurt under s tuutt) oi ttte ITA tor an extenston oi time to me
an sweat under s 99 omre ITA. The apptication, wttion was in Form
N dated t.7.zu2t. was duly received by the Inland Revenue Board
(“lha Revenue")
After reviewing Form N, tne Revenue retecled ttre application ioren
extension of lime since the Ipphcanl Failed In provide a masonalsle
ground «or isiirng to me tne ieturn in Fofm c witnin the stipulated
time as nmwdeti under 5 77 of the ITA.
In its Slatementuf Reasons under s t00(2)(b)o1thelTA addressed
to tire secretary oi the special commissioners of tneome Tax
(‘scum dated 23.12 2012, the Revenue look cogmsartoe tnat tttere
was a delay of 7 years and seven montns in tna tiling of Form N trorn
tne date of Assessment. The Revenue asserted that tor YA 2W9!
tne notice or assessment was dated 11 1 2013, but the Revenue
aniy received Foirrt N on 27.7.2u21.
rtte statement at Reasons expisined tire Revertue's dissatistectron
witti tne reasons oioiteied by tne appiicarrt In short. seeming to
me Revenue. tnere was no reesdnaeie cause tnat prevented tne
applicard trorn giving the rtotiee or appeal witntn tne approprtale
period as stipulated under s 99 :71 the ITA. The statement 0!
Reasons oenetuded as tunows:
sepettiniana testes iayuan yang latfli
Reniaiien oertu memlztlkan mus rnyuan
JCKVRIIYB lndak beivuns hull dung!!! ukurun
yang dlbangkllkarl oien KPHDN dart huksnnya
insnuttadtr M euien t1 tsnun 1 ouisni unluk
mencabar tahiran Iersebtn otei yang
aernittran, hatdasmkan tetereiigen ai atasi
Dthak KPHDN bumlndapal bahitwa
pertmtioiun oerierriutan tnasa tzetmnan ini
uitrustr den riiernenan tug. oitiet PKCP tm|uk
lsdak membenarkarl oerrriononan peiatvuien
m:aaPemnhon
IN xxn5ASN7u-Ll$F‘J:YBNw
«nu. s.ii.i nuvthnrwm r. t... M mm r... nflntnaflly MVMI dnumtnril v.. .riuiie Wm!
[6] After the Issuance ottne statement olRaisons. the applicant made
another representation lo the SCIY dated 11.1 2022 Lelter of
Represertlahon“). The grounds put lorward by the applicant can be
suniinanseit as lollows:
(a) The Nahnes pl Assessmenl (“NAs') were served and
detivereo to the applicant's former tax agent,
Priisewatemauseooepers Taxaliorl Services sun aha
(“PWC'). They were not server: personally on the appllcam
(b) There were a lot at movements on the members at the
applicants start that net: anecteo the preparatien and
tinalisnlion of the audited accounts oi the applicant company
(1:) The me are irierety assessments anp were not meet: on the
ac1uat income or the applicant.
[7] The sclr had rejected the applicants Form N by way eta Deciding
Order dated 152.2022. which was received by the applicant on
t. 21122 According w the Deciding Order. the SCIT arvived at Its
oonotusion alter nainng read the application dated 1 72021. the
statement oi Reasons aria tne Letter ol Representation.
The Application for Judicial Review
[3] Aggneved by me Deciding Order. the applicant oorninericeo an
application tor judicial review for inter a/la the lollowiiig ieliels
ta) An order to quash the Declaing oroer, which repeated the
applicants application tor an extension o1 time to file the
Notice or Appeal.
(bl An order in the lonn ol mandamus tu compel the DGIR and
the scrr to delttierate and accept the applicants euttit report
and subsequently prepare a tax computation based on the
applicant’: audit report and tax return
[9] Leave to wnimenoe iuiticial review was gmrtlad by this court on
1.3.2022.
IN xxxz5ASN7u-Llt:§F‘fl:YBtVw
“Nair s.n.i nurlhnrwm be u... M may i... nrwlrraflly MW: dnumlnrrl y.. nFluNG WVM
[10] This application lor iudicial review is supported by the affidavfl or
Part Sertg Liam in Encl 2 (-Als—2") Encik Poti is the director of the
applicant company in his NS—2t the applicant reiterated the
grounds as stated in Ihe Letter cl Representation saua lor an
additional gmtmd on the effect at the COVlD»I9 pandemic on ltie
Business operation otttie applicant company.
[ill This additional ground was not mentioned ln the l.etter cl
Represarttahort, which was dated ll «.2022, although the applicant
could have raised it since the Moyanient contml order was nrst
lrltruduoed on 18 3.2020. one could be lcrgiuan in opnuudtng that
this addruonat gmurld is an elterttiougrit.
[12] I would ttieretore ignore this ground since it is patently untair to
dsllberalz on a pDIn| that was not canvassed before the son,
whose Deciding order is nuw lhe suoiect rnnttar 01 Challenge
Thu Arialynlu and Fin in:
[13] laelore ine, teamed counsel tor the appliaint suhmllled that the
Notices of Assssrnent were sent and delivered to the applicants
lonrler lax agent, PWC. Learned ommsel tor the applicant
pontended that the service was detective He reterred rne to s 96(1)
at the ITA which provides that:
M soon as mny an alter an assenrl-let\|i other
tnsn an assessment under supseetons 9011)
Ind uutrtl, has been made, tn. Dlmcluv
General shall cause a notice or asessmerlt to
pa 599496 on me person in lupsa omiani the
assessment was made
The applicants position is that the Notices niust pe served
personally on the taxpayer tor the taxpayer lo be liable tor the
assusrtient.
[14] In its amdavit in reply through Lirn ctiiat stiin in Encl 13 (“AiR—t3'l,
the Revenue asserted that as late as 16 3 2020. the applicant was
still using PWC Is their tax agent in para I4(b) ptAlR-13, Puan Lim
relerred to a letter dated IGE corporation Beltlad ("I65") tn the said
letter. IGB stated that it was writing on behall at the applirznl since
the applicant company is its “aw. owned associate company or
I
ru xXxz5ASN7uILlu§F‘flcYBNw
«ma s.n.i tuvlhnrwlll be u... M mm r... nflfllnnllly enri. dnuuvlnrll VII aFlt.ING vtmxl
tea’ The ietter conciuded that n the Revenue required any
clarifications, they oouid contact the representattves oi PWC.
[15] in any even ri AIR-13, Puen Lim turther alfirmed esioiiowr
(at The Notices dtAssessnienttor VA: 2009 In 20I6 were served
on the test known address oi the applicant.
[tit The aopiiosnt did not iniorrn the Revenue of any change oi
address as ieq ed bye 89 ettne ITA
(ct There was no notice at change at its tax agent from the
apoiieant.
(d) aased on the record at discussion between the appiidant and
the Revenuei the avpltcant was still engaging PWC in 2021
[is] Aooording In Eriuk Poh, the aooiieent ooutd have submitted its tax
returns on time had they reoeived the Notices cl Assessment. vtnth
respect, I have my reservation in the aforesaid assemon. it has been
estatztishad that the apoiicant is a habitual detautter who had tailed
|:) submit their tax returns tar many years. Pare 7.3 7 at the
statement at Reasons states as tattuws.
Msriqikul Ruknd LNDNM Femomri lug;
nierupaiiaii habitual deaimers Pemtmon daaai
nieiiiatiirii penintutraii stmlaklyln mm ACF
1957 dan lwkari sanaia le-wat mengulwkakari
BNCF oegi llllllrl llkslllfl yang dirayu ietepi
tuna llnlllk Lllttm Vzkurati 2009‘ auto, ztm.
2m, zuitdaii 2m
[in First, I find that there IS no reason tn disbelieve the assenion rhade
oy t=uan Lim that the Notioes at Assessment were sent to the test
known address at the aopiicant seooridty. even if I were to aooept
lhe applicants assertion that the Notices were sen| to Pwc, there
is no evidence hetore me that the appiicant had iniormed the
Revenue that il had changed its tax agsn| It is into that, in the
absence oi traud, an agent's knowledge witi be attnoined to the
piinaipai. T stvarri nieremaurigam v Public Bank and [2013] a
cut FC.
[15] I theretoie hold that the Notices o1Assessrneiit were duty served on
the dominant
rn xxn5AsN7u-Ll$F‘z:vBtvw
“Nair s.n.i nuriherwiii be ii... m may i... eniimiiiy sun. dnuuvinnt VII eFit.tNG Wm!
[191
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
On the second and third grounds, I do not find mat the stattlurnuver
could nave attected the ability oi ttie applicant to submll its tax
return. ‘(here is nothing in Als-2 wnere Encllt Pen ex biiao any
letter from me applicants accountant tnat they could not prepare tne
audited accounts due to lack at intonnation tiom tne merrlbets oi the
applicants slafl with respect, i no not accept ttie assertion tnat tne
alleged staft turnover contributed to the delay in the preparation ot
the aDpKK‘.artt's auitiiett aoeounts
The oelay is inoioinate. Tne applicant nas tailed to protter any
oogerit reason to justfly uie rtelay
This application for judicial review is tneretore dismisses: witn a
global costs of RM5,a0o suoiect to altocatur.
The applicant is a company. it stioula nave known tnat under s 77A
of the WA, rt snail every year submit to the DGIR a remm in the
prescribed torrn witnin seven months trorn |he date lollowing tne
close ol the accounting penoo, wnicn oonstitutes the basis panea
tor ttie year oi assessment.
in tne final analysis, I oo nut find tnat lhe Deciding order is lalrltted
witn Anisminic error or weonsslmry unreasonaoleness to make it
amenable to yuaicial review.
Tne applicant was given every opportunity to present its ass to ttie
Revenue and SCIT inrougn me application ter extension at time arm
the Letter at Representation. There is ne breach of ttie principles ct
natural iustioe
5 November 202:
LA
(WAN AHMAD FARID BIN WAN SALLEH)
Hakim
Mankaman Tinggi Kuala Lumpur.
ru xxxz5ASN7u-Uu§F‘JcYBtVw
«wit. s.n.i mmhnrwm be t... M mm i... nflfllriaflly MVMI dnuuvlnril v.. .nuvo Wm!
Plnak-pmak
Bag! Pnak remmn Muhamad lzwzn hm AM mmn.
mm Fnuan am Oman
muan Falzan a. Go.
Big! Pmak Rasnonden Rnhauzs mm: Hamzlh sn:
1 a. 3 Jabatan Pegusm Magma Kunla Lumpur
Eagw Pmak nesponaen 2 Ahmad Isyak hm Mum Nassau sac
Lamblgs H151! naum mm, Cybenlyn
sm xxn5ASN ubmnvmvw
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
| 980 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-22IP-63-10/2019 | PLAINTIF PLK ELECTRICAL ACCESSORIES MANUFACTURES SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) SUASA DAMAI (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHONG YEE SIN 3. ) CHONG KER PIPIHAK KETIGA1. ) Liew Wai Hou 2. ) Yong Kek Min | The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants had committed an infringement of the Plaintiff’s trade mark for their acts of selling counterfeits of the Plaintiff’s Product at lower prices (“Infringing Product”), and in so doing the Defendants committed the tort of passing off. Based on the findings of the court, D1 had counterfeited the Plaintiff’s Product at its own volition. In that process, D1 had infringed the Plaintiff’s PLK trademark, having applied the said trademark emblazoned on the Infringing Product. The corporate veil of D1 having been lifted, D2 and D3 being the alter ego of D1 must be held liable for the wrongful acts of D1 as they have full control and responsibility over D1. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is allowed and the Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed with cost. | 15/11/2023 | YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ac63ab13-d6eb-4f36-9c13-9d6985ad33cc&Inline=true |
15/11/2023 09:50:26
WA-22IP-63-10/2019 Kand. 153
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N E6tjrOvWNkcE51pha0zzA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA—22IPA53—1D/2019 Kand. 153
15/11/2223 29:30-25
IN ms HIGN coum or MALAVA Av KUALA LUMPUR
CIVIL sun NO.WA-ZZIP-E3-1012015
EEYWEEN
PLK sxscmcu. Accsssomzs umuucrunsns
sun arm (No. syanm : z1noa‘x) mwunuvnrr
AND
1. SUASA DAMAI (on) son arm (Nu. sy-rikn IB|l54I-T)
2. minus YEE sm (Nu. KIF : 5405164116969)
1. cnouo KER Pl (Nu. KIP : MOE2IvM»5069) WDEFENDANIS
AND
I. LIEW mu HOD (No. KW : 71fl022-1|)-5111)
2. Vans KEK llIN(Nn. KIP : c1n1o1.1n.1sz7) MTHIRD nan
cnoum: NT
INTRODUCTION
m M. uuhpect mm: m wssue \s u prvducl called ‘law vaflaga cm on
luse swncn dwsmnnectov“ neanng me PI.-mums 'PLK' nae mark
wlamnrrs Pvodua“) The Plalnnfl dalmed max me Delendanm had
mmmlltad an Ininnnemenl at me vlamurrs mas mark can mm: acls 91
ullmg mun|eflmI: 5‘! ma Pwnmfs ma-m II laws! pnw! (‘mlnngmg
sm ElunDvWNk:E5IpnanuA
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m M, .. mmm, mmh dnumml VI mum pom!
PIoduc1'). and In so com me Dalandants cummmed me can M pmmg
an
R2]
Pvodumi hut auegea that me we mamnacmnng was «one oomequem In
The Defendants zdmnled mzllhey ma manmamuea the Infrngmg
mus nude by Law Wu Nan (“LWH') Ind Yang Kak Mm (“YKM'), mm
nlwnom were mwcm by Form Swee Yen rrsw). me Pmnmr: mream
and man sharehmoer name on «ma alleganon‘ the Devemsams
eoumarcmmea iuamsl the Pmrmn in! a declavunon (hat the Plnimllh
Iclnon agmnu cm nemaam m In mm 01 me Conn‘: prom; Yhoy
also bmugm m LWH and VKM mm me pvooaedmg :1 mm mm Fmy, |a
mnemmry me Delenuams for any renew remedy ordered m hvouvolme
Phmlm mm 1»: Demmm
[31
me Pmmnrs dawns and asnussmg me Delenaams‘ ooomevclawrl and me
"12 Defendants appealed zgam the dsclsmn 0! W5 Cowl allawmg
novanaam-' damn aoamu mm mm P-ny
BACKGROUND
[4] Fm we! on yum um Phmhfrscorv mmnen u mo mnnulanunng
and wading al ahnlncal compunenfl Mnny ov me Plamlvlh pmducls
sm Elluovwnxnsslpn-nun
“Nat: Snr1I\lIlv1hnrw\HI>e me In mm :2. mm-y m-I11. flnumml VI muwa perm
ma Delendams‘ vevslan mu me manufauunng 01 me Infringing Products
ml uonwllmnl In ovdan menu by LWH and vm‘ bum ul mom wave
Inslvunad by Havnlwh dlmctav and mum smvahwdav Fsv m flood ma
mamemm cheaper znemames, 5 an anenmugm
Inmnwnem arm Plllnlllfn PLK mnem--ax
[27] The eunem legal position as k: when ounslmle a lrademark
mmngemem Is as set om by me Fedem Cowl m Low cm yang v. Low
cm may 5 an mm 1 cu 217»: In flunchy Foodlndunmu sun
BM v Huuln Food lnduunu Sdn BndI2D11l 10 cu :29 m assenne.
trademark Inlnngemenl s an unaulhunzed use at a sign mat Is
smvannalry uenueal mm or dauuplrvuly mum in‘ a ragmarud
maemm A lrademnvk u ukan to he dnocphvew Imular In uncmur
trademark n n an nezlty resembles me me: trademark mm m .2. likely m
deoewe cw cause common nu me come Mlmde Thus‘ «um: Plammw
Iuousudm\lI|mdImlvkIn1rIlIgemInlc|I\m mm: s as ohm TMA1976‘
n mus! establish mat
4‘) m mmenhm at a valsd my-can-am
tu) me trademark was used m we come o1 craae wmom eonunh
Ind
sm Elumvwnxnislm-nun
«mm. M nanhnrwmbeuledlx:vulV1DnenrW\n|H|}/MI”: m..m._.me W
my me unIaMu\ usage cl me «raaen-ark uwned by the Plamlm mu
mum datzapuan/coniussun In on pubkc who u Imung ma
pwspeclwe cuuomm 01 me proaum on much (he impugned
lrademark was applied
So: also commx s4 VTCL u-mung sun Bhd[2MH] 3 cu 444, as
Brv'I ' mnuonor mm rm Sdn Bhd v. Loony Chonn Loy tndlny u
Nillwiy am Ltd 1/. Sim An Be A Ors 1100513 cu 39.1. rumor: Tool
works. Inn y. Plndnfhr cu mgu-yu, M ya/A mm J cu ur,
Yang Sn Fun 5 Anal M Pom-rtuttrl Am-mu c Mimmurl
laying-Lawng) v. syuvmzuunnq mum S60 and 5 Anor[1011]
4 nu us
[251 It Is um mu m detervmmru: Ihu uxmunue ur ulhelwsa cl ms
‘hkallhoud ov «mm-m an (be pin 04 me public“ u .5 one ol pamaphon
and um scnence wapmm. Ltd V cm Cantu Reslaunnlc P1419951
FSR m. A clean 4 co Pu ma Anorvfhyl Toba Sdn sacrum]
1 cu 239, No Tick st-n 4 on v Ram Rlu.ln:h Lzbarnlurturn SpA
5 Anor[2015] 4 cm 20. Yo make such delarmmahun this Cmm would
lheveiave assess me enllre emence avaname before :1 and make up us
own mm onmrmy and nol soiew mymg on me emenoe L11 any an:
smgla laihmuny :1! any wflnassas, mzrkd survey or marka| vanarnh
Elactmlux Ltd c Em.-mx Ltd [1954] 11 npc, sum canmuuw
(supn), wnmr vw: Hltvy Duty Pumps Sdn BM v Pump Mnrix
Enginc-my Sdn Bhdflflfl] 11: um 99
sm sun-ummzsumnnn
“Nair s.n.‘...u..,wm.,.u.....,.1mm.m.“.y.,~aa.m.u.n._.n.MW
[291 Hamna done such an exemse. and having considered the arm:
evidence before mu com. pamunany nu wmm an 191 out In me
eavhav plrxgrnphl‘ u - my nnamg max me Dedenannls ma monuhcluted
me Imnngmg Fmdun bearing me wamwrs PLK nme mark The
Inmngmg Product mm lhaumde mamm uied try the Darenaanu m me
warm M mm! (min wnrmut ma Plalnulfn mnnm Due nu ma phymcal
smulanly btlwaeu me Imnnnmg Product am: we Plammfs Product, me
unlawful wage of me trademark owned by me Plalnml on ma lmnngmg
Pmam rm caused decaphun and confunon to ma public who are
nmoocm cuntomen on me P\am|WTs Product Thou customer: womd
mum max me lnmngmg Product was me Pia-nuns Product.
[301 new on ma finding‘ I concluds mm [M F-‘mum! ma xucoaulwly
proven cm me Dcfennanu nu Imvmged mu Pmmm Irnda mm
mung our
[:41] II iunmnmhe uwot Dllmno on wt - mu wmcn uun Ivy moms
cl some sun av mvnm M the Phmmr: gcoawm -sooawur II An
amaam {arse wmch brmgs m wswm Tho comminium-s ollnlind
Ravonuo v. Manor A On’: uuprim udmov) AC 217 Gooawm u
nllncbld In - mmnm xnd nol m I mark ov nut-up A6 sp-ralnv
sm Elumvwnxnislm-nun
«mm. s.n.‘...n..,.m.,.u......:my...mm.,~..\am,.".n._.ma W
anmm-a v. AW Gamlyi, Ltd mu. may All ER Roy (47 Thus,
poeflwill unh|r.crapmn11an um um am on ms own om mun! In menu:
«a a busmes cm. Natal: Vnnurnoflorul Ltd v. Ponlluc Ihrlna no Lm
[ma] 2 sue 550
[:21 In Surlndu-[rill Co Ltd (Riding u my suannauuml ca; v,
Vlp Kwol KaI[197U]FSR nu, ma muse ol Lovds hold
A plumg-1/Vlctran u . rim-dy R» m. mvlsum al . nghl auwapaly III}! In ma
mm mm orgll-Am rrwmplrly ma bulm my Dusmass nvgoodwvli hksty lo
M In/mid by PM mun:-a.m.m mud: uy Dn.L¢l"9vIVan0 Pusan’: was as
In: yands urmmu sooamw arllvesllb/Iu1olP'|?P'¥945'VnW1s .a mczpaots
ulsuasmmg ay um! VIM: nu mDIPMrdnn4 null!!! up-n Imm m. busmus;
in man u a amen-d
ms mfcmvl am ». murlurisdntx D4: 9000: In steal my mum: a rsuunnbfy
Iovaseoame con saunas olma mmeomsenmmu matlneplmnalrs omm ar
wodvnlt wilt n. lmlgld
[33] Due case :4 Room A Cnlmln Prowczs Ln: V4 aomn Inc.
IHIWI1 WLR m mu down ma wcauaa mmry ulcmnnl In In mam
Var ma Ion ol mung on m be mud: on! nnmeiy ma existence 0! goaaanl.
raqmremenls nfm|svep1esema|K)rI and damage orlnss caused Thelnmly
cmeru Is many exmmaa as lollmvs
(2) ma auaimm has goodwill m vapmzlmn zlxxcllad In ma gama or
same; which me plamml supplies m the mud olme purcnasmg
pubkc by ammanm mm ma gel-up. mm name‘ trade
am flluovwnxnislpn-nun
«ma a.n.‘...n..,.m.,.a.....amy...mm.,~.Maaa.m._.a..Na W
description orfealures of Vabeflmg or packaging. aH (A! Much Vs
dllhncuve or me pmmm good: or survteu
(la) me defendant has mmpcesenaea |o me pubhc Much leads M \s
nkeiy to lead me Dubll: to behave that ma defendarvrs gmds or
services are me gnod: av iamcas al ma pmmm mm
(c) me plenum musl prove man he mus. ur m 2 qma nmeracmn‘
he 5 hknly to sum umaga Dry mason u «no dafandanra
mm-pmununon
[:41 Ta delermvm whelhav lfie Plnmlm mu aoqmvad goudwm m my
may husmess, «ms Coun appled me pvlncplesz setwl \n the aumcrihes
mu m ma preceding naragmpm am mime ma gundehnes as land
dawn by mu cam :71 Anpazl m Yong Sn Fun A Annril/I Pcrindulniln
Mlkln-n .4 Mlrmm-n L.lylng<LAy:ng) v. sy-um Zlmlnl ~/ Tlmln
Sdn End 5 AnoI(ZD1V]1 LNS 1m.-(291211 ML] 505'
(a) mat goodwm m the bsnafil added In the business Ihrmmh
extensive mamg operations wmw ulllads custom,
sm Elunumnxnislm-nun
‘,“NnIn M ...u..Mm .. U... ..: my .. mm-y m-NI flnunmnl VI .n..Na W
1:2) mm lvadcmark M gec up ws me badge Md mic: that sigmfies.
mum ma mnnm mo gooamu and me hmmou.
(:7 that goodwnl us crealed mvuugh and by means 01 nadlng
zclrvllas. and
my mu me more exlenswe mg ma-ng acvvmea avg, vnuch must
necessarily Include sales and pmmaluou, me more value that
would be amnea (0 me goodwill
{as} mere Is no vsqmremenflora Irade mark In be renowned mm Ihe
user may he sand to have amuims busmess gcodwfll. as dznfied m the
com of Aonoal an ac skywom: oovolonmonr sun End a Ma: y.
snymna Noldlngs Sdn BM 5 on [ma] v LNS 15,- (am) 1 ML]
m
[36] Nawng permod the av-an-we boron ma, \ rouna nm was Plumnw
run acquired xubsmmzal gooawuu ma tspulahon n numae Ihrough me
Plamows I-roaum oeunng me PLK trademark The public as wen as me
relevant mmmumty had Idermfiad 'PLK‘ excl-mvery wrlh ma Phmlm‘ The
Plamofl ma dumovllhuladmllil mu -can--ad ma aeoomu mm bus-neu
of the Plalnhlfs Product Ihraugh exlenswe trading operzmns which
sm Enunumnxnzslm-nun
‘,“NnIn sm-1 lunhnrwm .. H... w my .. mmuny mm flnuamnl VI .r\uNa W
amaas mslmn The PLK Iladamalk clearly signifies. wndxzl and
lflnnlfiel Ina gooamll Ind um mm...“ of mu Plnmml The oommuon.
endolsemlnu mm uporvm: m mom om. Pm-um Frodual by me.
sum and wee‘ among others, had resufled m the extensive trading
lemma: 0! me Pnammrs Proauas, wmch mauao uh: and prwnmm
and mum momvlhn no me nooownll
ularvnruornatiou
[37] In dalatrmmng wmm mam wu Imunpruenlalson by me
neoenuams, I named on In Me declsacn of the Sunveme Conn m sm
Chum Song I Am)! V‘ TOO vn Jil Fuodt Manuhcmring PEI LM
mu; 3 cu 1mm) 2 Am m. wnava Gum: cm: Turn ((2.: (lbliyl)
u ha than w hold
m own an mm . ma cm. Mime" Vlvposwlqofl mu. must be a
mmlpwnwmllron made Dy . m.« m m. mm. at me. lo pmpmva
cuslamon ntmxnvummuln aarlsunlurlzlgmzdsarxavtcn mum by mm
winch m camumm m mm me mamas M goomwl oi mm: rrmur my
mum clund usual mm In . Damnrn mgmmcay man 1». when ..
Drmgm ma kayo Jud 9!!-up mm mm. mama». a/MC man:-an-rs
pmducts Ind m. an by m. nppllllnlx wls Mr-ly to drum at cm.
ooaunon to a p¢0InIIa¢DAlV9'orw.xlnmlr -
[331 I mln mun Inc Plumnll hm mcuulully pmvon mmprounzanon by
the antenna-us mm mm am-om m ma goodwnll M In Plnmmrs
business mrougn an unlawful amcimn creamed by me Defendants, and
sm Enurumnxnsslm-mm
«mm. M nnvuhnrwmlxuuIedIx:wvlV1ltnnrW\n|H|}/Mil‘ m..m._.ma W
Iha| me Plamnws have thereby sunered damage as a result 0! ma
Da1endams' mmenvosanlnnon
[as] Baxed m the above finomgs. I snow the F-Iamm. davm fm ma km
momma on
Plnnflnulllfllng nfcolpoilbl vI|l
[do] In China! v mmnlz Intnmndonlr sun Bhd A. on and cum
can mm 5 cu 5:1 Wang Klan Khecnq J 125 he man was)
elcquenvy summarised me mdgmenls al Ihree nllazlled declsnns :1! me
Fedem Conn of Solid Invuononr Lm v Arum Luccnl (Ill Sun and
mu] 3 cu 71 Gurhachan Singh yo aagawan Sirlyn A Dr: V
VIIILI-my I/a Flnnuumy x on 120151 1 Mu m, and Glyn
Engmmng 5 Comtrucllon sun Ehd v vrp can song A Son: sun
Bhd A Am-.1r[20l5] 9 cu 531 on ma Issue 01 mug and pwemmg nflhe
mrpamle well :5 [allows
(a) ma plarclng ul mung 01 a oolpome vewl a am m ma mmeu av
msmce, and
am auummaumm
‘,“NnIn M lunhnrwm .. U... a my .. mm-y m-M flnunmnl VI mum v-max
my a rs oone when were em soecial mmumsnannes to warm or In
ma ucvpovuh val inch u
up mm has been comrmsslon oi mun frlud or common law
fund.
in) equnnbse lruud or oonauuctm haua rm been eummnled.
am) to prevent mm: M h-hilily_ nv
(IV) m pvevent an abuse olecrpolale pmonamy
[ac] Hawng com um: D1 had mmmiltad me excl :11 infringement and
pnung W m. Pianrmffs cmoamam \ mm . mum: nnamg um um
spam! clmumsl-mu m m m‘: enlparnla ml In plevenl me evnion at
habilny and abuse en D1's eotporule pemnamy by D2 and on Having
done we‘ I am nlssfied that D2 and on are the alter ego and commflmg
mind: M D II (mm: mm D2 mu D3 anon no name memerwnn D1
CONCLUSION
[42] m use coumenma um Plalnmh Product I| nu wm vulunun 1..
man pvoeess, m nan mmugea ma Plamulrs FLK uademark, navmg
applsed me an trademark emblaznned an the Infringing Product In ma
mum at me comm-won 0! me uaaemam mvnugsmem, :31 had
wmmmud me not M puwng on to ma uommem om: Plnmmv
sm Enunumnxnsslm-nun
‘,“NnIn M nmhnrwm .. HIQG ..: my .. mm-y m-Ali flnunmnl VI .n..Na W
[431 The corpomte van or D1 rrzvrrrp been lmed. D2 and D3 blmg Ihe
Innings: M m muslbe ham lublo var rm wrougfulactt arm Illhvy have
run mmml and resporrarprmy we! D1
(441 The Pmmrvrs muons agaman me Defendams am not an abuse cl
me Cowl prooen
[451 The Plarrrmvs mm agarnu me Deiandzms vurrelreis «or damages
n enumaraxad m paragraprrs 54 (r), ), (rm). cosh m pmgrapm 54 (IX).
‘XL Ive Ilkmad wan quarrmrrr xa bodulrmmld nr : uparzna lsses:Inen|
pmmedmg Interests as mind In paragraph 54 mn) Lsallowad Flamolfs
prayer rn paragraph 64 (M rs auawed Plammn prayars m Darzgmphs 54
mm) zrvd (rm) zra allowed me In in oompind win! by ma Damn-nu
wnhln so any: lmm me am at daemon rm oavarruarrcs cnuntecclmms
um dalms agarrm ma nrrm Pan; are dismissed wnn costs‘ wan quarrrurrr
M posrs m be delemunefl ax me amuruern prpaeedmg
Dane 1 November 2023
(MOMD rumzl am nunuu)
.mp-
Hlpn norm llllnyu
sm Elumvwnxnislm-nun
‘,“NnIze Snr1I\nauhnrw\HI>e H... In my r. nflmnuflly Mlbwflnunmnl VI murm W
veoawsd me aowval of Tenant N nal and (“ms”) for cnnsumev
unn-
{5}
Defendant: (D2 arm D3) to conduct mu bnsmass m ssllinn Indus(II:\
The 1-‘ Detenmm (on was eslabhshsd by me 2" and 3"
wmponom: -na Imls nu mm D: Im on dwaclon war: we av ma
Pmnmrs dlslrbulms
[5] Reusing the need no prmafl Its products pameuuny la mm mm:
wnlornen would purcnm TNE-umfiad um um mgr. summ awacmau
mmponenls pmducls‘ me Flalmmlegsstened ms ‘PLK' inane mark m 199::
max would be apphed an those pmauas
I71
Plalrmlf vms zaponled at. was ueansea summer 0! eleclncal fuse box m
nu. In me rehnhillly and mgn mnnm cl me said nvodudl, the
2003
13] In ms the Flnnnm manuvmmaa me Pummvs Pmfluzmwhtch 5 a
new vemon of luse boxes arm camng mus pioducl ‘low wonage out Ml luse
tmlch auwannamr Tms new versuzn fuse boxes bom m 'PLK' (ride
mnrk
sm Enunumnknislpn-nun
“Nat: Snr1I\lIlv1hnrw\HI>e we in my me nrVg\nIHIy m-M. flnulmnl VI mum Wm
PAR1|§§
Counsal for ma Plalnllfl:
Mr Chrmnhel Yeo Wee Chum together wm Ms Angle Tan vs Chum
Messrs Chnslopher Yes 5 KP cnang.
Um! 9.03‘ Menara MBMR‘
No «man Syed Puma. 55000 Kuala Lumpur.
Rer. cc/cw/1997/2n
Email genavahgoclswcom my Tel 0527091605
coma: for ma Dal-milnuz
MI. Plvecmeep Slngh mg-me: mm M. Hnnm mm. Emu Hallun
Mmu Pavan a co
um(Nn.26-6101f-co sum mum 1 Mom Km:
Na 1 Jllln mu Mm Kurl‘ wen Kunla Lurnyur
Rn! PC/LIPLKASDSB)/157I2U|9
Emu pawenusapapuvenca my Tel 055410 3119
Cnunul com. man may:
Mr cnnsxanu ‘(:0 Was Chem menlnn on ma»: Thnd Party
Mesws Hung Chambem
No 22—1.Ja|:n USJ \/1C.RegaIu Buslntss Cenne
47s2n sunang Jays. Selangnr
Rel LIT/|20V0243/LWH&Y|0JI/1TPPj
Email km\ng@hIngr.hambeI$ com rex ua-aoza 4560
sm Elsumvwnknislpmnnn
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrw\HI>e UIQG m M», .. mmm, .m.Im.u.m VI mum pom!
I9]
m May 2015 u manly roaavaoa mm; meowed SIRIM cemficmon nun
The vlammrs Pmdur.1 which was launched lm consumer purchases
mm mm ma aponmu ma P||mml‘: Pmdud lo! an 0! TNB's pmjncls
Iuqumng fuse boxes The Phmmfs Pmducts also anamsd eanmcamn
lrom ma memamnan EV:-aarutechnical Commission mac-)
no; Mound zun me Plunlm renewed mmplalnls mm (H: Plmnlflfs
mam was sane ulelpev at various shops sellrng eledncul items mm;
on me oomnlllnh. on 19/10/2017 Pu-nmrs mprmnuum went to ma
Ddonnlnls‘ pramaa Md cauna ma Daiandlnlu aamng aaumanam :1! ma
Pnammra Product henna me Ftalnhfls 'PLK' trade mam (‘lnmngmg
Pmaucr)
n :1 nm ma Pllmml I: ma raglllarod uwnav av ma 'PLK' ma. mnrk \-
nm dnwulnd The ueeenanms a\so am not dIs9u|elhaHhe1" Defendant
had In adua\fac1manmaI:mved\he|nVnngIng Product BIMIM Defendants
Illeaud mu ma manmlclunng (:1 ma Inmngmg Pvudncl war oona when
m rammed mam lmm vm am LWH bmn cl vnmm aand an ma
msuuamn ol the P\amm'fs mrecnx mu snarenclaev, Fsv The
Dar.=.«-dams iwued that me whale pulpwse cf on: planned ouumenen
uemme wu Io make lvnllahls In coniumlri ma dweflvur vamon av ma
F‘|.ImMl': Fmducl
am Elluovwnxnislpn-nun
“Nair Snr1I\lIlnhnrw\HI>e med In vsfly he mm-y m-A. flnunmnl VI muwa perm
[12] The Defendanu aHe9ed mat D2 met mm FSY an 1511/2015 and n
on meeung FSV navur denied man he gm mslructmm rm ma pmucnm
al me lnfnnging Fmducl
FINDING
[1 :1 As um: case was film In ocxooer 2019, pnor «a me ca-rung mlo em:
0701: Trademarks Am 2:119 l‘TMA 2am"), and mm the cause of anions
walnut mu wemants are for an alleged ms commuted prior co me
coming ml Mind (11 my rm 2019. mu a
non u govnrnsd by (ho nom-
repealed name Mam A01 I976
Thu Infringing Pmducu wu mnnnuctund ccnuqulnl to «am
and. by lln Plnhullfl uuougn Fav who gave Irmluctlon to LWH ma
wan to an: wllh D1
[14] The Defendants’ cu. m mm Irmmd May 2017‘ me mm saw me!
mm nu: mm oz and mvonm um FSY win not happy man no mum
was not mamg momy (er the sa\e cl me Plamorr Pmdum due in me
smngenl qualny control by ma Based on nus ladlh: mm Pam/. at me
behul ovssv. um 01 we produce on-up-r illamallvun In ma Pummrs
Pmduct nespme Delenn.-mu‘ velusal‘ me Imnngmg Product was
sm Elsumvwnknislpn-nun
¢,“Nnne sum nanhnrwm be wed in my me nrVg\nIHIy m-R. flnuamnl VI mum Wm
manufactured by DI upon the mslslnnoe at the mm Pam, Around
October mm. on Tm Pony came lo ooflncl sama al the tntnnging
Pmdud On t1/mate nu pmme was raided by Inc Mtmslry on
Domestic nude
[151 The Da1and:nIi‘wtlnau,DW1 mama tmt he an nave: mm FSY
mom um mg day when KPDNKK raned the oavenaanrs puma
Ano|her mlness M |he Detennants, DW2 tastmea that he has new me!
rsv at all tntenstingty mm DW1 and DW2 teamed mat [hey ware
uncemm about rsv gmng tnilmmnns la D1 In mlnuhclura me
lnfvlngtng Pmdums
Lr4II1'nnn‘mnny'
A7 oumzun Ind mw mu, umun Han xmgn an m lay,
smnu uyx, mm uallm ymg an-um ktpada mm Kndg: clung
mu. aunpca. is»: won In My Sun: Van, m Yhll II My Inlwv,
mm-:7
cuonc - an
AV van. WilInunwIewIthmemaIyou:rIrIo!.IunrmdhIrFuny3\nc
nu max an my. um Inumurun mum
A oat. sum mg». uyl, Endlt udlkgnl nmna. rung Swot Vim.
mom - sm pm (It pm
AV. vn, mpauummmng mm Vnnmsmnnnnmanbanlal-Inn
sobowhfl
CNONG . Yhllldowthnuw.
A7 : You mt: mm
CNDNG :Now can Iknulrfl
IT: You m mum"? mp-an
cmme nu paswan. r
mg. um, um umomang,
sm Elsutuwvuknistpn-nun
“Nair smut luvthnrwm be we In my me nr1g\nIHIy mtfi. flnuamnl VI mum Wm
DWI’: mrnmy.
AT:Ma. can ywusdimtwounnnotsur-wn-InvFunvSIvnVonactunNV
gm wch In Inmucmn: Joann avuymma you hair from omvpoopk
ux ; You an uy mu.
nun m. Nam umomangl
us} Not only lhll ww< lulmad mm (M Delenfllnls manurocnuma mo
lnfnngmg Products to he\p mm M the num Parly Mmply because ‘may
have no busmess'
n.- Mo Jnanny mmm
mom; . mn Mom mom.
cuorm :I ..n mm n... my lay may you no baalmu. not com:
....yna.....m..c... ..m....na..-no-u...».ncn,o...u..<.
u. in yuu .. mum: no mm... mu you aidnatneclva .mn.m
s... ».......m....... niuuzounmv-irprnduamynurnnmiui
cnoun
p... us. Not: an-..,...¢-nu:
[171 mm and LWH ms ml :1 -u wblon or when: my mun.
Thoy
nu ma mumnmg Igenlx 01 um Pmnm u would plapastemusln suggast
Ihal they are um paid an cany mu me task as mamenmg agsms M a
oompunymal are mmwmd lhrouuhom me ooumry as me new ruse boxes
mIrm1a:lwavwI|h RM5 mmm — ma nnmcn An annual nmnue for me
pevmd 20152019
[us] Even :1 this Court Ior I n-omen: agrees mm the Delendanls‘
ounmrmun nun rsv ha-1 pm lhn Pmnw .1 KM Vaughn! nsk hnvmu
umructeu Ks own wmpany‘s star pmduclm becounxmma by at, «nm
sm Elulummnislm-nun
“Nair Snr1I\nanhnrw\HI>e med In mm :2. nnmn.u-y m-M. flnulmnl n. .r\uNa p-um
was no avsdance bacon «ms own mm anyone lrom me Defendants‘ side
look my mount: to venfy wan mo Pummt mm inch in wmpeflnnl
msnmcoen acmally came from Fsv ma umhonm by me Flimull.
[19] The ne«endan:s' slnry abour D1 having man-nauursa the Inlrmglng
Product: at Inc Plamulfs mean mvuugh LWN and mm mm: ad
uomramuea by me De9er\d|nt1'awn(eslImomes dunng the uni when
uwz Ieshfied man me mmngmg Produci was Imea m me Defendants‘
neck-ueapmg system mo 57 lhe Defendanu sales at the ma
Imnngmg Pmnuu DW2 mum in Inlmws
; 'MnnywmuutIul,Ioowooyuuluun?Nowdoynucod¢7Vwryp¢.
ImllflwyuutyyI7
ux mu nowmmusmwunu.
A Shawlstlnru
ux u,PLJ(cm!unullML
A SaroutypnPI.K¢od1o¢IL
LJK.Plo,jus1sMshPLKcodIo0Lh\~fllcomlnuL
pmzoo 21fl,Mo1uu1Pvocnvmn)
[2n] rm Conn Igmes mm the Plmnlflfs suggesnon based on my;
emenoe man n ma Defendant: merely manuvaauve me Inmngmg
Product. (hen why would mesa prodmns be avmhbln M an and we
mnncnom would be uoovuod nu ma Dafundlnts nymmv
sm Enunumnkrislpn-nun
“Nair Snr1I\lIlv1hnrw\HI>e we in my me nrVg\nIHIy m-A flnulmnl VI mum Wm
[213 ow: gave lwdanee um one (1) sample o1 me fimmed Inirmglng
Producl wn urven m YKM DW1 umphnusd Ihillhlls impb wnl gwan
um nu! mld in vm When mvu wax ukad ms quullmn n that was so,
my was a sale Invoice Issued uwc answered n was requested by YKM
tn be wven tn Fsv 1:11 F5Y‘s reference
[22] In IMI\ucnIradr.1mn. D2‘: pulvea vepurl, vmich was bdgad some :4
monms afler me KPDNKK‘s an at nrs plemse stated that VKM name
to D1 5 premise to purchase 1 um 00 me lnfr
Produa News an
Bundle ac, Enclmura 7:)
[231 Havng sclulmlsed the emenoem DW1 and nwz. I am mlsausfied
wm ma vmeny M the Dstenaanw wnneuu Ind men emenee at um:
um evldanu up-my n ma wnh ms Defundlrllf comampmsnmu
documentary evidence I would leel safer In rule! In and my on me am
and was on wmsn which are eannsmporansou: wan me evsnland be
dmw iha ranwnnhle nvsmnws hum lbem man co mm m mzmqusnx
raomlettlinn mvalsmn at n, pamcuuny w he m n wnnan mm a purpose at
rm own to serve.
pa] n ws (me law mu ‘udscml veoomion ommsnu raquilu lhi| me oril
owdcnca be umuuy mm ngauul the men. :1! ms mus. uvxdanuu and
sm Elunumnxnislm-mm
«W. s.n.\..m..,.m.,.u......sWm.WWma.m.n._.m W
me arcumslances oi me se Flauslhilny shuuld nave! be mrstaken for
varanny rn Luytlllcn Sdn and v m um. Sdn and I on non)
ML!!! 1 77.1, CA
[251 FSV who awaited ume1‘wAlrvassol|he Pnammmam-a man we
Dafund-mu’ uunummn mu Ihe mlnmnclunng or the Iniungvd Pmum
was at 715 Ins|mcImn 5 almcmus as u would not bemg any good «:2 mm
nur me Plalnhfl oomvany The Pmmwrs Pmoucz Is an zleancal Item My
lam! cf oomvvomrva nu ma strmgenl mammcnunng madam could cause
man And havm lo consumer: and wnuld bung nt-mm 1. ralcnmg
consequences to me Plamml and me PLK bmnfl name FSV‘s lesnmony
was :5 Mlows
F|lNG'Arn1Iho rmlrllvpruuflon -no raw.-m.a.m...a. Arrduncu may
I: wu 01114-II-ed no r». clufiy nu. mnaum-nan Ind : ¢¢''‘P'Ihunfl :. :
mm.nym.r. rm-numnrmulynatm-it-rogunima maflr. am:
mu-uy don’! my mun. n M mmm min, I Annun-1 mum in
pm-m to mom um countomll p-cams. mm. an Inn: naming it am no
goodlu muullt. lldou nnlbunflrmnI|Il.l1InkInytodyumu flu My
mmomnproaum rlarvrlnlnv hvwlns. mu n-.::».pp... 2., mm:
mm :. ~..m.um.. axm. mu A. -4.:-nu: um. Ind n MM 1: um cun-
flu. vanuAm,1wmmumomn nmwmmummmnmcnmu
mmmm m Pmnmn camp-ly um um to hurt no mm m punk.
locluu rr ml cum ilru And! will mu 69 mm, Ylng my. lhlvn mm
suppon-nyoodyunnaumms-nmm
(Pm H, mm nlhuaodlngl
[26] Having scrulmlsed me evidence as eel out above, and navmg
oonIsdemd(ha1YKM ma LWH was bmuanl in hylhe De1endanlszsTh|rd
Party mu not rsv, mu coun agmoi mm mm vmnmn plapulmun mm
sm Eluluvvmxnislpn-nun
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mm flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
| 2,749 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
CB-45-6-09/2019 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH 1. ) TAN CAR CHUN 2. ) OOI ZHE XIAN | Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah s. 39B, 12 (2) ADB 1952 - Dadah ditemui dalam bilik hotel - Terdapat CCTV yang menunjukkan terdapat beberapa orang individu - Saksi penting yang ada bersama OKT1 ketika membawa beg yang dikatakan terdapat dadah - OKT2 ditangkap beberapa jam selepas kejadian ketika OKT1 berada dalam bilik - OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebaskan dan dilepaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie | 15/11/2023 | YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1ab06a86-4e80-40a7-9275-8ce736bf0531&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - CB-45A-4-09-2019 PP v TAN CAR CHUN & OOI ZHE XIAN edited
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: CB-45A-4-09/2019,
CB-45-6-7-09/2019 DAN CB-45-7-09/2019
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
1. TAN CAR CHUN
(NO. K/P: 831018146655)
2. OOI ZHE XIAN
(NO. K/P: 871130025171)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Kes ini adalah berkaitan dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen
39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya (ADB) 1952 terhadap kedua-dua Orang
Kena Tuduh (OKT), seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 dan seksyen 9(1) Akta
Racun 1952. Pertuduhan-pertuduhan adalah seperti berikut:
15/11/2023 17:00:46
CB-45-6-09/2019 Kand. 16
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Kes No. CB-45A-4-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya berat
bersih 103.77 gram methamphetamine, dan dengan itu kamu
telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a)
Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah
seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen
34 Kanun Keseksaan.
Kes No. CB-45-7-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya berat bersih 0.44 gram ketamine dan dengan itu kamu
telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta
Dadah berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen
12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun
Keseksaan.
Kes No. CB-45-6-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu racun jenis
Etizolam seberat 169.11 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah
melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 9(1) Akta Racun
1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 32(2) Akta yang sama
dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
[2] Pertuduhan-pertuduhan telah dibacakan pertama kalinya pada
05.11.2019. Setelah beberapa kali pengurusan kes dijalankan, akhirnya
kes ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan pada 17 hingga 22.10.2020.
[3] Selepas daripada tarikh tersebut, perbicaraan kes ini tidak dapat
dijalankan dengan lancar ekoran daripada Pandemik Covid-19. Di
samping itu, terdapat penangguhan disebabkan oleh peguam OKT
yang telah menghidapi Covid-19 serta tidak dapat hadir ke mahkamah.
Pada masa yang sama OKT1 dan OKT2 juga terpaksa menjalankan
perintah kuarantin di penjara dan tidak dapat hadir ke mahkamah. Ini
telah menyebabkan kes ini hanya dapat dimulakan pada 24.03.2022.
[4] Perjalanan kes ini dari tarikh OKT-OKT dikemukakan di
mahkamah, perbicaraan dimulakan dan berakhir tidak sewajarnya
mempengaruhi mahkamah dan penentuan kes ini. Mahkamah
hendaklah memutuskan kes ini berdasarkan kepada keterangan-
keterangan saksi-saksi, eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan prinsip
undang-undang dan pemakaiannya dalam kes ini.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[5] Adalah sesuatu yang penting ditekankan bahawa keghairahan
untuk menyelesaikan sesuatu kes yang lama seperti ini tidak boleh
mengenepikan prinsip undang-undang dengan semata-mata untuk
menggambarkan penampilan statistik penyelesaian yang meyakinkan.
Begitu juga mahkamah tidak boleh memanggil OKT-OKT untuk
membela diri semata-mata bagi mendengar versi pembelaan
sedangkan satu kes prima facie telah tidak berjaya dibuktikan oleh
pihak pendakwaan. Ini adalah merupakan tonggak utama dalam
pentadbiran keadilan jenayah yang perlu ditegakkan dan dilaksanakan
dengan sepenuhnya.
Keterangan
[6] Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan 9 orang saksi sebelum
menutup kes pendakwaan. Ia melibatkan para pegawai dan anggota
polis, ahli kimia dan saksi-saksi awam. Di samping itu, rakaman CCTV
iaitu P39A juga dikemukakan sebagai keterangan pendakwaan.
Mahkamah ini dipertontonkan dengan rakaman CCTV tersebut.
Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa kejadian ini berlaku di dalam bilik
sebuah hotel.
[7] Pada 28.10.2018, bilik nombor 20963 Tingkat 20, Tower 3, First
World Hotel, Genting Highlands telah didaftarkan atas nama Tan Car
Chun iaitu OKT1. SP4 mengesahkan catatan check out date adalah
pada 29.10.2018. SP4 juga menyatakan bahawa bilik tersebut juga
dikongsi dengan seorang yang bernama Low Siew Yuen, (eksibit
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
P28A). Namun SP4 tidak pasti sama ada Low Siew Yuen mempunyai
akses kepada bilik tersebut. SP6 mengesahkannya.
[8] Pada 29.10.2018, SP5 telah membuat pemeriksaan di bilik
nombor 20963 Tingkat 20, Tower 3, First World Hotel, Genting
Highlands. Setelah SP4 dan pengurus hotel mengetuk pintu bilik
tersebut, ia telah dibuka oleh Tan Car Chun yang dicamkan sebagai
OKT1.
[9] SP5 menyatakan bahawa semasa memperkenalkan dirinya
sebagai pegawai polis, OKT1 telah cuba menutup pintu. SP5 telah
membuat laporan polis berkenaan insiden tersebut seperti di eksibit
P29. SP5 juga semasa ditunjukkan gambarajah kasar iaitu eksibit P36
dan telah menandakan “X2” adalah tempat di mana sebuah beg merah
hitam jenama Mayflower, eksibit P14A(1) yang di dalamnya terdapat
dadah.
[10] SP7 pegawai keselamatan hotel tersebut telah mengemukakan
rakaman CCTV berkenaan pergerakan di bilik 20963. Rakaman CCTV
tersebut telah ditayangkan di mahkamah. Ia menunjukkan pergerakan
beberapa orang individu keluar dan masuk ke bilik tersebut. Ringkasan
rakaman CCTV itu dinyatakan dalam penyataan saksi SP7 (PSSP7) di
muka surat 6 hingga 8.
[11] SP8 seorang saksi awam, dia telah menginap di bilik nombor
20962. Dia hadir ke situ atas panggilan ibu saudaranya, Normalis. SP8
saksikan OKT1 telah keluar dari bilik 20963 untuk membantu SP8
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
membuka pintu bilik 20962. SP8 sahkan seorang yang bernama Lim
Yee Chuan adalah kekasih Normalis. Lim Yee Chuan tidak
dikemukakan di mahkamah.
[12] P29 iaitu laporan polis oleh SP5 yang turut menyatakan
kenyataan kata-kata amaran OKT1 dan OKT2 kepada SP5 yang telah
diputuskan ditandakan sebagai P28B. Dalam P28B tertera seperti
berikut:
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
[13] SP2 ahli kimia dalam keterangannya telah mengesahkan
menerima barang-barang kes dari pegawai rampasan di eksibit P16
yang menurut beliau barang-barang kes itu adalah dadah berbahaya
jenis Heroin, Methamphetamine, Ketamin dan Etizolam.
[14] SP9 pegawai penyiasat telah mengambil tindakan yang dilakukan
semasa siasatan, iaitu lawatan ke tempat kejadian, pemperolehan
barang-barang kes, mengemukakan barang-barang kes kepada
Jabatan Kimia dan penggeledahan. SP9 sahkan bahawa Ooi Zhe Xian
iaitu OKT2 telah ditangkap melalui laporan polis P30.
[15] SP9 juga mengesahkan dia telah berusaha mengesan penama
Lim Yee Chuan tetapi gagal. SP9 telah ditayangkan dengan rakaman
CCTV. SP9 menyatakan siasatan menunjukkan bahawa bilik 20963
adalah didaftarkan atas nama OKT1. SP9 juga nyatakan siasatan
terhadap rakaman CCTV menunjukkan SP5 telah mengetuk pintu bilik
20963. OKT1 membuka pintu bilik diiringi oleh Lim Yee Chuan.
[16] Keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa kesan cap jari telah
diambil gambar di eksibit P21(1-12). Laporan hasil pemeriksaan cap
jari adalah tidak boleh dibuat perbandingan kerana tidak cukup sifat
seperti yang dinyatakan di P41.
[17] Ujian acupakai pakaian yang dijumpai di tempat kejadian telah
dimaklumkan pakaian itu diambil dari beg hitam merah yang dijumpai
dalam beg tersebut. Ia dapat di lihat 8 keping gambar di P46(1-8).
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
Analisa
[18] Adalah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap bahawa di akhir kes
pendakwaan adalah menjadi tugas pendakwaan untuk membuktikan
satu kes prima facie. Frasa prima facie telah dijelaskan di
bawah seksyen 180 KPJ seperti berikut:
"180 Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution
(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."
[19] Pendekatan yang perlu digunakan oleh mahkamah ketika
memutuskan sama ada terdapatnya satu kes prima facie di akhir kes
pendakwaan telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam
kes Abdullah Atan v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 9 CLJ 151 yang
menyatakan bagi tujuan untuk menentukan sama ada terdapat
kes prima facie mahkamah perlu menggunakan anggapan inferen,
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
selain daripada itu keterangan langsung bagi membuktikan satu
kes prima facie. Ini dinyatakan seperti berikut:
“[42] The purpose of s. 180(4) CPC was thus not to exclude
the use of presumptions, inferences, or anything other than
direct evidence, to establish a prima facie case. On the
contrary:
(i) the Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau itself expressly envisaged
that inferences may be drawn from the primary facts adduced,
and the court must presume such inferences to be true at the
close of the prosecution's case; and
(ii) statutory presumptions have often been invoked by the
prosecution in order to establish a prima facie case of drug
trafficking in previous cases. No concern was raised in
Parliament as to the use of presumptions when considering
amendments to s. 180 of the CPC (see Mohamad Radhi
Yaakob v. PP [1991] 3 CLJ 2073; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 311;
[1991] 3 MLJ 169; and Tan Boon Kean v. PP [1995] 4 CLJ
456; [1995] 3 MLJ 514).
[43] Section 180(4) of the CPC must be read in light of its
context and legislative purpose. By so doing, the phrase
"credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence"
in s. 180(4) means that the prosecution may prove each
ingredient of the offence either:
(i) by adducing credible direct evidence of that ingredient;
(ii) by drawing inferences of fact, ie, adducing credible
circumstantial evidence, from which the ingredient can be
inferred; or
(iii) by invoking presumptions of law, ie, adducing credible
evidence of the relevant basic facts, to invoke a statutory
presumption that the ingredient exists.
[44] As to what constitutes 'a prima facie' case, the judgment
of Vincent Ng J (as he then was) in PP v. Ong Cheng Heong
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[1998] 4 CLJ 209 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong
(supra) was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we
respectfully endorse His Lordship's views, at p. 225:
What then constitutes a 'prima facie case'? 'Prima facie'
means on the face of it or at first glance.... perhaps the
most appropriate definition of 'a prima facie case' could be
found in the Oxford Companion of Law (p. 987), which has
it as: "A case which is sufficient for an answer. While prima
facie evidence is evidence which is sufficient to establish a
fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but is
not conclusive". It would follow that there should be
credible evidence on each and every ingredient of the
offence. Credible evidence is evidence which has been
filtered and which has gone through the process of
evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be acted
upon, should be rejected. (emphasis added)
At p. 224, His Lordship said:
... to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation,
on a prima facie basis, of each and every essential
ingredient of the charge as tested in cross-examination. In
other words, maximum evaluation connotes quantitative
rather than qualitative evaluation of the evidence; with
focus more on the evidential burden in terms of evidence
led, rather than the persuasive burden in terms of
qualitative degree of proof."
Elemen Kesalahan
(a) Dadah yang dijumpai adalah dadah berbahaya
[20] Dalam kes ini fakta bahawa dadah-dadah yang ditemui di bilik
tersebut adalah merupakan dadah merbahaya sudah terang lagi
bersuluh berdasarkan kepada laporan kimia yang disediakan oleh ahli
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
kimia. Dalam laporan tersebut dinyatakan bahawa dadah-dadah yang
diperiksanya setelah dihantar oleh pegawai penyiasat adalah
merupakan dadah berbahaya yang dijadualkan di bawah ADB 1952. Ini
bermakna elemen pertama bagi kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan
terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan.
[21] Pada masa yang sama mahkamah juga mengambil perhatian
kepada soalan-soalan balas yang dikemukakan oleh peguam OKT-OKT
terhadap ahli kimia yang mencadangkan bahawa ujian yang dilakukan
oleh beliau adalah tidak tepat. Oleh itu laporan yang disediakan oleh
ahli kimia tersebut adalah cacat dan tidak tepat. Namun demikian
mahkamah berpendapat soalan-soalan sedemikian tidak dapat
menggoyahkan keterangan ahli kimia. Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa
ujian yang dijalankan adalah teratur dan keputusan yang dikeluarkan
melalui laporan kimia tersebut dan keterangan ahli kimia diterima oleh
mahkamah ini. Oleh itu Pendakwa Raya telah membuktikan elemen
pertama pertuduhan-pertuduhan terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2.
(b) Pemilikan dadah
Adakah dadah-dadah tersebut dalam pemilikan OKT1 dan OKT2
[22] Keterangan SP5 menunjukkan bahawa semasa serbuan dibuat di
bilik 20963, OKT1 berada dalam bilik tersebut di mana dadah-dadah
dijumpai. SP5 menyatakan bahawa OKT1 cuba menghalang pintu itu
dari dibuka.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
[23] Selain daripada itu imej dalam rakaman CCTV, eksibit P39A(2)
juga telah disahkan oleh SP5 dan SP7 serta SP9 mendapati OKT1
dilihat ada memasuki bilik tersebut. Kali terakhir OKT1 dilihat memasuki
bilik tersebut pada 29.10.2018, 0728-0729 hours. Ini ditambah pula
dengan keterangan SP5 yang mengesahkan dadah-dadah tersebut
ditemui berdekatan dengan OKT1 seperti gambarajah kasar, P36.
[24] Seterusnya keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa acupakai
pakaian yang ditemui dalam bilik tersebut adalah berjaya dilakukan ke
atas OKT1 dan OKT2.
[25] Selain daripada itu SP4 mengesahkan kunci bilik 20963 itu
diberikan kepada OKT1. Ini turut disahkan oleh SP8 yang menyatakan
orang yang membantunya untuk membuka pintu bilik 20962 adalah
OKT1 yang keluar dari bilik 20963.
[26] Keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut
berada di tempat dalam gambarajah kasar semasa OKT1 dijumpai
berada dalam bilik tersebut.
[27] Namun begitu, laporan cap jari tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa
cap jari OKT1 ada para barang kes tersebut bagi menyokong OKT1
mempunyai kawalan atau milikan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut.
[28] Sementara bagi OKT2 pula, keterangan SP5 menyatakan
bahawa OKT2 ditangkap pada jam 10.30 pagi seperti yang dinyatakan
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
dalam laporan polis Genting Highlands/005252/18, eksibit P30. OKT1
telah ditangkap pada jam 9.50 pagi seperti di P29.
[29] Dalam kes ini tayangan CCTV di mahkamah menunjukkan imej
beberapa orang lelaki yang telah dicamkan oleh SP7, SP5 dan SP6.
Imej tersebut menunjukkan ada di antara mereka yang masuk ke bilik
20963 ada yang membawa beg. Ini menunjukkan bahawa selain
daripada OKT1 dan OKT2 salah seorang individu yang dilihat melalui
CCTV itu ialah Lim Yee Chuan dan menurut keterangan pegawai
penyiasat penama Lim Yee Chuan mengiringi OKT1 membuka pintu
bilik tersebut yang dapat dilihat daripada rakaman CCTV. SP9
menyatakan:
S : Kita pergi ke klip yang pertama 28.10.2018 pada jam
2228 hours. Boleh Inspektor terangkan kepada
mahkamah klip ini berkenaan apa?
J : Pada tarikh 28.10.2018 masa 2228 hours di mana
suspek Tan Car Chun dan Lim Yee Chuan telah masuk
ke bilik 20963 dan Tan Car Chun membawa beg
sandang warna hitam merah dan beg silang warna
kuning coklat.
S : Melalui rakaman ini boleh Inspektor terangkan yang
mana satu penama Tan Car Chun dan yang mana satu
penama Lim Yee Chuan?
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
J : Tan Car Chun iaitu yang sedang menggalas beg dan
Lim Yee Chuan yang berada di sebelah yang
menggalas beg tersebut.
S : Kita pergi kepada klip yang kedua ini. Okay boleh
berhenti. Untuk rakaman klip yang seterusnya apa
keterangan rakaman tersebut?
J : Rakaman tersebut dilihat Lim Yee Chuan telah keluar
dari bilik 20963.
S : Seterusnya saya pohon dimainkan rakaman 0025
hours. Apa keterangan rakaman? Boleh Inspektor
terangkan berkenaan rakaman tersebut?
J : Rakaman tersebut telah dilihat 4 individu iaitu Tan Car
Chun yang telah keluar dari bilik 20963. Turut kelihatan
di depan bilik tersebut adalah penama Syawal Rizal,
penama Alif iaitu rakan kepada Rizal dan juga penama
Yasir, kawan kepada Rizal juga.
[30] Keterangan yang juga menunjukkan SP9 hanya cuba mengesan
Lim Yee Chuan pada tahun 2023 melalui laporan polis Gemencheh
373/23, eksibit P43. Sementara itu carian daripada Jabatan
Pendaftaran Negara dibuat pada 05.05.2023. Pada tahun 2019, SP9
sahkan dia tidak mencari Lim Yee Chuan. Adalah didapati tiada
keterangan sebelum 2023 usaha pengesanan Lim Yee Chuan.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[31] SP9 mengesahkan bahawa di bilik 20963 pintunya dibuka oleh
OKT1. SP9 menyatakan Lim Yee Chuan mengiringi OKT1 tetapi OKT1
yang membawa beg merah di mana dadah-dadah itu ditemui.
Ketiadaan Lim Yee Chuan menyebabkan tiada kepastian bahawa beg
merah itu adalah kepunyaan OKT1 atau Lim Yee Chuan. Keterangan
yang menunjukkan OKT1 membawa beg merah tersebut pada hemat
mahkamah tidak dapat menolak kemungkinan dadah-dadah itu berada
dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan Lim Yee Chuan. Keterangan
menunjukkan OKT2 tidak berada dalam bilik tersebut semasa serbuan
dan hanya ditahan kemudian.
[32] Mahkamah juga perlu meneliti kenyataan OKT1 dalam P28B yang
menyatakan bahawa dadah itu bukan kepunyaannya tetapi hanya
dadah di atas meja sahaja. OKT1 juga mengesahkan bahawa bilik
tersebut disewa olehnya. Adakah dengan kenyataan OKT1 ini telah
mengesahkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut adalah dalam milikan
OKT1. Dalam kes ini mahkamah perlu membezakan di antara hakmilik
dadah-dadah tersebut dengan dadah-dadah itu berada dalam milikan
OKT1 dan OKT2. Mahkamah merujuk PP v Denish Madhavan [2009]
2 CLJ 209 dan Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] MLJ 237.
[33] Mahkamah ini juga perlu meneliti kenyataan OKT1 melalui eksibit
P28B apabila dikemukakan soalan-soalan seperti berikut:
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
[34] SP5 semasa pemeriksaan balas berkenaan isu ini iaitu berkaitan
dengan perkataan dadah yang dilihat ditambah masuk dalam
kenyataan tersebut telah menjelaskan seperti berikut:
S : Sekarang lihat kepada dokumen kata-kata amaran yang
telah kamu kemukakan sebagai eksibit P28B. If I may
read soalan 1, lihat kepada soalan 1. Soalan: Adakah
awak ada simpan barang salah dadah di dalam bilik?
Jawapan: Barang itu bukan saya punya. Perkataan yang
mustahak di sini adalah itu. Itu maksudnya barang sudah
dijumpa. That barang.
J : Bukan maksud itu Yang Arif.
S : Jadi mengapa ada perkataan itu di sini?
J : Tertuduh pada masa itu Tertuduh tahu ada sesuatu
barang di simpan di dalam bilik.
S : Don’t explain to much into this. Jawab soalan ini sahaja.
Tidak ada soalan tentang tentang pengetahuan Tertuduh.
Just soalan ini, Adakah awak ada simpan barang salah
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
dadah di dalam bilik? Jawapan dia adalah barang itu
bukan saya punya which means that things is not mine,
yang membawa maksud pada masa soalan ini ditanya
barang kes dadah sudahpun dijumpai?
J : Tidak setuju.
S : Now soalan kedua, dimanakah barang kes dadah awak
simpan jawapan saya punya barang dan ada tambahan
perkataan dadah, nampak tak ada tambahan, is an
addition, betul?
J : Betul.
S : Perkataan dadah tersebut merupakan satu tambahan ya?
Lihat pada dokumen itu?
J : Apa maksud tambahan?
S : Additionlah, maksud dia, it is not in the same line?
J : Dadah itu yang ditulis saya …
S : Merupakan satu tambahan kepada ayat yang asal?
J : Sebelum … Ayat tidak lengkap saya telah tambah
semula.
S : Soalan saya perkataan dadah di jawapan kedua
merupakan satu tambahan kepada jawapan yang telah
diberi?
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
J : Ini adalah jawapan yang Tertuduh bagi dan saya tuliskan.
S : Boleh tolong jawab soalan saya tak? I think you
understand my question. Please answer my question and
don’t play around like a fool. Soalan saya adalah
perkataan dadah yang terdapat di jawapan nombor 2
merupakan satu tambahan kepada jawapan yang telah
diberi mula-mula oleh Tertuduh?
J : Bukan.
S : Bukan tambahan?
J : Bukan tambahan.
S : So maksud dia kalau bukan tambahan Tertuduh
perkataan asal telah menyatakan saya punya barang
dadah simpan atas meja sahaja. Is it?
J : Tertuduh yang nyatakan.
S : Dan mengapa ada dadah tidak selari atau tidak sama
dengan perkataan-perkataan lain dalam ayat tersebut?
J : Maksudnya masa saya tulis, saya mahu tulis dadah, terus
tulis simpan maksudnya tercicir dadah.
S : Tercicir okay. Saya mencadangkan kepada kamu
perkataan dadah yang terdapat pada ayat pada jawapan
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
nombor 2 adalah satu tambahan yang dibuat
terkemudian?
J : Tidak setuju.
[35] Mahkamah ini juga meneliti salinan asal penyataan tersebut
mendapati tiada sebarang tandatangan ringkas bagi mengesahkan
siapakah yang telah meletakkan perkataan dadah dalam penyataan
tersebut. Adakah ia dibuat oleh SP5 atau dibuat sendiri oleh SP5 atau
ditulis atas penyataan yang dibuat oleh OKT1.
[36] Pada hemat mahkamah kenyataan yang dibuat di bawah P28B
adalah keterangan mustahak untuk mengaitkan dadah-dadah tersebut
dengan OKT1. Ini bermakna sekiranya mahkamah menerima eksibit
P28B itu maka ia sudah menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya hubungan
di antara OKT1 dengan dadah-dadah tersebut, sekurang-kurangnya
dadah-dadah yang dikatakan berada di atas meja. Oleh yang demikian
mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dan memastikan bahawa tiada terdapat
sebarang kecurigaan terhadap kandungan kenyataan tersebut.
[37] Mahkamah tidak boleh dengan sewenang-wenangnya menerima
kenyataan di P28B tersebut. Ia boleh dilakukan sedemikian sekiranya
tiada sebarang petanda yang boleh menimbulkan kecurigaan kepada
kesahihan kenyataan yang dinyatakan dalam P28B tersebut
terutamanya penambahan perkataan dadah di situ. Mahkamah perlu
berhati-hati dan memberikan sebarang faedah kesangsian (benefit of
doubt) terhadap P28B ini kepada OKT1. Dalam kes ini mahkamah
berpendapat P28B tidak menunjukkan bahawa OKT1 mempunyai
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut.
Mahkamah ini tidak boleh bersandarkan kepada P28B untuk
memutuskan bahawa OKT1 mempunyai pemilikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan dadah-dadah tersebut.
[38] Begitu juga dengan kenyataan yang diberikan oleh OKT2.
Mahkamah ini berpendapat seperti yang dinyatakan terhadap
kenyataan OKT1, mahkamah harus berhati-hati dalam menerima
keterangan ini terhadap OKT2. Mahkamah mendapati terdapat
keraguan terhadap dokumen dan isi kandungannya yang dikemukakan
sebagai P28B tersebut. Oleh itu pihak pendakwaan tidak dapat
menunjukkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut adalah dalam milikan,
kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 dengan bersandarkan
kepada dokumen P28B.
Adakah kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi-saksi
terutamanya Lim Yee Chuan adalah membolehkan pemakaian
seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai
[39] Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa budi bicara untuk
memanggil seseorang saksi adalah terletak kepada pihak pendakwaan.
Pihak pendakwaan boleh menimbangkan saksi yang difikirkan perlu
dikemukakan di mahkamah. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Khoon
Chye Hin v PP [1961] 1 MLJ 105 di mana Yang Amat Arif Thomson,
Ketua Hakim Negara menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
“It is, of course, well settled that in a criminal case prosecuting
counsel, provided there is no wrong motive, has a discretion
as to whether or not to call any particular witness and in
particular has a discretion not to call in support of his case a
witness whom he does not believe to be a witness of truth.”
[40] Ini juga telah dinyatakan terlebih dahulu dalam kes Adel
Muhammed El Dabbah v A-G for Palestine [1944] AC 156 di mana
Lord Thankerton menyatakan seperti berikut:
“While their Lordships agree that there was no obligation on
the prosecution to tender these witnesses, and, therefore, this
contention of the present appellant fails, their Lordships doubt
whether the rule of practice as expressed by the Court of
Criminal Appeal sufficiently recognizes that the prosecutor
has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called for the
prosecution, and the court will not interfere with the exercise
of that discretion, unless, perhaps, it can be shown that the
prosecutor has been influenced by some oblique motive.”
[41] Ia juga telah dinyatakan juga oleh Mahkamah Agong dalam kes
Ti Chuee Hiang v PP [1995] 2 MLJ 433 yang menjelaskan budi bicara
pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil saksi perlu dilakukan bagi
kepentingan keadilan. Ini dinyatakan oleh YA Hakim Edgar Joseph JR
seperti berikut:
“We recognize that the function of the prosecution is to
prosecute, and that does not mean that it must discharge the
functions both of the prosecution and the defence.
On the other hand, it is clear law that the prosecution must
have in court all witnesses from whom statements have been
taken, but they have a discretion whether to call them or not.
(See Teh Lee Tong v PP [1956] MLJ 194.) That discretion,
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
however, must be exercised having regard to the interests of
justice, which includes being fair to the accused (per Lord
Parker CJ in R v Oliva [1965] 3 All ER 116 at p 122; [1965] 2
WLR 1028 at p 1035), and to call witnesses essential to the
unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is
based, whether the effect of their testimony is for or against
the prosecution (per Lord Roche in the Ceylon Privy Council
case of Seneviratne v R [1936] 3 All ER 36 at p 49, applied
in R v Nugent [1977] 3 All ER 662; [1977] 1 WLR 789).”
[42] Malahan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Rosli bin Yusof v
PP [2021] 4 MLJ 479 telah menyatakan budi bicara pihak pendakwaan
untuk memanggil saksi dengan tanggungjawab pihak pendakwaan
untuk membuktikan kes pendakwaan seperti berikut:
“[38] In our view, it is settled law based on the authorities
cited to us by the learned counsel for the appellant in his
submission that the prosecution has discretion whether to call
any particular witness, but such discretion is subject to two
limitations, vis: (a) the discretion must be exercised with due
regard to considerations of fairness and good faith; and (b)
the witnesses who had been investigated by the police and
from whom the statements have been recorded must be
offered to the defence.”
[43] Adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa budi bicara memanggil saksi-
saksi adalah dalam ruang lingkup budi bicara pendakwaan. Namun ia
tertakluk kepada tanggungjawab Pendakwa Raya untuk membuktikan
kesnya dan apa yang lebih penting ialah sama ada kegagalan
memanggil saksi tersebut juga perlu dikaitkan dengan kepentingan
keadilan. Sekiranya kegagalan memanggil saksi tersebut
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
menyebabkan keadilan tidak dapat ditegakkan ia boleh mengatasi budi
bicara Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan saksi.
[44] Dalam kes ini Lim Yee Chuan adalah saksi yang terlibat langsung
dalam kejadian ini. Ia dapat dilihat melalui keterangan saksi-saksi yang
melihat Lim Yee Chuan masuk bersama-sama ke dalam bilik di mana
OKT1 ditahan dan OKT2 ditangkap selepas itu. Ini bermakna kehadiran
Lim Yee Chuan adalah penting kepada kes pendakwaan bagi
menunjukkan dadah-dadah tersebut di dalam milikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan OKT1, OKT2 atau berada dalam milikan, pengetahuan
dan kawalan Lim Yee Chuan. Ia adalah berkaitan langsung dengan isu
yang seterusnya iaitu akses kepada bilik tersebut yang akan dinyatakan
selepas ini.
[45] Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa SP9 telah membuat
percubaan untuk mengesan Lim Yee Chuan hanya pada tahun 2023.
Pegawai penyiasat dalam keterangan menyatakan beliau tidak
mengesan pada tahun 2018, 2019 2020, 2021 dan 2022. Mahkamah
juga mendapati bahawa tiada alasan yang memuaskan diberikan oleh
pegawai penyiasat berkenaan kegagalan beliau mengesan saksi ini
lebih awal.
[46] Persoalannya ialah adakah mahkamah ini boleh menerima alasan
kegagalan mengemukakan Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi adalah
sesuatu yang wajar. Mahkamah berpendapat berdasarkan keterangan
dan usaha pengesanan Lim Yee Chuan serta kedudukannya sebagai
saksi penting dalam kes ini tidak membolehkan ketidakhadiran saksi
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
tersebut dipandang enteng disebabkan ia akan menimbulkan
ketidakadilan kepada OKT-OKT berkenaan milikan, pengetahuan dan
kawalan dadah-dadah tersebut serta berkait dengan isu askes kepada
bilik tersebut.
[47] Selain daripada itu tiada juga keterangan yang menunjukkan
bahawa Lim Yee Chuan adalah seorang pemberi maklumat (informer)
yang tertakluk kepada peruntukan di bawah seksyen 40 ADB 1952.
Namun begitu mahkamah juga perlu menimbangkan bahawa
kegagalan Pendakwa Raya memanggil saksi-saksi bukanlah
semestinya faktor yang akan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. Misalnya
dalam kes (1) Namasiyiam (2) Rajindran (3) Goh Chin Peng and (4)
Ng Ah Kiat v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 336 salah seorang saksi yang dikatakan
rakan sejenayah telah tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi dalam kes tersebut.
Namun demikian Mahkamah Agong berpendapat ianya tidak
menjejaskan kes pendakwaan disebabkan terdapatnya keterangan-
keterangan lain di mana ketiadaan saksi tersebut tidak membawa apa-
apa perbezaan.
“Clearly, Francis was a particeps criminis, an accomplice in
the true sense of the word. It was submitted that the absence
of Francis at the trial would raise the presumption
under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act unfavourable to the
prosecution. Be that as it may, in the light of overwhelming
prosecution evidence as stated earlier, we do not think that
the presence of Francis, had he been available, would have
made any difference.”
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
[48] Sebaliknya dalam kes ini kehadiran Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi
akan mengubah keadaan kes ini dan mahkamah dapat menentukan
sama ada milikan dadah-dadah tersebut adalah OKT1, OKT2 atau
orang lain iaitu Lim Yee Chuan. Sekiranya tiada keterangan daripada
rakaman CCTV yang menunjukkan keberadaan Lim Yee Chuan maka
ketiadaan Lim Yee Chuan tidak akan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan.
Namun begitu dalam kes ini kehadiran Lim Yee Chuan dan beberapa
orang saksi lain yang disahkan oleh pegawai penyiasat yang tidak
dirakam percakapan mereka adalah sesuatu yang mustahak diberikan
perhatian oleh mahkamah dalam menentukan sama ada dadah-dadah
tersebut berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 atau
OKT2.
[49] Oleh itu mahkamah ini berpendapat kegagalan pihak
pendakwaan mengemukakan Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi penting
dalam kes ini adalah mewajarkan pemakaian anggapan di bawah
seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950. Mahkamah sedar bahawa
pemakaian seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak boleh
sewenang-wenangnya digunakan terhadap pendakwaan seperti yang
dinyatakan dalam kes Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492 seperti
berikut:
“Adverse inference under that illustration can only be drawn if
there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not
merely on account of failure to obtain evidence. It may be
drawn from withholding not just any document, but material
document by a party in his possession, or for non-production
of not just any witness but an important and material witness
to the case.”
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
[50] Dalam kes Munusamy (supra) keterangan menunjukkan bahawa
seorang ahli kimia yang tidak dapat mengemukakan perakuan ujian
ketepatan alat sukatan daripada Merinyu (Inspektor) Timbang dan
Sukat. Ini adalah disebabkan ahli kimia tersebut mengesahkan bahawa
dia tidak mempunyai butiran berkenaan alatan tersebut sebelum tahun
1985. Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seksyen 114 (g) Akta
Keterangan 1950 tidak terpakai dapat kes tersebut.
[51] Sebaliknya, Lim Yee Chuan adalah saksi penting dalam kes ini.
Dia telah diketahui oleh pegawai penyiasat dan imejnya dapat dilihat
melalui rakaman CCTV semenjak 2018 dan hanya dikesan pada 2023.
Ia jelas menunjukkan bahawa keterangan Lim Yee Chuan tidak
diketengahkan untuk penelitian mahkamah ini bagi membantu
mahkamah meneliti keterangan Lim Yee Chuan bersama-sama dengan
keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan yang lain. Oleh itu mahkamah
mendapati seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai kepada
pihak pendakwaan.
Akses
[52] Dalam kes ini keterangan yang ada ialah OKT1 diserahkan kad
kunci bilik tersebut, OKT1 berada dalam bilik tersebut semasa serbuan
dibuat, OKT1 bersama seorang Lim Yee Chuan. OKT2 hanya bersama-
sama OKT1 di bilik tersebut. Rakaman CCTV menunjukkan pergerakan
keluar masuk bilik tersebut oleh beberapa orang individu lain. Individu-
individu yang dikenalpasti itu ada yang tidak dapat dikesan dan ada
yang tidak diambil keterangannya.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
[53] Adakah keterangan OKT1 di P28B itu dapat menunjukkan
bahawa dadah-dadah itu dalam milikan OKT1? Hakikat yang tidak
dapat dinafikan bahawa bilik tersebut dapat diakses oleh individu-
individu yang lain sepanjang rakaman CCTV sebelum bilik tersebut
diserbu oleh pihak polis. Ini adalah seperti apa yang berlaku dalam kes
Lee Chee Meng v PP [1992] 1 MLJ 322 di mana Mahkamah
Persekutuan menyatakan:
“The totality of the evidence did not support the justification.
Firstly, it is to be stressed that the burden on the appellant
was merely to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution
case. Where the presumption under s 37(da) is invoked the
burden on the defence was only on the balance of
probabilities.
The other aspect of the evidence in this case must be
examined. It would seem that the learned trial judge did not
consider the evidence that the said Yoong Thien Soong
(tenant of room A) was also arrested at the same time with
four packets of drugs found in the room. Although the learned
judge recognized the evidence relating to the contention that
the door to room B could not be locked with the key at the
material time, yet he did not give sufficient consideration to
that evidence. In fact contrary to the evidence, the learned trial
judge made a number of speculations to justify his conclusion,
namely, that the padlock (exh P28) could be used to padlock
room B, and that the appellant could have purchased another
padlock and holding that the air-cooler and the mini-compo
were valuable items and that the shoe boxes were meant for
storage of drugs. In fact, the doubt as to exclusive use of room
B by the appellant alone could be sufficient ground to allow
the appeal.”
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
[54] Sementara itu dalam kes Abdullah Zawawi bin Yusoff v PP
[1993] 3 MLJ 1 kewujudan orang lain yang berkemungkinan
mempunyai akses kepada kawasan pembinaan yang belum siap telah
diputuskan sebagai keadaan yang menunjukkan terdapatnya
kemungkinan akses oleh pihak lain.
“The judge was of the view that though the house was still
under construction there was no evidence to show that there
had been access to the house through the uncompleted part.
With respect, given the fact that this was a case where the
police were acting on a tip-off, undoubtedly by an informer,
who might have been a paid informer, and the further fact that
the house was still under construction, the onus was not on
the defence to prove possibility of access by others but on the
prosecution to exclude such possibility. Of course, the
defence could besides taking advantage of infirmities in the
prosecution case in this regard, have gone further, and shown
the possibility of access by others, but this they were not, in
law, obliged to do.
To return to the judgment, in fairness to the judge, he did
pursue the point about the possibility of a plant. What he said
was this:
Counsel also makes a faint insinuation of the possible
involvement of Mohammad bin Mohd Amin in the
commission of the alleged offence, and that could be the
reason why he is scared to come to court. I have given a
thorough thought to such a possibility but am unable to
accept it as I find there is no conceivable reason for
Mohammad to frame the first accused. Most of the time
when he was in Gua Musang, he stayed with the first
accused. He even worked for him and more or less
regarded himself as part of the family. I cannot by any
stretch of imagination think of him having a plan to
implicate the person who had been more than a friend to
him. There is nothing to show that he would stand to gain
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
by it. The insinuation without more remains only an
insinuation, without any evidence to link Mohammad with
the alleged offence.
We recognize the force of the judge's reasoning, but motive is
not always an easy matter to prove, and there was the
testimony of ASP Haji Hamzah bin Awang (PW10), who took
over investigations in the case, that he had attempted to
secure the attendance of Mohammad at the trial but failed
because Mohammad, who was by then living in Kampong
Dusun Nyior, Narathiwat, Thailand, did not dare to come to
Malaysia. There was also evidence that most of the time when
he was in Gua Musang, Mohammad stayed with the
appellant. In other words, he had liberal access to the house.
Then, again, there was the evidence of his presence in the
house at the time of the police raid and his arrest by the police.
These are matters upon which we did not place undue stress
and we therefore mention it, only in passing, to show that
Mohammad was a possible suspect.
But there was more substance in the point (not raised by
counsel or considered by the judge) that the wife of the
appellant might have concealed the drugs in the box without
the appellant being a party to such act even though he might
have known about it. The charge, be it noted, was trafficking
in dangerous drugs and it will be recalled, that it was the
conduct of the wife which led to the discovery of the drugs,
and certainly the case for the prosecution was that she was
involved, for why else was she prosecuted jointly with the
appellant? Indeed, the judge ruled, at the close of the case for
the prosecution, that she had a case to answer though,
admittedly, at the close of the case for the defence, he did
acquit her saying in the final part of his judgment:
However, I am satisfied the second accused has
succeeded in rebutting the presumptions, thereby
creating a doubt on the case against her. I therefore
acquit and discharge her. There is no appeal against her
acquittal.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
He did not, however, give any reasons for that conclusion and
we note that the wife did not implicate the appellant in any
way, nor was there any evidence that they were acting in
concert.”
[55] Seterusnya dalam kes Gooi Loo Seng v PP [1993] 2 MLJ 137
Mahkamah Agong memutuskan bahawa kehadiran teman wanita
Tertuduh yang mempunyai kunci telah menunjukkan bahawa
terdapatnya akses kepada bilik tidur tersebut oleh orang lain
menyebabkan sabitan telah diketepikan.
“Had the trial judge approached the prosecution case in the
manner we have indicated, we cannot confidently say that he
would or must inevitably have rejected the appellant's version
that he had no knowledge of the presence of the heroin in the
bedroom and that it could have been hidden there by others
having access to the bedroom in his absence.
We need hardly add, that even if the appellant had known of
the presence of the heroin in his bedroom, that by itself would
not have been sufficient to establish that he was in possession
or in control of it given the fact that others too, and certainly
his girlfriend Tan Ah Kwai, had access to the bedroom and
could have concealed the heroin there. At the end of the day,
this was a case of the proverbial cap which might have fitted
not just the head of the appellant but that of others as well.”
[56] Dalam kes ini tindakan beberapa orang individu-individu keluar
masuk bilik tersebut menunjukkan bahawa bilik tersebut boleh diakses
oleh orang lain selain daripada OKT1 dan OKT2. Namun mahkamah
juga tidak sewajarnya secara automatik menyatakan bahawa orang lain
mempunyai akses kepada bilik tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan kad bilik
tersebut diserahkan kepada OKT1 dan OKT2 juga menjadi penghuni di
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
bilik tersebut. Ini ditambah pula dengan tiada keterangan yang
menunjukkan bahawa semasa keluar masuk bilik tersebut oleh individu-
individu tersebut beg yang mana dadah-dadah itu ditemui telah juga
dibawa keluar oleh mana-mana individu tersebut semasa keluar masuk
dari bilik tersebut.
[57] Selain daripada itu tiada keterangan yang dikemukakan
berkenaan apakah yang berlaku dalam bilik tersebut semasa individu-
individu tersebut dikatakan berada dalam bilik tersebut. Oleh yang
demikian keterangan individu-individu yang dilihat memasuki bilik
tersebut adalah mustahak untuk mengesahkan bahawa dadah tidak
mempunyai kaitan dengan saksi-saksi tersebut melainkan ianya adalah
berkaitan dengan OKT1 dan OKT2 sahaja.
[58] Hakikatnya ialah terdapatnya beberapa orang yang mempunyai
akses kepada bilik tersebut. Ketiadaan individu-individu sebagai saksi
telah menyebabkan terdapat kemungkinan dadah-dadah tersebut
bukannya berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan
OKT2. Ini ditambah pula dengan laporan cap jari dan DNA yang tidak
dapat menunjukkan kaitan OKT1 dan OKT2 dengan dadah tersebut.
Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa ketidaaan pengemukakan
laporan cap jari dan DNA tidak sewajarnya dijadikan alasan untuk
menyatakan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes
prima facie. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v.
Mansor Md. Rashid & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 233 seperti berikut:
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
“We also find ourselves in agreement with the learned Deputy
Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge had erred in law
when he faulted PW13 the investigating officer for not lifting
the finger prints off the wrappings of the cannabis and for not
taking photographs of the street light in front of the house No.
129. Where the identity of a culprit is in question or required
to be proved, fingerprint evidence would be of great
significance and immense value. In the present case under
appeal, however, the charge alleged trafficking in the form of
sale and there is evidence indicating the identities of the
alleged offenders and the sale transaction. Fingerprint
evidence on the newspaper wrapping, white plastic and the
loytape, therefore, assumes little value or significance.”
[59] Namun demikian dalam kes tersebut keterangan pendakwaan
ialah terdapatnya urus niaga pembelian dan penjualan dadah-dadah di
mana identiti Tertuduh tidak menjadi isu dalam kes tersebut. Prinsip
dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Mansor Md. Rashid & Anor (supra)
telah diikuti oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes PP v Ebrahim
Mirzaie Hj Ebrahim Deh Mokhtar [2017] 1 CLJ 575 dan PP v Rosli
Rikidin [2023] 1 LNS 1849.
[60] Dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati bahawa kegagalan untuk
memanggil saksi-saksi yang mempunyai akses kepada bilik tersebut
menyebabkan pihak pendakwaan tidak dapat membuktikan bahawa
OKT-OKT mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan kepada
dadah-dadah tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan persoalan berikut akan
timbul iaitu:
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
(a) Adakah dadah-dadah tersebut dimiliki oleh individu-individu
yang dilihat dalam rakaman CCTV tersebut yang telah
masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut; dan
(b) Adakah dadah-dadah itu dibawa masuk ke dalam bilik
tersebut bersama-sama dengan beg yang dibawa oleh
OKT1 seperti yang tertera dalam rakaman CCTV atau
dibawa oleh individu lain.
[61] Ia boleh menyebabkan mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa
dadah-dadah tersebut tidak dibuktikan berada dalam milikan, kawalan
dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 sebaliknya dadah-dadah tersebut
berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan individu-individu lain
yang tertera imej mereka dalam rakaman CCTV tersebut. Oleh itu
kehadiran saksi-saksi tersebut adalah penting bagi bagi menyokong kes
prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan dan membuktikan elemen
pemilikan dadah-dadah tersebut.
[62] Oleh itu penelitian kepada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan
dan eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan mahkamah berpendapat pihak
pendakwaan gagal membuktikan OKT1 dan OKT2 mempunyai milikan,
kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut di akhir kes
pendakwaan.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
(c) Pengedaran Dadah
[63] Setelah mahkamah ini meneliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan
mahkamah berpendapat pendakwaan gagal membuktikan bahawa
dadah-dadah tersebut berada di dalam milikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 maka anggapan pengedaran dadah-
dadah tersebut di bawah seksyen 37 (da) ADB 1952 tidak dapat
digunakan oleh mahkamah ini bagi membuktikan pengedaran dadah
berbahaya seperti pertuduhan. Seksyen 37 (da) ADB 1952 seperti
berikut:
“(da) any person who is found in possession of-
(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin;
(ii) 15 grammes or more in weight of morphine;
(iii) 15 grammes or more in weight of
monoacetylmorphines;
(iiia) a total of 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin,
morphine and monoacetylmorphines or a total of 15
grammes or more in weight of any two of the said
dangerous drugs;
(iv) 1,000 grammes or more in weight of prepared opium;
(v) 1,000 grammes or more in weight of raw opium;
(va) a total of 1,000 grammes or more in weight of
prepared opium and raw opium;
(vi) 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis,
(vii) 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis resin;
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
(viii) a total of 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis
and cannabis resin;
(ix) 40 grammes or more in weight of cocaine;
(x) 2,000 grammes or more in weight of cocoa leaves;
(xi) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2-Amino-1-(2, 5-
dimethoxy-4-methyl) phenylpropane;
(xii) 50 grammes or more in weight of Amphetamine;
(xiii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2, 5-
Dimethoxyamphetamine (DMA);
(xiv) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Dimethoxybromoamphetamine (DOB);
(xv) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-
ethylamphetamine (DOET);
(xvi) 50 grammes or more in weight of Methamphetamine;
(xvii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 5-Methoxy-3, 4-
Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MMDA);
(xviii) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA);
(xix) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-ethyl MDA;
(xx) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-hydroxy MDA;
(xxi) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-methyl-l-(3, 4-
methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine;
(xxii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 3,4-
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA);
(xxiii) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA);
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
(xxiv) 50 grammes or more in weight of 3,4,5-
Trimethoxyamphetamine (3, 4, 5-TMA); or
(xxv) a total of 50 grammes or more in weight of any
combination of the dangerous drugs listed in
subparagraphs (xi) to (xxiv),
otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act
or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug”
[64] Namun begitu mahkamah ini perlu meneliti sama ada terdapat
keterangan yang ada dapat menunjukkan terdapatnya pengedaran
seperti yang ditafsirkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 seperti berikut:
“"trafficking" includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug
otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the
regulations made under the Act”
[65] Ini adalah disebabkan terdapat keterangan daripada SP5 dan imej
daripada rakaman CCTV yang dipertontonkan di dalam mahkamah
terbuka terdapat individu yang membawa sebuah beg di mana beg
tersebut dikatakan dadah-dadah tersebut dijumpai. Ia membawa
maksud adakah tindakan individu tersebut yang didakwa sebagai OKT1
dalam kes ini telah membawa (carrying) dadah-dadah tersebut. Ini juga
perlu dipertimbangkan bersesuaian dengan keterangan yang
menyatakan dadah-dadah itu telah berada dalam bilik tersebut. Apakah
ianya tergolong dalam tindakan menyimpan dadah-dadah tersebut yang
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
boleh termasuk dalam takrifan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB
1952.
[66] Mahkamah ini dalam meneliti keterangan bagi maksud
penggunaan seksyen 2 ADB 1952 dipandu oleh keputusan Mahkamah
Persekutuan dalam kes Teh Geok Hock v PP [1989] 3 MLJ 162 seperti
berikut:
“It is quite clear then that although the learned judge accepted
the evidence that the appellant was a drug addict, he rejected
his explanation of the ten packets of heroin found on his
person. He was satisfied that the appellant was trafficking in
the drugs as charged and convicted the appellant. 'Trafficking'
is defined in the Act as follows:
'Trafficking' includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug.
True, the definition in the Act sounds artificial and not
according to the ordinary meaning of the word 'trafficking'
which is normally understood to mean to trade in, buy or sell,
any commodity, albeit often with sinister implication. See also
the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The definition of
'trafficking' in the Act is wide and includes not only buying and
selling, but also carrying, concealing and keeping. It is totally
different from the definition of the word 'traffic' in the
Singapore Misuse of Drugs Act. In the Singapore provision to
'traffic' in a controlled drug so as to constitute an offence of
trafficking involves something more than passive possession
or self-administration of the drug. See Ong Ah Chuan v Public
Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64.”
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
[67] Namun demikian Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Chow Kok
Keong v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 MLJ 337 telah menyatakan
perbezaan pandangan dengan keputusan dalam kes Teh Geok Hock
(supra) seperti berikut:
“In our view, both Cohen and Ng Chai Kem, have severely
watered down Teh Geok Hock in so far as it implies that
passive possession or self-administration can never be a
defence to a charge of trafficking under s 39B of our Act.
Having considered this point afresh, we preferred the views
expressed in Cohen and Ng Chai Kem to those in Teh Geok
Hock which we regarded as oversimplistic. We would add that
apart from the general consideration that the drugs legislation
is a piece of highly penal legislation and therefore any
ambiguity in it should be resolved in favour of the subject, in
accordance with long established canons of construction, it is
pertinent to note that the definition of 'trafficking' aforesaid
comes under s 2 of the Act, the very first line of which reads:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires ….
In our view the context of s 37(da)(i) which says:
any person who is found in possession of —
(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin; …
otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act
or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug;
does 'otherwise require' (italics supplied). If this were not so,
the provisions of s 37(da) which specifically confer upon the
accused the right to rebut the presumption of trafficking
arising from being found in possession of dangerous drugs in
excess of the statutory minimum, would be an empty
hypocrisy.”
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
[68] Di samping itu mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Ong Ah
Chuan v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 64 yang memutuskan bahawa pengedaran
dalam konteks seksyen 2 ADB 1952 itu perlu diteliti tujuan perbuatan-
perbuatan tersebut dilakukan. Ia tidak hanya sekadar menunjukkan
bahawa seseorang itu melakukan salah satu daripada 18 perkara yang
dinyatakan di bawah takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952. Di
samping itu mahkamah juga perlu melihat jumlah dadah-dadah yang
terlibat bagi menyatakan bahawa ianya bukan untuk tujuan penggunaan
sendiri melainkan semata-mata untuk tujuan pengedaran. Ini
dinyatakan oleh Lord Diplock seperti berikut:
“This is a very wide descriptionof acts that may be treated as
equivalent to the substantive offence of trafficking;
nevertheless, in their Lordships' view, it is clear from the
structure of the Drugs Act and the distinction drawn between
the offence of having a controlled drug in one'spossession
and the offence of trafficking in it, that mere possession of
itself is not to be treated as an act preparatory to or in
furtherance of or for the purpose of trafficking so as to permit
the conviction of the possessor of the substantive offence.
Tobring the provisions of sections 10 and 3(c) into operation
some further step or overt act by the accused is needed,
directed to transferring possession of the drug to some other
person; and it is a consequence of the clandestine nature of
the drug trade andthe means adopted for the detection of
those engaged in it, that the further step that the prosecution
is most likely to be able to prove in evidence is the act of the
accused in transporting the drug to some place where he
intends to deliver it to someone else,whether it be the actual
consumer or a distributor or another dealer.
Proof of the purpose for which an act is done, where such
purpose is a necessary ingredient of the offence with which
an accused is charged, presents a problem with whichcriminal
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
courts are very familiar. Generally, in the absence of an
express admission by the accused, the purpose with which he
did an act is a matter of inference from what he did. Thus, in
the case of an accused caught in the act of conveying from
one placeto another controlled drugs in a quantity much larger
than is likely to be needed for his own consumption the
inference that he was transporting them for the purpose of
trafficking in them would, in the absence of any plausible
explanationby him, be irresistible — even if there were no
statutory presumption such as is contained in section 15 of
the Drugs Act.
As a matter of common sense the larger the quantity of drugs
involved the stronger the inference thatthey were not intended
for the personal consumption of the person carrying them, and
the more convincing the evidence needed to rebut it. All that
section 15 does is to lay down the minimum quantity of each
of the five drugs with which it deals at which theinference
arises from the quantity involved alone that they were being
transported for the purpose of transferring possession of them
to another person and not solely for the transporter's own
consumption. There may be other facts which justify the
inferenceeven where the quantity of drugs involved is lower
than the minimum which attracts the statutory presumption
under section 15. In the instant cases, however, the quantities
involved were respectively one hundred times and six
hundred times the statutory minimum.
Whether the quantities involved be large or small, however,
the inference is always rebuttable. The accused himself best
knows why he was conveying the drugs from one place to
another and, if he can satisfy the court, upon the balance of
probabilitiesonly, that they were destined for his own
consumption he is entitled to be acquitted of the offence of
trafficking under section 3.”
[69] Ia juga telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes
Johar bin Mustapha v Public Prosecutor [2009] 6 MLJ 593 yang
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
42
menjelaskan berkenaan pemakaian pendekatan tujuan yang diutarakan
dalam kes Ong Ah Chuan (supra) seperti berikut:
“[44] We feel it is appropriate at this juncture to refer to the
'purpose approach' in the judgment of Lord Diplock in the
celebrated case of Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor; Koh
Chai Cheng v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64 where it was
held (at p 69) as follows:
Proof of the purpose for which an act is done, where such
purpose is a necessary ingredient of the offence with
which an accused is charged, presents a problem with
which criminal courts are very familiar. Generally, in the
absence of an express admission by the accused, the
purpose with which he did an act is a matter of inference
from what he did. Thus, in the case of an accused caught
in the act of conveying from one place to another
controlled drugs in a quantity much larger than is likely to
be needed for his own consumption the inference that he
was transporting them for the purpose of trafficking in
them would, in the absence of any plausible explanation
by him, be irresistible — even if there were no statutory
presumption such as is contained in s 15 of the Drugs Act
(see alsoPublic Prosecutor v Ouseng sama-Ae [2008] 1
CLJ 337). (Emphasis added.)”
[70] Mahkamah juga dapat melihat bagaimana keterangan yang
mencukupi untuk menyatakan bahawa OKT-OKT telah membawa
dadah seperti yang ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952. Ini dapat
dilihat dalam kes Sathya Vello v. PP [2022] 5 CLJ 659 di mana
Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan fakta kes tersebut seperti
berikut:
“[4] The facts are straightforward and may be summarised as
follows. At the time and place specified in the two charges, the
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
43
appellant and the second accused had just arrived from
Chennai, India by AirAsia flight AK1258. The appellant was
seen pushing a trolley and heading towards the customs
clearance area with the second accused beside him. On the
trolley were two luggage bags.
[5] As the appellant and the second accused were behaving
suspiciously, Corporal Pannir Selvam a/l Subramaniam
(PW3) who was on duty at the airport together with ASP
Mohideen bin Ismail (PW2) stopped them and requested them
to have their bags scanned at the scanning machine. This was
done and the scan showed suspicious images on the monitor
screen even after the contents of the bags were emptied.
When PW2 lifted the empty bags, he found them to be
exceptionally heavy. He also noticed that the fabric at the
bottom of the bags were bulging. He then decided to carry out
a physical examination on the two bags in the presence of the
appellant and the second accused.”
[71] Berdasarkan fakta tersebut Mahkamah Persekutuan telah
memutuskan bahawa ia adalah memadai untuk membuktikan OKT
membawa dadah-dadah tersebut bagi maksud seksyen 2 ADB 1952
dengan menyatakan seperti berikut:
“[15] The appellant's act of carrying the drugs was clearly an
act of trafficking by definition: See s. 2 of the DDA, which
reads:
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
"trafficking" includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug
otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the
regulations made under the Act;
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
44
[16] Since "trafficking" is statutorily defined, which definition is
to be applied unless the context otherwise requires, there is
no necessity for the court to look for its common law meaning,
if there is any. If the appellant could prove, in rebuttal of the
presumption under s. 37(d) of the DDA, that he had no
knowledge of the presence and of the nature of the drugs, he
would of course be acquitted outrightly of the trafficking
charges despite being in physical possession of the drugs,
because without proof of knowledge, he committed no offence
under the DDA, not even the lesser offence of possession
under s. 12(2).”
[72] Dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan yang
menyatakan bahawa individu yang dikatakan OKT1 telah membawa
beg tersebut tanpa keterangan yang menyatakan apakah tujuan beg itu
dibawa masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut di samping terdapat individu-
individu lain yang bersama OKT1 semasa memasuki bilik tersebut tidak
dapat menunjukkan bahawa tindakan membawa beg tersebut oleh
OKT1 adalah termasuk dalam takrifan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2
ADB 1952. Begitu juga tiada keterangan yang dapat menyatakan
bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut disimpan atau disembunyikan dalam
bilik tersebut bagi memenuhi takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952.
[73] Oleh yang demikian mahkamah ini berpendapat pihak
pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan pengedaran seperti yang
ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952.
[74] Ini bermakna mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan
telah gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
45
Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 bagi dadah jenis
Ketamin dan seksyen 9 (1) Akta Racun 1952 untuk Etizolam
[75] Penelitian kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan di mahkamah
adalah didapati bahawa dadah ketamin yang menjadi asas kepada
pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 adakah dikatakan
dijumpai dalam bilik yang sama dengan dadah-dadah yang
dipertuduhkan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952. Ini bermakna dapatan
mahkamah ini berkenaan pemilikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan dadah-
dadah tersebut adalah sama dengan dapatan bagi pemilikan, kawalan
dan pengetahuan bagi dadah-dadah yang dituduh di bawah seksyen
39B ADB 1952. Mahkamah ini berpendapat tiada sebarang keterangan
lain yang boleh dinilai oleh mahkamah melainkan keterangan-
keterangan yang sama yang dikemukakan oleh pendakwaan. Ia akan
membawa kepada satu kesimpulan yang sama iaitu pihak pendakwaan
tidak dapat membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2. Ianya
mungkin berbeza sekrianya dadah-dadah bagi pertuduhan seksyen 12
(2) ADB 1952 itu ditemui di tempat lain dan terdapat keterangan-
keterangan lain yang berbeza dengan keterangan bagi pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 tersebut.
[76] Akhirnya mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pihak pendakwaan
tidak berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan
terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 dan
seksyen 9 (1) Akta Racun 1952.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
46
Penutup
[77] Adalah satu fakta yang perlu diakui oleh mahkamah bahawa
kesungguhan untuk mengatasi masalah pengedaran dan pemilikan
dadah adalah sesuatu yang berterusan. Ia dapat dilihat melalui
penambahbaikan peruntukan undang-undang di bawah ADB 1952
semenjak penggubalannya sehingga kini. Misalnya pengenalan
hukuman mati mandatori yang diperkenalkan pada tahun 1983
walaupun telah dimansuhkan melalui Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati
Mandatori 2023. Ia juga dapat dilihat kepada peningkatan hukuman
yang boleh dikenakan bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah ADB 1952
serta undang-undang yang berkaitan. Ini semua dilakukan bagi
membolehkan kegiatan pengedaran dadah dapat dibanteras dan
dilumpuhkan bagi menghalang kegiatan jenayah lain yang berkaitan
dengan dadah.
[78] Oleh itu adalah penting bagi siasatan yang melibatkan kes
pengedaran dadah dilakukan dengan professional, berhati-hati dan
sentiasa mematuhi peruntukan undang-undang. Ini bagi membolehkan
keterangan-keterangan tersebut dikemukakan mengikut undang-
undang semasa perbicaraan kelak. Sebarang ketidakpatuhan atau
kecuaian dalam penyiasatan akan membawa padah kepada kegagalan
pengemukaan keterangan yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang
semasa perbicaraan kelak. Pada masa yang sama pendakwaan
berkaitan dengan kes-kes dadah perlu dilakukan dengan mematuhi
prinsip undang-undang yang dinyatakan dalam Akta Dadah Berbahaya
1952, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan Akta Keterangan 1950 di samping
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
47
dipandu arah oleh keputusan-keputusan mahkamah atasan berkenaan
kes-kes dadah. Di samping itu para peguam yang mewakili anak guam
juga hendaklah membela anak guam mereka berdasarkan kepada
prinsip undang-undang bagi memastikan keadilan yang wajar dinikmati
oleh anak guam mereka dapat dipertahankan.
[79] Pada masa yang sama mahkamah yang mendengar kes-kes
pengedaran dadah-dadah juga perlu memastikan keterangan-
keterangan dikemukakan berdasarkan kepada Akta Dadah Berbahaya
1952, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan Akta Keterangan 1950 dan
mematuhi kepada keputusan mahkamah atasan berkenaan dengan
kes-kes dadah. Sesungguhnya kesepaduan di antara proses siasatan,
pendakwaan, pembelaan dan perbicaraan serta penghakiman yang
dilakukan dengan professional dan mengikut jalur undang-undang akan
memastikan hasrat untuk membanteras aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang
menjadi penyakit dalam masyarakat akan dapat dilaksanakan tanpa
menggadaikan prinsip keadilan yang wajar dinikmati oleh seseorang
yang dituduh di bawah ADB 1952.
[80] Dalam konteks ini Pendakwa Raya dan peguambela seharusnya
membantu mahkamah dengan mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan
dan pembelaan yang wajar bagi membolehkan mahkamah jenayah
yang mengendalikan perbicaraan kes-kes di bawah ADB 1952 dapat
melaksanakan tugas dan amanahnya dengan sempurna.
[81] Sebagai pelengkap adalah wajar untuk mahkamah meneliti
pandangan yang dikemukakan berkenaan dengan tanggungjawab dan
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
48
amanah yang perlu dilakukan mahkamah jenayah seperti yang
diutarakan dalam artikel The Need for a Criminal Division of the High
Court oleh David Ormerod, Current Legal Problems Vol. XX (2023)
1, halaman 2 walaupun artikel tersebut berkaitan dengan sistem
mahkamah tinggi jenayah di United Kingdom namun ia menarik untuk
direnungkan. David Ormerod menyatakan seperti berikut:
“There is no obvious reason to assume that judging criminal
cases is any easier than judging in any other branch of law. It
requires the same skills of statutory interpretation; indeed, it
is arguably more challenging in this respect given the volume
and frequency of legislative amendment. It demands agility in
applying the sometimes radically and frequently changing
core common law principles, affecting the gravest offences of
murder and manslaughter. Criminal trials also give rise to their
share of constitutional issues and Human Rights Act
challenges. There may be nothing special in these respects,
but there are, I suggest, other matters that do render ‘criminal
judgecraft’ truly distinctive.”
Perintah Akhir
[82] Akhirnya OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela
diri bagi kesemua pertuduhan.
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
49
Bertarikh: 15hb. November 2023
(ROSLAN MAT NOR)
HAKIM
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA
TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
PIHAK-PIHAK:
Bagi Pihak Pendakwaan
Ain-Nur ‘Amiyerra Awod Abdullah
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur
Bagi Pihak OKT1
G Ravishankar
Tetuan R Shankar Gandhi & Associates
Kuala Lumpur
Bagi Pihak OKT2
Mohd Taufik Md Tahir
Tetuan Rizal Hashim
Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur
S/N hmqwGoBOp0CSdYznNr8FMQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 74,997 | Tika 2.6.0 |
CB-45A-4-09/2019 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH 1. ) TAN CAR CHUN 2. ) OOI ZHE XIAN | Perbicaraan penuh - Pertuduhan di bawah s. 39B, 12 (2) ADB 1952 - Dadah ditemui dalam bilik hotel - Terdapat CCTV yang menunjukkan terdapat beberapa orang individu - Saksi penting yang ada bersama OKT1 ketika membawa beg yang dikatakan terdapat dadah - OKT2 ditangkap beberapa jam selepas kejadian ketika OKT1 berada dalam bilik - OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebaskan dan dilepaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan - Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie | 15/11/2023 | YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=45685548-97aa-4eac-95c4-59488fe2e664&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - CB-45A-4-09-2019 PP v TAN CAR CHUN & OOI ZHE XIAN edited
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH
DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: CB-45A-4-09/2019,
CB-45-6-7-09/2019 DAN CB-45-7-09/2019
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
1. TAN CAR CHUN
(NO. K/P: 831018146655)
2. OOI ZHE XIAN
(NO. K/P: 871130025171)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Kes ini adalah berkaitan dengan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen
39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya (ADB) 1952 terhadap kedua-dua Orang
Kena Tuduh (OKT), seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 dan seksyen 9(1) Akta
Racun 1952. Pertuduhan-pertuduhan adalah seperti berikut:
15/11/2023 16:44:08
CB-45A-4-09/2019 Kand. 211
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Kes No. CB-45A-4-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya berat
bersih 103.77 gram methamphetamine, dan dengan itu kamu
telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B (1) (a)
Akta Dadah berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah
seksyen 39B (2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen
34 Kanun Keseksaan.
Kes No. CB-45-7-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya berat bersih 0.44 gram ketamine dan dengan itu kamu
telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta
Dadah berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen
12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun
Keseksaan.
Kes No. CB-45-6-09/2019
Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 29 Oktober 2018, jam lebih
kurang 09.50 pagi bertempat di bilik No. 20963, Tingkat 20, Tower
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
3, First World Hotel, Genting Highlands, di dalam daerah Bentong,
di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, dalam mencapai niat
bersama kamu telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu racun jenis
Etizolam seberat 169.11 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah
melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 9(1) Akta Racun
1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 32(2) Akta yang sama
dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
[2] Pertuduhan-pertuduhan telah dibacakan pertama kalinya pada
05.11.2019. Setelah beberapa kali pengurusan kes dijalankan, akhirnya
kes ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan pada 17 hingga 22.10.2020.
[3] Selepas daripada tarikh tersebut, perbicaraan kes ini tidak dapat
dijalankan dengan lancar ekoran daripada Pandemik Covid-19. Di
samping itu, terdapat penangguhan disebabkan oleh peguam OKT
yang telah menghidapi Covid-19 serta tidak dapat hadir ke mahkamah.
Pada masa yang sama OKT1 dan OKT2 juga terpaksa menjalankan
perintah kuarantin di penjara dan tidak dapat hadir ke mahkamah. Ini
telah menyebabkan kes ini hanya dapat dimulakan pada 24.03.2022.
[4] Perjalanan kes ini dari tarikh OKT-OKT dikemukakan di
mahkamah, perbicaraan dimulakan dan berakhir tidak sewajarnya
mempengaruhi mahkamah dan penentuan kes ini. Mahkamah
hendaklah memutuskan kes ini berdasarkan kepada keterangan-
keterangan saksi-saksi, eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan prinsip
undang-undang dan pemakaiannya dalam kes ini.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[5] Adalah sesuatu yang penting ditekankan bahawa keghairahan
untuk menyelesaikan sesuatu kes yang lama seperti ini tidak boleh
mengenepikan prinsip undang-undang dengan semata-mata untuk
menggambarkan penampilan statistik penyelesaian yang meyakinkan.
Begitu juga mahkamah tidak boleh memanggil OKT-OKT untuk
membela diri semata-mata bagi mendengar versi pembelaan
sedangkan satu kes prima facie telah tidak berjaya dibuktikan oleh
pihak pendakwaan. Ini adalah merupakan tonggak utama dalam
pentadbiran keadilan jenayah yang perlu ditegakkan dan dilaksanakan
dengan sepenuhnya.
Keterangan
[6] Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan 9 orang saksi sebelum
menutup kes pendakwaan. Ia melibatkan para pegawai dan anggota
polis, ahli kimia dan saksi-saksi awam. Di samping itu, rakaman CCTV
iaitu P39A juga dikemukakan sebagai keterangan pendakwaan.
Mahkamah ini dipertontonkan dengan rakaman CCTV tersebut.
Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa kejadian ini berlaku di dalam bilik
sebuah hotel.
[7] Pada 28.10.2018, bilik nombor 20963 Tingkat 20, Tower 3, First
World Hotel, Genting Highlands telah didaftarkan atas nama Tan Car
Chun iaitu OKT1. SP4 mengesahkan catatan check out date adalah
pada 29.10.2018. SP4 juga menyatakan bahawa bilik tersebut juga
dikongsi dengan seorang yang bernama Low Siew Yuen, (eksibit
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
P28A). Namun SP4 tidak pasti sama ada Low Siew Yuen mempunyai
akses kepada bilik tersebut. SP6 mengesahkannya.
[8] Pada 29.10.2018, SP5 telah membuat pemeriksaan di bilik
nombor 20963 Tingkat 20, Tower 3, First World Hotel, Genting
Highlands. Setelah SP4 dan pengurus hotel mengetuk pintu bilik
tersebut, ia telah dibuka oleh Tan Car Chun yang dicamkan sebagai
OKT1.
[9] SP5 menyatakan bahawa semasa memperkenalkan dirinya
sebagai pegawai polis, OKT1 telah cuba menutup pintu. SP5 telah
membuat laporan polis berkenaan insiden tersebut seperti di eksibit
P29. SP5 juga semasa ditunjukkan gambarajah kasar iaitu eksibit P36
dan telah menandakan “X2” adalah tempat di mana sebuah beg merah
hitam jenama Mayflower, eksibit P14A(1) yang di dalamnya terdapat
dadah.
[10] SP7 pegawai keselamatan hotel tersebut telah mengemukakan
rakaman CCTV berkenaan pergerakan di bilik 20963. Rakaman CCTV
tersebut telah ditayangkan di mahkamah. Ia menunjukkan pergerakan
beberapa orang individu keluar dan masuk ke bilik tersebut. Ringkasan
rakaman CCTV itu dinyatakan dalam penyataan saksi SP7 (PSSP7) di
muka surat 6 hingga 8.
[11] SP8 seorang saksi awam, dia telah menginap di bilik nombor
20962. Dia hadir ke situ atas panggilan ibu saudaranya, Normalis. SP8
saksikan OKT1 telah keluar dari bilik 20963 untuk membantu SP8
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
membuka pintu bilik 20962. SP8 sahkan seorang yang bernama Lim
Yee Chuan adalah kekasih Normalis. Lim Yee Chuan tidak
dikemukakan di mahkamah.
[12] P29 iaitu laporan polis oleh SP5 yang turut menyatakan
kenyataan kata-kata amaran OKT1 dan OKT2 kepada SP5 yang telah
diputuskan ditandakan sebagai P28B. Dalam P28B tertera seperti
berikut:
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
[13] SP2 ahli kimia dalam keterangannya telah mengesahkan
menerima barang-barang kes dari pegawai rampasan di eksibit P16
yang menurut beliau barang-barang kes itu adalah dadah berbahaya
jenis Heroin, Methamphetamine, Ketamin dan Etizolam.
[14] SP9 pegawai penyiasat telah mengambil tindakan yang dilakukan
semasa siasatan, iaitu lawatan ke tempat kejadian, pemperolehan
barang-barang kes, mengemukakan barang-barang kes kepada
Jabatan Kimia dan penggeledahan. SP9 sahkan bahawa Ooi Zhe Xian
iaitu OKT2 telah ditangkap melalui laporan polis P30.
[15] SP9 juga mengesahkan dia telah berusaha mengesan penama
Lim Yee Chuan tetapi gagal. SP9 telah ditayangkan dengan rakaman
CCTV. SP9 menyatakan siasatan menunjukkan bahawa bilik 20963
adalah didaftarkan atas nama OKT1. SP9 juga nyatakan siasatan
terhadap rakaman CCTV menunjukkan SP5 telah mengetuk pintu bilik
20963. OKT1 membuka pintu bilik diiringi oleh Lim Yee Chuan.
[16] Keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa kesan cap jari telah
diambil gambar di eksibit P21(1-12). Laporan hasil pemeriksaan cap
jari adalah tidak boleh dibuat perbandingan kerana tidak cukup sifat
seperti yang dinyatakan di P41.
[17] Ujian acupakai pakaian yang dijumpai di tempat kejadian telah
dimaklumkan pakaian itu diambil dari beg hitam merah yang dijumpai
dalam beg tersebut. Ia dapat di lihat 8 keping gambar di P46(1-8).
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
Analisa
[18] Adalah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap bahawa di akhir kes
pendakwaan adalah menjadi tugas pendakwaan untuk membuktikan
satu kes prima facie. Frasa prima facie telah dijelaskan di
bawah seksyen 180 KPJ seperti berikut:
"180 Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution
(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."
[19] Pendekatan yang perlu digunakan oleh mahkamah ketika
memutuskan sama ada terdapatnya satu kes prima facie di akhir kes
pendakwaan telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam
kes Abdullah Atan v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 9 CLJ 151 yang
menyatakan bagi tujuan untuk menentukan sama ada terdapat
kes prima facie mahkamah perlu menggunakan anggapan inferen,
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
selain daripada itu keterangan langsung bagi membuktikan satu
kes prima facie. Ini dinyatakan seperti berikut:
“[42] The purpose of s. 180(4) CPC was thus not to exclude
the use of presumptions, inferences, or anything other than
direct evidence, to establish a prima facie case. On the
contrary:
(i) the Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau itself expressly envisaged
that inferences may be drawn from the primary facts adduced,
and the court must presume such inferences to be true at the
close of the prosecution's case; and
(ii) statutory presumptions have often been invoked by the
prosecution in order to establish a prima facie case of drug
trafficking in previous cases. No concern was raised in
Parliament as to the use of presumptions when considering
amendments to s. 180 of the CPC (see Mohamad Radhi
Yaakob v. PP [1991] 3 CLJ 2073; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 311;
[1991] 3 MLJ 169; and Tan Boon Kean v. PP [1995] 4 CLJ
456; [1995] 3 MLJ 514).
[43] Section 180(4) of the CPC must be read in light of its
context and legislative purpose. By so doing, the phrase
"credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence"
in s. 180(4) means that the prosecution may prove each
ingredient of the offence either:
(i) by adducing credible direct evidence of that ingredient;
(ii) by drawing inferences of fact, ie, adducing credible
circumstantial evidence, from which the ingredient can be
inferred; or
(iii) by invoking presumptions of law, ie, adducing credible
evidence of the relevant basic facts, to invoke a statutory
presumption that the ingredient exists.
[44] As to what constitutes 'a prima facie' case, the judgment
of Vincent Ng J (as he then was) in PP v. Ong Cheng Heong
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[1998] 4 CLJ 209 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong
(supra) was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we
respectfully endorse His Lordship's views, at p. 225:
What then constitutes a 'prima facie case'? 'Prima facie'
means on the face of it or at first glance.... perhaps the
most appropriate definition of 'a prima facie case' could be
found in the Oxford Companion of Law (p. 987), which has
it as: "A case which is sufficient for an answer. While prima
facie evidence is evidence which is sufficient to establish a
fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but is
not conclusive". It would follow that there should be
credible evidence on each and every ingredient of the
offence. Credible evidence is evidence which has been
filtered and which has gone through the process of
evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be acted
upon, should be rejected. (emphasis added)
At p. 224, His Lordship said:
... to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation,
on a prima facie basis, of each and every essential
ingredient of the charge as tested in cross-examination. In
other words, maximum evaluation connotes quantitative
rather than qualitative evaluation of the evidence; with
focus more on the evidential burden in terms of evidence
led, rather than the persuasive burden in terms of
qualitative degree of proof."
Elemen Kesalahan
(a) Dadah yang dijumpai adalah dadah berbahaya
[20] Dalam kes ini fakta bahawa dadah-dadah yang ditemui di bilik
tersebut adalah merupakan dadah merbahaya sudah terang lagi
bersuluh berdasarkan kepada laporan kimia yang disediakan oleh ahli
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
kimia. Dalam laporan tersebut dinyatakan bahawa dadah-dadah yang
diperiksanya setelah dihantar oleh pegawai penyiasat adalah
merupakan dadah berbahaya yang dijadualkan di bawah ADB 1952. Ini
bermakna elemen pertama bagi kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan
terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan.
[21] Pada masa yang sama mahkamah juga mengambil perhatian
kepada soalan-soalan balas yang dikemukakan oleh peguam OKT-OKT
terhadap ahli kimia yang mencadangkan bahawa ujian yang dilakukan
oleh beliau adalah tidak tepat. Oleh itu laporan yang disediakan oleh
ahli kimia tersebut adalah cacat dan tidak tepat. Namun demikian
mahkamah berpendapat soalan-soalan sedemikian tidak dapat
menggoyahkan keterangan ahli kimia. Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa
ujian yang dijalankan adalah teratur dan keputusan yang dikeluarkan
melalui laporan kimia tersebut dan keterangan ahli kimia diterima oleh
mahkamah ini. Oleh itu Pendakwa Raya telah membuktikan elemen
pertama pertuduhan-pertuduhan terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2.
(b) Pemilikan dadah
Adakah dadah-dadah tersebut dalam pemilikan OKT1 dan OKT2
[22] Keterangan SP5 menunjukkan bahawa semasa serbuan dibuat di
bilik 20963, OKT1 berada dalam bilik tersebut di mana dadah-dadah
dijumpai. SP5 menyatakan bahawa OKT1 cuba menghalang pintu itu
dari dibuka.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
[23] Selain daripada itu imej dalam rakaman CCTV, eksibit P39A(2)
juga telah disahkan oleh SP5 dan SP7 serta SP9 mendapati OKT1
dilihat ada memasuki bilik tersebut. Kali terakhir OKT1 dilihat memasuki
bilik tersebut pada 29.10.2018, 0728-0729 hours. Ini ditambah pula
dengan keterangan SP5 yang mengesahkan dadah-dadah tersebut
ditemui berdekatan dengan OKT1 seperti gambarajah kasar, P36.
[24] Seterusnya keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa acupakai
pakaian yang ditemui dalam bilik tersebut adalah berjaya dilakukan ke
atas OKT1 dan OKT2.
[25] Selain daripada itu SP4 mengesahkan kunci bilik 20963 itu
diberikan kepada OKT1. Ini turut disahkan oleh SP8 yang menyatakan
orang yang membantunya untuk membuka pintu bilik 20962 adalah
OKT1 yang keluar dari bilik 20963.
[26] Keterangan juga menunjukkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut
berada di tempat dalam gambarajah kasar semasa OKT1 dijumpai
berada dalam bilik tersebut.
[27] Namun begitu, laporan cap jari tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa
cap jari OKT1 ada para barang kes tersebut bagi menyokong OKT1
mempunyai kawalan atau milikan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut.
[28] Sementara bagi OKT2 pula, keterangan SP5 menyatakan
bahawa OKT2 ditangkap pada jam 10.30 pagi seperti yang dinyatakan
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
dalam laporan polis Genting Highlands/005252/18, eksibit P30. OKT1
telah ditangkap pada jam 9.50 pagi seperti di P29.
[29] Dalam kes ini tayangan CCTV di mahkamah menunjukkan imej
beberapa orang lelaki yang telah dicamkan oleh SP7, SP5 dan SP6.
Imej tersebut menunjukkan ada di antara mereka yang masuk ke bilik
20963 ada yang membawa beg. Ini menunjukkan bahawa selain
daripada OKT1 dan OKT2 salah seorang individu yang dilihat melalui
CCTV itu ialah Lim Yee Chuan dan menurut keterangan pegawai
penyiasat penama Lim Yee Chuan mengiringi OKT1 membuka pintu
bilik tersebut yang dapat dilihat daripada rakaman CCTV. SP9
menyatakan:
S : Kita pergi ke klip yang pertama 28.10.2018 pada jam
2228 hours. Boleh Inspektor terangkan kepada
mahkamah klip ini berkenaan apa?
J : Pada tarikh 28.10.2018 masa 2228 hours di mana
suspek Tan Car Chun dan Lim Yee Chuan telah masuk
ke bilik 20963 dan Tan Car Chun membawa beg
sandang warna hitam merah dan beg silang warna
kuning coklat.
S : Melalui rakaman ini boleh Inspektor terangkan yang
mana satu penama Tan Car Chun dan yang mana satu
penama Lim Yee Chuan?
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
J : Tan Car Chun iaitu yang sedang menggalas beg dan
Lim Yee Chuan yang berada di sebelah yang
menggalas beg tersebut.
S : Kita pergi kepada klip yang kedua ini. Okay boleh
berhenti. Untuk rakaman klip yang seterusnya apa
keterangan rakaman tersebut?
J : Rakaman tersebut dilihat Lim Yee Chuan telah keluar
dari bilik 20963.
S : Seterusnya saya pohon dimainkan rakaman 0025
hours. Apa keterangan rakaman? Boleh Inspektor
terangkan berkenaan rakaman tersebut?
J : Rakaman tersebut telah dilihat 4 individu iaitu Tan Car
Chun yang telah keluar dari bilik 20963. Turut kelihatan
di depan bilik tersebut adalah penama Syawal Rizal,
penama Alif iaitu rakan kepada Rizal dan juga penama
Yasir, kawan kepada Rizal juga.
[30] Keterangan yang juga menunjukkan SP9 hanya cuba mengesan
Lim Yee Chuan pada tahun 2023 melalui laporan polis Gemencheh
373/23, eksibit P43. Sementara itu carian daripada Jabatan
Pendaftaran Negara dibuat pada 05.05.2023. Pada tahun 2019, SP9
sahkan dia tidak mencari Lim Yee Chuan. Adalah didapati tiada
keterangan sebelum 2023 usaha pengesanan Lim Yee Chuan.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[31] SP9 mengesahkan bahawa di bilik 20963 pintunya dibuka oleh
OKT1. SP9 menyatakan Lim Yee Chuan mengiringi OKT1 tetapi OKT1
yang membawa beg merah di mana dadah-dadah itu ditemui.
Ketiadaan Lim Yee Chuan menyebabkan tiada kepastian bahawa beg
merah itu adalah kepunyaan OKT1 atau Lim Yee Chuan. Keterangan
yang menunjukkan OKT1 membawa beg merah tersebut pada hemat
mahkamah tidak dapat menolak kemungkinan dadah-dadah itu berada
dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan Lim Yee Chuan. Keterangan
menunjukkan OKT2 tidak berada dalam bilik tersebut semasa serbuan
dan hanya ditahan kemudian.
[32] Mahkamah juga perlu meneliti kenyataan OKT1 dalam P28B yang
menyatakan bahawa dadah itu bukan kepunyaannya tetapi hanya
dadah di atas meja sahaja. OKT1 juga mengesahkan bahawa bilik
tersebut disewa olehnya. Adakah dengan kenyataan OKT1 ini telah
mengesahkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut adalah dalam milikan
OKT1. Dalam kes ini mahkamah perlu membezakan di antara hakmilik
dadah-dadah tersebut dengan dadah-dadah itu berada dalam milikan
OKT1 dan OKT2. Mahkamah merujuk PP v Denish Madhavan [2009]
2 CLJ 209 dan Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] MLJ 237.
[33] Mahkamah ini juga perlu meneliti kenyataan OKT1 melalui eksibit
P28B apabila dikemukakan soalan-soalan seperti berikut:
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
[34] SP5 semasa pemeriksaan balas berkenaan isu ini iaitu berkaitan
dengan perkataan dadah yang dilihat ditambah masuk dalam
kenyataan tersebut telah menjelaskan seperti berikut:
S : Sekarang lihat kepada dokumen kata-kata amaran yang
telah kamu kemukakan sebagai eksibit P28B. If I may
read soalan 1, lihat kepada soalan 1. Soalan: Adakah
awak ada simpan barang salah dadah di dalam bilik?
Jawapan: Barang itu bukan saya punya. Perkataan yang
mustahak di sini adalah itu. Itu maksudnya barang sudah
dijumpa. That barang.
J : Bukan maksud itu Yang Arif.
S : Jadi mengapa ada perkataan itu di sini?
J : Tertuduh pada masa itu Tertuduh tahu ada sesuatu
barang di simpan di dalam bilik.
S : Don’t explain to much into this. Jawab soalan ini sahaja.
Tidak ada soalan tentang tentang pengetahuan Tertuduh.
Just soalan ini, Adakah awak ada simpan barang salah
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
dadah di dalam bilik? Jawapan dia adalah barang itu
bukan saya punya which means that things is not mine,
yang membawa maksud pada masa soalan ini ditanya
barang kes dadah sudahpun dijumpai?
J : Tidak setuju.
S : Now soalan kedua, dimanakah barang kes dadah awak
simpan jawapan saya punya barang dan ada tambahan
perkataan dadah, nampak tak ada tambahan, is an
addition, betul?
J : Betul.
S : Perkataan dadah tersebut merupakan satu tambahan ya?
Lihat pada dokumen itu?
J : Apa maksud tambahan?
S : Additionlah, maksud dia, it is not in the same line?
J : Dadah itu yang ditulis saya …
S : Merupakan satu tambahan kepada ayat yang asal?
J : Sebelum … Ayat tidak lengkap saya telah tambah
semula.
S : Soalan saya perkataan dadah di jawapan kedua
merupakan satu tambahan kepada jawapan yang telah
diberi?
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
J : Ini adalah jawapan yang Tertuduh bagi dan saya tuliskan.
S : Boleh tolong jawab soalan saya tak? I think you
understand my question. Please answer my question and
don’t play around like a fool. Soalan saya adalah
perkataan dadah yang terdapat di jawapan nombor 2
merupakan satu tambahan kepada jawapan yang telah
diberi mula-mula oleh Tertuduh?
J : Bukan.
S : Bukan tambahan?
J : Bukan tambahan.
S : So maksud dia kalau bukan tambahan Tertuduh
perkataan asal telah menyatakan saya punya barang
dadah simpan atas meja sahaja. Is it?
J : Tertuduh yang nyatakan.
S : Dan mengapa ada dadah tidak selari atau tidak sama
dengan perkataan-perkataan lain dalam ayat tersebut?
J : Maksudnya masa saya tulis, saya mahu tulis dadah, terus
tulis simpan maksudnya tercicir dadah.
S : Tercicir okay. Saya mencadangkan kepada kamu
perkataan dadah yang terdapat pada ayat pada jawapan
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
nombor 2 adalah satu tambahan yang dibuat
terkemudian?
J : Tidak setuju.
[35] Mahkamah ini juga meneliti salinan asal penyataan tersebut
mendapati tiada sebarang tandatangan ringkas bagi mengesahkan
siapakah yang telah meletakkan perkataan dadah dalam penyataan
tersebut. Adakah ia dibuat oleh SP5 atau dibuat sendiri oleh SP5 atau
ditulis atas penyataan yang dibuat oleh OKT1.
[36] Pada hemat mahkamah kenyataan yang dibuat di bawah P28B
adalah keterangan mustahak untuk mengaitkan dadah-dadah tersebut
dengan OKT1. Ini bermakna sekiranya mahkamah menerima eksibit
P28B itu maka ia sudah menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya hubungan
di antara OKT1 dengan dadah-dadah tersebut, sekurang-kurangnya
dadah-dadah yang dikatakan berada di atas meja. Oleh yang demikian
mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dan memastikan bahawa tiada terdapat
sebarang kecurigaan terhadap kandungan kenyataan tersebut.
[37] Mahkamah tidak boleh dengan sewenang-wenangnya menerima
kenyataan di P28B tersebut. Ia boleh dilakukan sedemikian sekiranya
tiada sebarang petanda yang boleh menimbulkan kecurigaan kepada
kesahihan kenyataan yang dinyatakan dalam P28B tersebut
terutamanya penambahan perkataan dadah di situ. Mahkamah perlu
berhati-hati dan memberikan sebarang faedah kesangsian (benefit of
doubt) terhadap P28B ini kepada OKT1. Dalam kes ini mahkamah
berpendapat P28B tidak menunjukkan bahawa OKT1 mempunyai
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut.
Mahkamah ini tidak boleh bersandarkan kepada P28B untuk
memutuskan bahawa OKT1 mempunyai pemilikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan dadah-dadah tersebut.
[38] Begitu juga dengan kenyataan yang diberikan oleh OKT2.
Mahkamah ini berpendapat seperti yang dinyatakan terhadap
kenyataan OKT1, mahkamah harus berhati-hati dalam menerima
keterangan ini terhadap OKT2. Mahkamah mendapati terdapat
keraguan terhadap dokumen dan isi kandungannya yang dikemukakan
sebagai P28B tersebut. Oleh itu pihak pendakwaan tidak dapat
menunjukkan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut adalah dalam milikan,
kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 dengan bersandarkan
kepada dokumen P28B.
Adakah kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi-saksi
terutamanya Lim Yee Chuan adalah membolehkan pemakaian
seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai
[39] Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa budi bicara untuk
memanggil seseorang saksi adalah terletak kepada pihak pendakwaan.
Pihak pendakwaan boleh menimbangkan saksi yang difikirkan perlu
dikemukakan di mahkamah. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Khoon
Chye Hin v PP [1961] 1 MLJ 105 di mana Yang Amat Arif Thomson,
Ketua Hakim Negara menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
“It is, of course, well settled that in a criminal case prosecuting
counsel, provided there is no wrong motive, has a discretion
as to whether or not to call any particular witness and in
particular has a discretion not to call in support of his case a
witness whom he does not believe to be a witness of truth.”
[40] Ini juga telah dinyatakan terlebih dahulu dalam kes Adel
Muhammed El Dabbah v A-G for Palestine [1944] AC 156 di mana
Lord Thankerton menyatakan seperti berikut:
“While their Lordships agree that there was no obligation on
the prosecution to tender these witnesses, and, therefore, this
contention of the present appellant fails, their Lordships doubt
whether the rule of practice as expressed by the Court of
Criminal Appeal sufficiently recognizes that the prosecutor
has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called for the
prosecution, and the court will not interfere with the exercise
of that discretion, unless, perhaps, it can be shown that the
prosecutor has been influenced by some oblique motive.”
[41] Ia juga telah dinyatakan juga oleh Mahkamah Agong dalam kes
Ti Chuee Hiang v PP [1995] 2 MLJ 433 yang menjelaskan budi bicara
pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil saksi perlu dilakukan bagi
kepentingan keadilan. Ini dinyatakan oleh YA Hakim Edgar Joseph JR
seperti berikut:
“We recognize that the function of the prosecution is to
prosecute, and that does not mean that it must discharge the
functions both of the prosecution and the defence.
On the other hand, it is clear law that the prosecution must
have in court all witnesses from whom statements have been
taken, but they have a discretion whether to call them or not.
(See Teh Lee Tong v PP [1956] MLJ 194.) That discretion,
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
however, must be exercised having regard to the interests of
justice, which includes being fair to the accused (per Lord
Parker CJ in R v Oliva [1965] 3 All ER 116 at p 122; [1965] 2
WLR 1028 at p 1035), and to call witnesses essential to the
unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is
based, whether the effect of their testimony is for or against
the prosecution (per Lord Roche in the Ceylon Privy Council
case of Seneviratne v R [1936] 3 All ER 36 at p 49, applied
in R v Nugent [1977] 3 All ER 662; [1977] 1 WLR 789).”
[42] Malahan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Rosli bin Yusof v
PP [2021] 4 MLJ 479 telah menyatakan budi bicara pihak pendakwaan
untuk memanggil saksi dengan tanggungjawab pihak pendakwaan
untuk membuktikan kes pendakwaan seperti berikut:
“[38] In our view, it is settled law based on the authorities
cited to us by the learned counsel for the appellant in his
submission that the prosecution has discretion whether to call
any particular witness, but such discretion is subject to two
limitations, vis: (a) the discretion must be exercised with due
regard to considerations of fairness and good faith; and (b)
the witnesses who had been investigated by the police and
from whom the statements have been recorded must be
offered to the defence.”
[43] Adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa budi bicara memanggil saksi-
saksi adalah dalam ruang lingkup budi bicara pendakwaan. Namun ia
tertakluk kepada tanggungjawab Pendakwa Raya untuk membuktikan
kesnya dan apa yang lebih penting ialah sama ada kegagalan
memanggil saksi tersebut juga perlu dikaitkan dengan kepentingan
keadilan. Sekiranya kegagalan memanggil saksi tersebut
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
menyebabkan keadilan tidak dapat ditegakkan ia boleh mengatasi budi
bicara Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan saksi.
[44] Dalam kes ini Lim Yee Chuan adalah saksi yang terlibat langsung
dalam kejadian ini. Ia dapat dilihat melalui keterangan saksi-saksi yang
melihat Lim Yee Chuan masuk bersama-sama ke dalam bilik di mana
OKT1 ditahan dan OKT2 ditangkap selepas itu. Ini bermakna kehadiran
Lim Yee Chuan adalah penting kepada kes pendakwaan bagi
menunjukkan dadah-dadah tersebut di dalam milikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan OKT1, OKT2 atau berada dalam milikan, pengetahuan
dan kawalan Lim Yee Chuan. Ia adalah berkaitan langsung dengan isu
yang seterusnya iaitu akses kepada bilik tersebut yang akan dinyatakan
selepas ini.
[45] Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa SP9 telah membuat
percubaan untuk mengesan Lim Yee Chuan hanya pada tahun 2023.
Pegawai penyiasat dalam keterangan menyatakan beliau tidak
mengesan pada tahun 2018, 2019 2020, 2021 dan 2022. Mahkamah
juga mendapati bahawa tiada alasan yang memuaskan diberikan oleh
pegawai penyiasat berkenaan kegagalan beliau mengesan saksi ini
lebih awal.
[46] Persoalannya ialah adakah mahkamah ini boleh menerima alasan
kegagalan mengemukakan Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi adalah
sesuatu yang wajar. Mahkamah berpendapat berdasarkan keterangan
dan usaha pengesanan Lim Yee Chuan serta kedudukannya sebagai
saksi penting dalam kes ini tidak membolehkan ketidakhadiran saksi
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
tersebut dipandang enteng disebabkan ia akan menimbulkan
ketidakadilan kepada OKT-OKT berkenaan milikan, pengetahuan dan
kawalan dadah-dadah tersebut serta berkait dengan isu askes kepada
bilik tersebut.
[47] Selain daripada itu tiada juga keterangan yang menunjukkan
bahawa Lim Yee Chuan adalah seorang pemberi maklumat (informer)
yang tertakluk kepada peruntukan di bawah seksyen 40 ADB 1952.
Namun begitu mahkamah juga perlu menimbangkan bahawa
kegagalan Pendakwa Raya memanggil saksi-saksi bukanlah
semestinya faktor yang akan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. Misalnya
dalam kes (1) Namasiyiam (2) Rajindran (3) Goh Chin Peng and (4)
Ng Ah Kiat v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 336 salah seorang saksi yang dikatakan
rakan sejenayah telah tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi dalam kes tersebut.
Namun demikian Mahkamah Agong berpendapat ianya tidak
menjejaskan kes pendakwaan disebabkan terdapatnya keterangan-
keterangan lain di mana ketiadaan saksi tersebut tidak membawa apa-
apa perbezaan.
“Clearly, Francis was a particeps criminis, an accomplice in
the true sense of the word. It was submitted that the absence
of Francis at the trial would raise the presumption
under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act unfavourable to the
prosecution. Be that as it may, in the light of overwhelming
prosecution evidence as stated earlier, we do not think that
the presence of Francis, had he been available, would have
made any difference.”
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
[48] Sebaliknya dalam kes ini kehadiran Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi
akan mengubah keadaan kes ini dan mahkamah dapat menentukan
sama ada milikan dadah-dadah tersebut adalah OKT1, OKT2 atau
orang lain iaitu Lim Yee Chuan. Sekiranya tiada keterangan daripada
rakaman CCTV yang menunjukkan keberadaan Lim Yee Chuan maka
ketiadaan Lim Yee Chuan tidak akan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan.
Namun begitu dalam kes ini kehadiran Lim Yee Chuan dan beberapa
orang saksi lain yang disahkan oleh pegawai penyiasat yang tidak
dirakam percakapan mereka adalah sesuatu yang mustahak diberikan
perhatian oleh mahkamah dalam menentukan sama ada dadah-dadah
tersebut berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 atau
OKT2.
[49] Oleh itu mahkamah ini berpendapat kegagalan pihak
pendakwaan mengemukakan Lim Yee Chuan sebagai saksi penting
dalam kes ini adalah mewajarkan pemakaian anggapan di bawah
seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950. Mahkamah sedar bahawa
pemakaian seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 tidak boleh
sewenang-wenangnya digunakan terhadap pendakwaan seperti yang
dinyatakan dalam kes Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492 seperti
berikut:
“Adverse inference under that illustration can only be drawn if
there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not
merely on account of failure to obtain evidence. It may be
drawn from withholding not just any document, but material
document by a party in his possession, or for non-production
of not just any witness but an important and material witness
to the case.”
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
[50] Dalam kes Munusamy (supra) keterangan menunjukkan bahawa
seorang ahli kimia yang tidak dapat mengemukakan perakuan ujian
ketepatan alat sukatan daripada Merinyu (Inspektor) Timbang dan
Sukat. Ini adalah disebabkan ahli kimia tersebut mengesahkan bahawa
dia tidak mempunyai butiran berkenaan alatan tersebut sebelum tahun
1985. Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seksyen 114 (g) Akta
Keterangan 1950 tidak terpakai dapat kes tersebut.
[51] Sebaliknya, Lim Yee Chuan adalah saksi penting dalam kes ini.
Dia telah diketahui oleh pegawai penyiasat dan imejnya dapat dilihat
melalui rakaman CCTV semenjak 2018 dan hanya dikesan pada 2023.
Ia jelas menunjukkan bahawa keterangan Lim Yee Chuan tidak
diketengahkan untuk penelitian mahkamah ini bagi membantu
mahkamah meneliti keterangan Lim Yee Chuan bersama-sama dengan
keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan yang lain. Oleh itu mahkamah
mendapati seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai kepada
pihak pendakwaan.
Akses
[52] Dalam kes ini keterangan yang ada ialah OKT1 diserahkan kad
kunci bilik tersebut, OKT1 berada dalam bilik tersebut semasa serbuan
dibuat, OKT1 bersama seorang Lim Yee Chuan. OKT2 hanya bersama-
sama OKT1 di bilik tersebut. Rakaman CCTV menunjukkan pergerakan
keluar masuk bilik tersebut oleh beberapa orang individu lain. Individu-
individu yang dikenalpasti itu ada yang tidak dapat dikesan dan ada
yang tidak diambil keterangannya.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
[53] Adakah keterangan OKT1 di P28B itu dapat menunjukkan
bahawa dadah-dadah itu dalam milikan OKT1? Hakikat yang tidak
dapat dinafikan bahawa bilik tersebut dapat diakses oleh individu-
individu yang lain sepanjang rakaman CCTV sebelum bilik tersebut
diserbu oleh pihak polis. Ini adalah seperti apa yang berlaku dalam kes
Lee Chee Meng v PP [1992] 1 MLJ 322 di mana Mahkamah
Persekutuan menyatakan:
“The totality of the evidence did not support the justification.
Firstly, it is to be stressed that the burden on the appellant
was merely to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution
case. Where the presumption under s 37(da) is invoked the
burden on the defence was only on the balance of
probabilities.
The other aspect of the evidence in this case must be
examined. It would seem that the learned trial judge did not
consider the evidence that the said Yoong Thien Soong
(tenant of room A) was also arrested at the same time with
four packets of drugs found in the room. Although the learned
judge recognized the evidence relating to the contention that
the door to room B could not be locked with the key at the
material time, yet he did not give sufficient consideration to
that evidence. In fact contrary to the evidence, the learned trial
judge made a number of speculations to justify his conclusion,
namely, that the padlock (exh P28) could be used to padlock
room B, and that the appellant could have purchased another
padlock and holding that the air-cooler and the mini-compo
were valuable items and that the shoe boxes were meant for
storage of drugs. In fact, the doubt as to exclusive use of room
B by the appellant alone could be sufficient ground to allow
the appeal.”
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
[54] Sementara itu dalam kes Abdullah Zawawi bin Yusoff v PP
[1993] 3 MLJ 1 kewujudan orang lain yang berkemungkinan
mempunyai akses kepada kawasan pembinaan yang belum siap telah
diputuskan sebagai keadaan yang menunjukkan terdapatnya
kemungkinan akses oleh pihak lain.
“The judge was of the view that though the house was still
under construction there was no evidence to show that there
had been access to the house through the uncompleted part.
With respect, given the fact that this was a case where the
police were acting on a tip-off, undoubtedly by an informer,
who might have been a paid informer, and the further fact that
the house was still under construction, the onus was not on
the defence to prove possibility of access by others but on the
prosecution to exclude such possibility. Of course, the
defence could besides taking advantage of infirmities in the
prosecution case in this regard, have gone further, and shown
the possibility of access by others, but this they were not, in
law, obliged to do.
To return to the judgment, in fairness to the judge, he did
pursue the point about the possibility of a plant. What he said
was this:
Counsel also makes a faint insinuation of the possible
involvement of Mohammad bin Mohd Amin in the
commission of the alleged offence, and that could be the
reason why he is scared to come to court. I have given a
thorough thought to such a possibility but am unable to
accept it as I find there is no conceivable reason for
Mohammad to frame the first accused. Most of the time
when he was in Gua Musang, he stayed with the first
accused. He even worked for him and more or less
regarded himself as part of the family. I cannot by any
stretch of imagination think of him having a plan to
implicate the person who had been more than a friend to
him. There is nothing to show that he would stand to gain
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
by it. The insinuation without more remains only an
insinuation, without any evidence to link Mohammad with
the alleged offence.
We recognize the force of the judge's reasoning, but motive is
not always an easy matter to prove, and there was the
testimony of ASP Haji Hamzah bin Awang (PW10), who took
over investigations in the case, that he had attempted to
secure the attendance of Mohammad at the trial but failed
because Mohammad, who was by then living in Kampong
Dusun Nyior, Narathiwat, Thailand, did not dare to come to
Malaysia. There was also evidence that most of the time when
he was in Gua Musang, Mohammad stayed with the
appellant. In other words, he had liberal access to the house.
Then, again, there was the evidence of his presence in the
house at the time of the police raid and his arrest by the police.
These are matters upon which we did not place undue stress
and we therefore mention it, only in passing, to show that
Mohammad was a possible suspect.
But there was more substance in the point (not raised by
counsel or considered by the judge) that the wife of the
appellant might have concealed the drugs in the box without
the appellant being a party to such act even though he might
have known about it. The charge, be it noted, was trafficking
in dangerous drugs and it will be recalled, that it was the
conduct of the wife which led to the discovery of the drugs,
and certainly the case for the prosecution was that she was
involved, for why else was she prosecuted jointly with the
appellant? Indeed, the judge ruled, at the close of the case for
the prosecution, that she had a case to answer though,
admittedly, at the close of the case for the defence, he did
acquit her saying in the final part of his judgment:
However, I am satisfied the second accused has
succeeded in rebutting the presumptions, thereby
creating a doubt on the case against her. I therefore
acquit and discharge her. There is no appeal against her
acquittal.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
He did not, however, give any reasons for that conclusion and
we note that the wife did not implicate the appellant in any
way, nor was there any evidence that they were acting in
concert.”
[55] Seterusnya dalam kes Gooi Loo Seng v PP [1993] 2 MLJ 137
Mahkamah Agong memutuskan bahawa kehadiran teman wanita
Tertuduh yang mempunyai kunci telah menunjukkan bahawa
terdapatnya akses kepada bilik tidur tersebut oleh orang lain
menyebabkan sabitan telah diketepikan.
“Had the trial judge approached the prosecution case in the
manner we have indicated, we cannot confidently say that he
would or must inevitably have rejected the appellant's version
that he had no knowledge of the presence of the heroin in the
bedroom and that it could have been hidden there by others
having access to the bedroom in his absence.
We need hardly add, that even if the appellant had known of
the presence of the heroin in his bedroom, that by itself would
not have been sufficient to establish that he was in possession
or in control of it given the fact that others too, and certainly
his girlfriend Tan Ah Kwai, had access to the bedroom and
could have concealed the heroin there. At the end of the day,
this was a case of the proverbial cap which might have fitted
not just the head of the appellant but that of others as well.”
[56] Dalam kes ini tindakan beberapa orang individu-individu keluar
masuk bilik tersebut menunjukkan bahawa bilik tersebut boleh diakses
oleh orang lain selain daripada OKT1 dan OKT2. Namun mahkamah
juga tidak sewajarnya secara automatik menyatakan bahawa orang lain
mempunyai akses kepada bilik tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan kad bilik
tersebut diserahkan kepada OKT1 dan OKT2 juga menjadi penghuni di
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
bilik tersebut. Ini ditambah pula dengan tiada keterangan yang
menunjukkan bahawa semasa keluar masuk bilik tersebut oleh individu-
individu tersebut beg yang mana dadah-dadah itu ditemui telah juga
dibawa keluar oleh mana-mana individu tersebut semasa keluar masuk
dari bilik tersebut.
[57] Selain daripada itu tiada keterangan yang dikemukakan
berkenaan apakah yang berlaku dalam bilik tersebut semasa individu-
individu tersebut dikatakan berada dalam bilik tersebut. Oleh yang
demikian keterangan individu-individu yang dilihat memasuki bilik
tersebut adalah mustahak untuk mengesahkan bahawa dadah tidak
mempunyai kaitan dengan saksi-saksi tersebut melainkan ianya adalah
berkaitan dengan OKT1 dan OKT2 sahaja.
[58] Hakikatnya ialah terdapatnya beberapa orang yang mempunyai
akses kepada bilik tersebut. Ketiadaan individu-individu sebagai saksi
telah menyebabkan terdapat kemungkinan dadah-dadah tersebut
bukannya berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan
OKT2. Ini ditambah pula dengan laporan cap jari dan DNA yang tidak
dapat menunjukkan kaitan OKT1 dan OKT2 dengan dadah tersebut.
Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa ketidaaan pengemukakan
laporan cap jari dan DNA tidak sewajarnya dijadikan alasan untuk
menyatakan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes
prima facie. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v.
Mansor Md. Rashid & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 233 seperti berikut:
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
“We also find ourselves in agreement with the learned Deputy
Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge had erred in law
when he faulted PW13 the investigating officer for not lifting
the finger prints off the wrappings of the cannabis and for not
taking photographs of the street light in front of the house No.
129. Where the identity of a culprit is in question or required
to be proved, fingerprint evidence would be of great
significance and immense value. In the present case under
appeal, however, the charge alleged trafficking in the form of
sale and there is evidence indicating the identities of the
alleged offenders and the sale transaction. Fingerprint
evidence on the newspaper wrapping, white plastic and the
loytape, therefore, assumes little value or significance.”
[59] Namun demikian dalam kes tersebut keterangan pendakwaan
ialah terdapatnya urus niaga pembelian dan penjualan dadah-dadah di
mana identiti Tertuduh tidak menjadi isu dalam kes tersebut. Prinsip
dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Mansor Md. Rashid & Anor (supra)
telah diikuti oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes PP v Ebrahim
Mirzaie Hj Ebrahim Deh Mokhtar [2017] 1 CLJ 575 dan PP v Rosli
Rikidin [2023] 1 LNS 1849.
[60] Dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati bahawa kegagalan untuk
memanggil saksi-saksi yang mempunyai akses kepada bilik tersebut
menyebabkan pihak pendakwaan tidak dapat membuktikan bahawa
OKT-OKT mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan kepada
dadah-dadah tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan persoalan berikut akan
timbul iaitu:
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
(a) Adakah dadah-dadah tersebut dimiliki oleh individu-individu
yang dilihat dalam rakaman CCTV tersebut yang telah
masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut; dan
(b) Adakah dadah-dadah itu dibawa masuk ke dalam bilik
tersebut bersama-sama dengan beg yang dibawa oleh
OKT1 seperti yang tertera dalam rakaman CCTV atau
dibawa oleh individu lain.
[61] Ia boleh menyebabkan mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa
dadah-dadah tersebut tidak dibuktikan berada dalam milikan, kawalan
dan pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 sebaliknya dadah-dadah tersebut
berada dalam milikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan individu-individu lain
yang tertera imej mereka dalam rakaman CCTV tersebut. Oleh itu
kehadiran saksi-saksi tersebut adalah penting bagi bagi menyokong kes
prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan dan membuktikan elemen
pemilikan dadah-dadah tersebut.
[62] Oleh itu penelitian kepada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan
dan eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan mahkamah berpendapat pihak
pendakwaan gagal membuktikan OKT1 dan OKT2 mempunyai milikan,
kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut di akhir kes
pendakwaan.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
(c) Pengedaran Dadah
[63] Setelah mahkamah ini meneliti saksi-saksi pendakwaan
mahkamah berpendapat pendakwaan gagal membuktikan bahawa
dadah-dadah tersebut berada di dalam milikan, kawalan dan
pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 maka anggapan pengedaran dadah-
dadah tersebut di bawah seksyen 37 (da) ADB 1952 tidak dapat
digunakan oleh mahkamah ini bagi membuktikan pengedaran dadah
berbahaya seperti pertuduhan. Seksyen 37 (da) ADB 1952 seperti
berikut:
“(da) any person who is found in possession of-
(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin;
(ii) 15 grammes or more in weight of morphine;
(iii) 15 grammes or more in weight of
monoacetylmorphines;
(iiia) a total of 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin,
morphine and monoacetylmorphines or a total of 15
grammes or more in weight of any two of the said
dangerous drugs;
(iv) 1,000 grammes or more in weight of prepared opium;
(v) 1,000 grammes or more in weight of raw opium;
(va) a total of 1,000 grammes or more in weight of
prepared opium and raw opium;
(vi) 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis,
(vii) 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis resin;
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
(viii) a total of 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis
and cannabis resin;
(ix) 40 grammes or more in weight of cocaine;
(x) 2,000 grammes or more in weight of cocoa leaves;
(xi) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2-Amino-1-(2, 5-
dimethoxy-4-methyl) phenylpropane;
(xii) 50 grammes or more in weight of Amphetamine;
(xiii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2, 5-
Dimethoxyamphetamine (DMA);
(xiv) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Dimethoxybromoamphetamine (DOB);
(xv) 50 grammes or more in weight of 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-
ethylamphetamine (DOET);
(xvi) 50 grammes or more in weight of Methamphetamine;
(xvii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 5-Methoxy-3, 4-
Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MMDA);
(xviii) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA);
(xix) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-ethyl MDA;
(xx) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-hydroxy MDA;
(xxi) 50 grammes or more in weight of N-methyl-l-(3, 4-
methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine;
(xxii) 50 grammes or more in weight of 3,4-
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA);
(xxiii) 50 grammes or more in weight of
Paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA);
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
(xxiv) 50 grammes or more in weight of 3,4,5-
Trimethoxyamphetamine (3, 4, 5-TMA); or
(xxv) a total of 50 grammes or more in weight of any
combination of the dangerous drugs listed in
subparagraphs (xi) to (xxiv),
otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act
or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug”
[64] Namun begitu mahkamah ini perlu meneliti sama ada terdapat
keterangan yang ada dapat menunjukkan terdapatnya pengedaran
seperti yang ditafsirkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 seperti berikut:
“"trafficking" includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug
otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the
regulations made under the Act”
[65] Ini adalah disebabkan terdapat keterangan daripada SP5 dan imej
daripada rakaman CCTV yang dipertontonkan di dalam mahkamah
terbuka terdapat individu yang membawa sebuah beg di mana beg
tersebut dikatakan dadah-dadah tersebut dijumpai. Ia membawa
maksud adakah tindakan individu tersebut yang didakwa sebagai OKT1
dalam kes ini telah membawa (carrying) dadah-dadah tersebut. Ini juga
perlu dipertimbangkan bersesuaian dengan keterangan yang
menyatakan dadah-dadah itu telah berada dalam bilik tersebut. Apakah
ianya tergolong dalam tindakan menyimpan dadah-dadah tersebut yang
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
boleh termasuk dalam takrifan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB
1952.
[66] Mahkamah ini dalam meneliti keterangan bagi maksud
penggunaan seksyen 2 ADB 1952 dipandu oleh keputusan Mahkamah
Persekutuan dalam kes Teh Geok Hock v PP [1989] 3 MLJ 162 seperti
berikut:
“It is quite clear then that although the learned judge accepted
the evidence that the appellant was a drug addict, he rejected
his explanation of the ten packets of heroin found on his
person. He was satisfied that the appellant was trafficking in
the drugs as charged and convicted the appellant. 'Trafficking'
is defined in the Act as follows:
'Trafficking' includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug.
True, the definition in the Act sounds artificial and not
according to the ordinary meaning of the word 'trafficking'
which is normally understood to mean to trade in, buy or sell,
any commodity, albeit often with sinister implication. See also
the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The definition of
'trafficking' in the Act is wide and includes not only buying and
selling, but also carrying, concealing and keeping. It is totally
different from the definition of the word 'traffic' in the
Singapore Misuse of Drugs Act. In the Singapore provision to
'traffic' in a controlled drug so as to constitute an offence of
trafficking involves something more than passive possession
or self-administration of the drug. See Ong Ah Chuan v Public
Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64.”
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
[67] Namun demikian Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Chow Kok
Keong v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 MLJ 337 telah menyatakan
perbezaan pandangan dengan keputusan dalam kes Teh Geok Hock
(supra) seperti berikut:
“In our view, both Cohen and Ng Chai Kem, have severely
watered down Teh Geok Hock in so far as it implies that
passive possession or self-administration can never be a
defence to a charge of trafficking under s 39B of our Act.
Having considered this point afresh, we preferred the views
expressed in Cohen and Ng Chai Kem to those in Teh Geok
Hock which we regarded as oversimplistic. We would add that
apart from the general consideration that the drugs legislation
is a piece of highly penal legislation and therefore any
ambiguity in it should be resolved in favour of the subject, in
accordance with long established canons of construction, it is
pertinent to note that the definition of 'trafficking' aforesaid
comes under s 2 of the Act, the very first line of which reads:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires ….
In our view the context of s 37(da)(i) which says:
any person who is found in possession of —
(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin; …
otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act
or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug;
does 'otherwise require' (italics supplied). If this were not so,
the provisions of s 37(da) which specifically confer upon the
accused the right to rebut the presumption of trafficking
arising from being found in possession of dangerous drugs in
excess of the statutory minimum, would be an empty
hypocrisy.”
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
[68] Di samping itu mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Ong Ah
Chuan v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 64 yang memutuskan bahawa pengedaran
dalam konteks seksyen 2 ADB 1952 itu perlu diteliti tujuan perbuatan-
perbuatan tersebut dilakukan. Ia tidak hanya sekadar menunjukkan
bahawa seseorang itu melakukan salah satu daripada 18 perkara yang
dinyatakan di bawah takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952. Di
samping itu mahkamah juga perlu melihat jumlah dadah-dadah yang
terlibat bagi menyatakan bahawa ianya bukan untuk tujuan penggunaan
sendiri melainkan semata-mata untuk tujuan pengedaran. Ini
dinyatakan oleh Lord Diplock seperti berikut:
“This is a very wide descriptionof acts that may be treated as
equivalent to the substantive offence of trafficking;
nevertheless, in their Lordships' view, it is clear from the
structure of the Drugs Act and the distinction drawn between
the offence of having a controlled drug in one'spossession
and the offence of trafficking in it, that mere possession of
itself is not to be treated as an act preparatory to or in
furtherance of or for the purpose of trafficking so as to permit
the conviction of the possessor of the substantive offence.
Tobring the provisions of sections 10 and 3(c) into operation
some further step or overt act by the accused is needed,
directed to transferring possession of the drug to some other
person; and it is a consequence of the clandestine nature of
the drug trade andthe means adopted for the detection of
those engaged in it, that the further step that the prosecution
is most likely to be able to prove in evidence is the act of the
accused in transporting the drug to some place where he
intends to deliver it to someone else,whether it be the actual
consumer or a distributor or another dealer.
Proof of the purpose for which an act is done, where such
purpose is a necessary ingredient of the offence with which
an accused is charged, presents a problem with whichcriminal
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
courts are very familiar. Generally, in the absence of an
express admission by the accused, the purpose with which he
did an act is a matter of inference from what he did. Thus, in
the case of an accused caught in the act of conveying from
one placeto another controlled drugs in a quantity much larger
than is likely to be needed for his own consumption the
inference that he was transporting them for the purpose of
trafficking in them would, in the absence of any plausible
explanationby him, be irresistible — even if there were no
statutory presumption such as is contained in section 15 of
the Drugs Act.
As a matter of common sense the larger the quantity of drugs
involved the stronger the inference thatthey were not intended
for the personal consumption of the person carrying them, and
the more convincing the evidence needed to rebut it. All that
section 15 does is to lay down the minimum quantity of each
of the five drugs with which it deals at which theinference
arises from the quantity involved alone that they were being
transported for the purpose of transferring possession of them
to another person and not solely for the transporter's own
consumption. There may be other facts which justify the
inferenceeven where the quantity of drugs involved is lower
than the minimum which attracts the statutory presumption
under section 15. In the instant cases, however, the quantities
involved were respectively one hundred times and six
hundred times the statutory minimum.
Whether the quantities involved be large or small, however,
the inference is always rebuttable. The accused himself best
knows why he was conveying the drugs from one place to
another and, if he can satisfy the court, upon the balance of
probabilitiesonly, that they were destined for his own
consumption he is entitled to be acquitted of the offence of
trafficking under section 3.”
[69] Ia juga telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes
Johar bin Mustapha v Public Prosecutor [2009] 6 MLJ 593 yang
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
42
menjelaskan berkenaan pemakaian pendekatan tujuan yang diutarakan
dalam kes Ong Ah Chuan (supra) seperti berikut:
“[44] We feel it is appropriate at this juncture to refer to the
'purpose approach' in the judgment of Lord Diplock in the
celebrated case of Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor; Koh
Chai Cheng v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64 where it was
held (at p 69) as follows:
Proof of the purpose for which an act is done, where such
purpose is a necessary ingredient of the offence with
which an accused is charged, presents a problem with
which criminal courts are very familiar. Generally, in the
absence of an express admission by the accused, the
purpose with which he did an act is a matter of inference
from what he did. Thus, in the case of an accused caught
in the act of conveying from one place to another
controlled drugs in a quantity much larger than is likely to
be needed for his own consumption the inference that he
was transporting them for the purpose of trafficking in
them would, in the absence of any plausible explanation
by him, be irresistible — even if there were no statutory
presumption such as is contained in s 15 of the Drugs Act
(see alsoPublic Prosecutor v Ouseng sama-Ae [2008] 1
CLJ 337). (Emphasis added.)”
[70] Mahkamah juga dapat melihat bagaimana keterangan yang
mencukupi untuk menyatakan bahawa OKT-OKT telah membawa
dadah seperti yang ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952. Ini dapat
dilihat dalam kes Sathya Vello v. PP [2022] 5 CLJ 659 di mana
Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan fakta kes tersebut seperti
berikut:
“[4] The facts are straightforward and may be summarised as
follows. At the time and place specified in the two charges, the
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
43
appellant and the second accused had just arrived from
Chennai, India by AirAsia flight AK1258. The appellant was
seen pushing a trolley and heading towards the customs
clearance area with the second accused beside him. On the
trolley were two luggage bags.
[5] As the appellant and the second accused were behaving
suspiciously, Corporal Pannir Selvam a/l Subramaniam
(PW3) who was on duty at the airport together with ASP
Mohideen bin Ismail (PW2) stopped them and requested them
to have their bags scanned at the scanning machine. This was
done and the scan showed suspicious images on the monitor
screen even after the contents of the bags were emptied.
When PW2 lifted the empty bags, he found them to be
exceptionally heavy. He also noticed that the fabric at the
bottom of the bags were bulging. He then decided to carry out
a physical examination on the two bags in the presence of the
appellant and the second accused.”
[71] Berdasarkan fakta tersebut Mahkamah Persekutuan telah
memutuskan bahawa ia adalah memadai untuk membuktikan OKT
membawa dadah-dadah tersebut bagi maksud seksyen 2 ADB 1952
dengan menyatakan seperti berikut:
“[15] The appellant's act of carrying the drugs was clearly an
act of trafficking by definition: See s. 2 of the DDA, which
reads:
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
"trafficking" includes the doing of any of the following acts,
that is to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping,
concealing, buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing,
administering, transporting, carrying, sending, delivering,
procuring, supplying or distributing any dangerous drug
otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the
regulations made under the Act;
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
44
[16] Since "trafficking" is statutorily defined, which definition is
to be applied unless the context otherwise requires, there is
no necessity for the court to look for its common law meaning,
if there is any. If the appellant could prove, in rebuttal of the
presumption under s. 37(d) of the DDA, that he had no
knowledge of the presence and of the nature of the drugs, he
would of course be acquitted outrightly of the trafficking
charges despite being in physical possession of the drugs,
because without proof of knowledge, he committed no offence
under the DDA, not even the lesser offence of possession
under s. 12(2).”
[72] Dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan yang
menyatakan bahawa individu yang dikatakan OKT1 telah membawa
beg tersebut tanpa keterangan yang menyatakan apakah tujuan beg itu
dibawa masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut di samping terdapat individu-
individu lain yang bersama OKT1 semasa memasuki bilik tersebut tidak
dapat menunjukkan bahawa tindakan membawa beg tersebut oleh
OKT1 adalah termasuk dalam takrifan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2
ADB 1952. Begitu juga tiada keterangan yang dapat menyatakan
bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut disimpan atau disembunyikan dalam
bilik tersebut bagi memenuhi takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952.
[73] Oleh yang demikian mahkamah ini berpendapat pihak
pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan pengedaran seperti yang
ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952.
[74] Ini bermakna mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan
telah gagal membuktikan satu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
45
Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 bagi dadah jenis
Ketamin dan seksyen 9 (1) Akta Racun 1952 untuk Etizolam
[75] Penelitian kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan di mahkamah
adalah didapati bahawa dadah ketamin yang menjadi asas kepada
pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 adakah dikatakan
dijumpai dalam bilik yang sama dengan dadah-dadah yang
dipertuduhkan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952. Ini bermakna dapatan
mahkamah ini berkenaan pemilikan, kawalan dan pengetahuan dadah-
dadah tersebut adalah sama dengan dapatan bagi pemilikan, kawalan
dan pengetahuan bagi dadah-dadah yang dituduh di bawah seksyen
39B ADB 1952. Mahkamah ini berpendapat tiada sebarang keterangan
lain yang boleh dinilai oleh mahkamah melainkan keterangan-
keterangan yang sama yang dikemukakan oleh pendakwaan. Ia akan
membawa kepada satu kesimpulan yang sama iaitu pihak pendakwaan
tidak dapat membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2. Ianya
mungkin berbeza sekrianya dadah-dadah bagi pertuduhan seksyen 12
(2) ADB 1952 itu ditemui di tempat lain dan terdapat keterangan-
keterangan lain yang berbeza dengan keterangan bagi pertuduhan di
bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 tersebut.
[76] Akhirnya mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pihak pendakwaan
tidak berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan
terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 di bawah seksyen 12 (2) ADB 1952 dan
seksyen 9 (1) Akta Racun 1952.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
46
Penutup
[77] Adalah satu fakta yang perlu diakui oleh mahkamah bahawa
kesungguhan untuk mengatasi masalah pengedaran dan pemilikan
dadah adalah sesuatu yang berterusan. Ia dapat dilihat melalui
penambahbaikan peruntukan undang-undang di bawah ADB 1952
semenjak penggubalannya sehingga kini. Misalnya pengenalan
hukuman mati mandatori yang diperkenalkan pada tahun 1983
walaupun telah dimansuhkan melalui Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati
Mandatori 2023. Ia juga dapat dilihat kepada peningkatan hukuman
yang boleh dikenakan bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah ADB 1952
serta undang-undang yang berkaitan. Ini semua dilakukan bagi
membolehkan kegiatan pengedaran dadah dapat dibanteras dan
dilumpuhkan bagi menghalang kegiatan jenayah lain yang berkaitan
dengan dadah.
[78] Oleh itu adalah penting bagi siasatan yang melibatkan kes
pengedaran dadah dilakukan dengan professional, berhati-hati dan
sentiasa mematuhi peruntukan undang-undang. Ini bagi membolehkan
keterangan-keterangan tersebut dikemukakan mengikut undang-
undang semasa perbicaraan kelak. Sebarang ketidakpatuhan atau
kecuaian dalam penyiasatan akan membawa padah kepada kegagalan
pengemukaan keterangan yang dikehendaki oleh undang-undang
semasa perbicaraan kelak. Pada masa yang sama pendakwaan
berkaitan dengan kes-kes dadah perlu dilakukan dengan mematuhi
prinsip undang-undang yang dinyatakan dalam Akta Dadah Berbahaya
1952, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan Akta Keterangan 1950 di samping
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
47
dipandu arah oleh keputusan-keputusan mahkamah atasan berkenaan
kes-kes dadah. Di samping itu para peguam yang mewakili anak guam
juga hendaklah membela anak guam mereka berdasarkan kepada
prinsip undang-undang bagi memastikan keadilan yang wajar dinikmati
oleh anak guam mereka dapat dipertahankan.
[79] Pada masa yang sama mahkamah yang mendengar kes-kes
pengedaran dadah-dadah juga perlu memastikan keterangan-
keterangan dikemukakan berdasarkan kepada Akta Dadah Berbahaya
1952, Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan Akta Keterangan 1950 dan
mematuhi kepada keputusan mahkamah atasan berkenaan dengan
kes-kes dadah. Sesungguhnya kesepaduan di antara proses siasatan,
pendakwaan, pembelaan dan perbicaraan serta penghakiman yang
dilakukan dengan professional dan mengikut jalur undang-undang akan
memastikan hasrat untuk membanteras aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang
menjadi penyakit dalam masyarakat akan dapat dilaksanakan tanpa
menggadaikan prinsip keadilan yang wajar dinikmati oleh seseorang
yang dituduh di bawah ADB 1952.
[80] Dalam konteks ini Pendakwa Raya dan peguambela seharusnya
membantu mahkamah dengan mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan
dan pembelaan yang wajar bagi membolehkan mahkamah jenayah
yang mengendalikan perbicaraan kes-kes di bawah ADB 1952 dapat
melaksanakan tugas dan amanahnya dengan sempurna.
[81] Sebagai pelengkap adalah wajar untuk mahkamah meneliti
pandangan yang dikemukakan berkenaan dengan tanggungjawab dan
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
48
amanah yang perlu dilakukan mahkamah jenayah seperti yang
diutarakan dalam artikel The Need for a Criminal Division of the High
Court oleh David Ormerod, Current Legal Problems Vol. XX (2023)
1, halaman 2 walaupun artikel tersebut berkaitan dengan sistem
mahkamah tinggi jenayah di United Kingdom namun ia menarik untuk
direnungkan. David Ormerod menyatakan seperti berikut:
“There is no obvious reason to assume that judging criminal
cases is any easier than judging in any other branch of law. It
requires the same skills of statutory interpretation; indeed, it
is arguably more challenging in this respect given the volume
and frequency of legislative amendment. It demands agility in
applying the sometimes radically and frequently changing
core common law principles, affecting the gravest offences of
murder and manslaughter. Criminal trials also give rise to their
share of constitutional issues and Human Rights Act
challenges. There may be nothing special in these respects,
but there are, I suggest, other matters that do render ‘criminal
judgecraft’ truly distinctive.”
Perintah Akhir
[82] Akhirnya OKT1 dan OKT2 dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil membela
diri bagi kesemua pertuduhan.
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
49
Bertarikh: 15hb. November 2023
(ROSLAN MAT NOR)
HAKIM
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA
TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
PIHAK-PIHAK:
Bagi Pihak Pendakwaan
Ain-Nur ‘Amiyerra Awod Abdullah
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur
Bagi Pihak OKT1
G Ravishankar
Tetuan R Shankar Gandhi & Associates
Kuala Lumpur
Bagi Pihak OKT2
Mohd Taufik Md Tahir
Tetuan Rizal Hashim
Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur
S/N SFVoRaqXrE6VxFlIjLmZA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 74,950 | Tika 2.6.0 |
JA-12BNCvC-20-10/2021 | PERAYU Chen Yuman RESPONDEN 1. ) Lim Len Tat 2. ) Bernard Lee Poh Heng 3. ) Wi Kian Yong 4. ) Woon Wee Yuen (Rakan Kongsi ) | Prosedur – pindaan writ dan penyata tuntutan – pindaan hanya dicadangkan ketika sebahagian besar defendan telah menutup kes mereka - kelewatan yang tidak munasabah dan melampau – sama ada pindaan wajar dibenarkan Kontrak – frod dan representasi salah – kontrak boleh batal atas pilihan pihak yang mendakwa sebagai mangsa frod atau reperesentasi salahKeterangan – beban pembuktian - sama ada plaintif berjaya membuktikan elemen-elemen frod, representasi salah, niat jahat atau penipuan terancang telah dilakukan oleh defendan-defendan sama ada secara secara bersesama atau berasingan | 15/11/2023 | YA Tuan Noor Hisham bin Ismail | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4baf2384-ee97-4459-bdc4-129c5f3acb36&Inline=true |
JA-12B-20-07-2021 (Chen YuMan)
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU
DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO: JA-12BNCVC-20-10/2021
ANTARA
CHEN YUMAN ... PERAYU
DAN
1. LIM LEN TAT
2. BERNARD LEE POH HENG
3. WI KIAN YONG
4. WOON WEE YUEN
(Rakan Kongsi Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners yang beramal di atas nama
Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners
... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
(Digabung dan didengar bersama)
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU
DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO: JA-12ANCVC-66-07/2021
ANTARA
CHEN YUMAN ... PERAYU
DAN
1. LIM LEN TAT
2. BERNARD LEE POH HENG
3. WI KIAN YONG
4. WOON WEE YUEN
(Rakan Kongsi Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners yang beramal di atas nama
Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners
... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
15/11/2023 10:28:13
JA-12BNCvC-20-10/2021 Kand. 54
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
(Dan)
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU
DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO: JA-12ANCVC-67-07/2021
ANTARA
CHEN YUMAN ... PERAYU
DAN
1. LIM LEN TAT
2. BERNARD LEE POH HENG
3. WI KIAN YONG
4. WOON WEE YUEN
(Rakan Kongsi Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners yang beramal di atas nama
Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners
... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
[DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI JOHOR BAHRU
DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: JA-A5NCVC-185-10/2017
ANTARA
CHEN YUMAN ... PERAYU
DAN
1. LIM LEN TAT
2. BERNARD LEE POH HENG
3. WI KIAN YONG
4. WOON WEE YUEN
(Rakan Kongsi Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen
& Partners yang beramal di atas nama
Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners ... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Di hadapan Mahkamah ini, terdapat tiga (3) rayuan yang difailkan
oleh perayu/plaintif terhadap keputusan-keputusan Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen (HMS) Johor Bahru dalam perkara ini, iaitu
seperti berikut: -
(a) JA-12ANCvC-67-07/2021 – rayuan terhadap keputusan HMS
pada 19.7.2021 yang telah menolak notis permohonan
interlokutori plaintif di Lampiran 76 untuk memangggil semula
defendan pertama untuk memberikan keterangan dan
mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen (“Rayuan Lamp. 76”);
(b) JA-12ANCvC-66-07/2021 – rayuan terhadap keputusan HMS
pada 19.7.2021 yang telah menolak notis permohonan
interlokutori plaintif di Lampiran 79 untuk meminda Writ dan
Penyataan Tuntutan Plaintif (“Rayuan Lamp.79”); dan
(c) JA-12BNCvC-20-10/2021 – rayuan terhadap keputusan HMS
pada 11.10.2023 selepas perbicaraan penuh yang telah
menolak keseluruhan tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan-
defendan dan membenarkan tuntutan balas defendan
pertama dan defendan ketiga terhadap plaintif (“Rayuan
Penuh”).
[2] Ketiga-tiga rayuan di atas telah disatukan dan didengar secara
bersama melalui perintah Mahkamah ini bertarikh 2.6.2022.
[3] Pada 13.3.2023, Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan seperti berikut: -
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
(a) menolak Rayuan Lamp. 76;
(b) membenarkan sebahagian Rayuan Lamp. 79; dan
(d) menolak keseluruhan Rayuan Penuh.
[4] Plaintif kemudiannya telah memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah
Rayuan terhadap dua (2) daripada tiga (3) keputusan Mahkamah ini
bertarikh 13.3.2023 yang tersebut, iaitu terhadap keputusan
Rayuan Lamp. 79 dan Rayuan Penuh sahaja.
[5] Maka, berikut merupakan alasan-alasan Mahkamah ini untuk
keputusan Rayuan Lamp. 79 dan Rayuan Penuh.
[6] Sebagai kemudahan, pihak-pihak akan dirujuk sebagai mana
kedudukan asal masing-masing di Mahkamah Sesyen iaitu plaintif,
defendan pertama (“D1”), defendan kedua (“D2”), defendan ketiga
(“D3”) dan defendan keempat (“D4”).
Fakta-fakta penting kes
[7] Plaintif merupakan seorang individu warganegara China.
[8] D1, D2, D3 masing-masingnya adalah individu warganegara
Malaysia. D4 pula, selain seorang warganegara Malaysia juga
merupakan seorang peguambela dan peguamcara dan pada masa
material merupakan rakan kongsi di Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen &
Partners, Johor Bahru.
[9] Melalui Writ Saman dan Penyata Tuntutan (termasuk pindaan yang
dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah ini di dalam Rayuan Lamp.79), plaintif
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
menuntut terhadap defendan-defendan, secara ringkasnya, untuk
perintah-perintah berikut (tanpa mengikut kronologi di dalam
pliding): -
(a) satu deklarasi bahawa perjanjian jual beli bertarikh 14.5.2015
di antara plaintif dan D2 (“SPA 2015”) dan perjanjian jual beli
bertarikh 29.1.2016 di antara plaintif dan D1 (“SPA 2016”)
adalah tidak sah dan batal;
(b) satu perintah mengarahkan D3 selaku pemilik berdaftar
sebuah rumah teres 2 tingkat yang dipegang di bawah
hakmilik individu HS(D) 506214 PTD 148687, Mukim Tebrau,
Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor (“hartanah tersebut”)
memindah milik hartanah tersebut kepada plaintif dengan
serta merta;
(c) sekiranya D3 enggan mematuhi perintah pindah milik, satu
perintah supaya Timbalan Pendaftar dibenarkan untuk
menandatangani segala kertas-kerta/dokumen-
dikumen/surat-surat cara bagi maksud melaksanakan pindah
milik hartanah tersebut kepada plaintif;
(d) satu perintah mengarahkan D1 dan/atau D2 dan/atau D3
dan/atau D4 memulangkan suratan hakmilik individu asal
hartanah tersebut kepada plaintif atau peguamcaranya
dengan serta merta;
(e) sekiranya D1, D2, D3 dan/atau D4 enggan atau gagal
memulangkan hakmilik individu asal tersebut, maka Pentadbir
Tanah Johor Bahru membatalkan suratan hakmilik individu
asal tersebut dan mengeluarkan surat hakmilik individu yang
baru bagi hartanah tersebut;
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
(d) perintah susulan supaya Pentadbir Tanah Johor Bahru
memindah milik hartanah tersebut kepada nama plaintif;
(e) perintah-perintah injunksi kekal yang melarang D1, D2, D3
atau D4 dan/atau wakil-wakil mereka daripada mengambil
apa-apa tindakan memotong bekalan elektrik ke hartanah
tersebut, dan jika tindakan telah diambil dan bekalan elektrik
telah terpotong maka D1, D2, D3 dan/atau D4 hendaklah
menyambungkan semula bekalan elektrik tersebut
sehinggalah Writ di sini dilupuskan;
(f) gantirugi, kos dan faedah.
[10] Kes plaintif, secara ringkasnya, adalah seperti berikut: -
10.1 Plaintif adalah pemilik asal hartanah tersebut yang dibeli
daripada pemaju pada tahun 2012 dan telah menyelesaikan
keseluruhan bayaran harga pembelian kepada pemaju.
10.2 Pada 14.5.2015, plaintif telah memasuki perjanjian SPA
2015 dengan D2 bagi urusan jual beli hartanah tersebut
dengan balasan harga sebanyak RM300,000.00.
10.3 Pada 29.1.2016, plaintif telah memasuki satu lagi perjanjian
SPA 2016 yang juga untuk urusan jual beli hartanah
tersebut, tetapi kali ini dengan D1 selaku pembeli. Balasan
harga juga adalah sama iaitu sebanyak RM300,00.00.
10.4 Plaintif mendakwa bahawa kedua-dua perjanjian SPA 2015
dan SPA 2016 tersebut sebenarnya bukan perjanjian jual
beli yang benar, tulin atau sah tetapi sebenarnya merupakan
perjanjian pinjaman wang di antara plaintif dengan D1 dan
D2 yang merupakan ceti haram (Ah Long).
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
10.5 Plaintif seterusnya mendakwa bahawa apa yang
sebenarnya berlaku adalah, pada atau sekitar 1.2.2016,
plaintif telah membuat pinjaman daripada seorang lelaki
Cina yang hanya beliau kenali sebagai “Lee”, seorang ceti
haram, untuk sejumlah RM300,000.00. Antara terma
pinjaman adalah plaintif dikehendaki membayar balik wang
pinjaman pokok RM300,000.00 tersebut pada bila-bila masa
dalam masa setahun. Selagi pinjaman pokok tidak dibayar,
plaintif dikehendaki membayar bunga atau faedah sebanyak
RM9,000.00 sebulan.
10.6 Wang tersebut kemudiannya telah dimasukkan ke dalam
akaun plaintif pada 1.2.2016.
10.7 Plaintif hanya dapat membayar bunga untuk beberapa bulan
sahaja kerana tidak cukup wang atau tidak dapat
menghubungi Lee.
10.8 Pada 2.5.2017, plaintif telah pergi ke firma guaman D4 untuk
bertanyakan tentang Lee tetapi telah diberitahu oleh D4
bahawa hartanah tersebut telah dipindahkan ke atas nama
D1.
10.9 Pada sekitar bulan September atau Oktober 2017, plaintif
telah menerima surat daripada syarikat TNB yang
merupakan syarikat pembekal tenaga elektrik ke hartanah
tersebut yang meminta plaintif membuat penutupan
akuannya dengan TNB kerana hartanah tersebut telah
bertukar milik.
10.10 Plaintif seterusnya mendakwa bahawa plaintif telah
menyerahkan passport dan buku simpanan bank miliknya
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
serta menyerahkan suratan hakmilik hartanah tersebut
kepada Lee dan telah menandatangani dokumen-dokumen
pinjaman termasuklah Perjanjian SPA 2015 dan Perjanjian
SPA 2016 tersebut di pejabat D4.
10.11 Plaintif selanjutnya mendakwa bahawa kedua-dua
Perjanjian SPA 2015 dan Perjanjian SPA 2016 tersebut
adalah disediakan oleh D4 yang merupakan seorang
peguam dan telah meyakinkan plaintif bahawa SPA 2015
dan SPA 2016 dan dokumen-dokumen lain yang beliau tidak
ketahui adalah dokumen pinjaman wang. Plaintif mendakwa
beliau tidak boleh membaca, menulis atau bertutur dalam
bahasa Inggeris atau Bahasa Melayu.
10.12 Plaintif kemudiannya mendapat tahu bahawa hartanah
tersebut kini telah didaftarkan di atas nama D3 sejak
23.8.2017.
10.13 Plaintif akhir sekali mendakwa bahawa defendan-defendan
secara bersesama atau berasingan telah melakukan
misrepresentasi, frod, niat jahat dan penipuan terancang
terhadapnya yang mengakibatkan hartanah tersebut
akhirnya kini menjadi hakmilik D3. Plaintif turut mendakwa
D4 telah melakukan kemungkaran fidusiari terhadap plaintif.
[11] D1 dalam pembelaannya menafikan dakwaan-dakwaan plaintif
mengenai misrepresentasi, frod, penipuan terancang dan niat jahat
dan membangkitkan versi pembelaannya seperti berikut.
11.1 Melalui perjanjian SPA 2016, plaintif telah bersetuju untuk
menjual hartanah tersebut kepada D1 dengan harga
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
RM300,000.00 dan plaintif telah menandatangani Borang
pindah milik 14A dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan
selainnya. D1 telah membuat pembayaran penuh
RM300,000.00 tersebut kepada plaintif melalui bankers
cheque.
11.2 Pada sekitar 2017, D1 telah bersetuju untuk menjual
hartanah tersebut kepada D3 dengan harga bayaran
sebanyak RM900,000.00.
11.3 Bagi tujuan itu, D1 telah menandatangani perjanjian jual beli
dengan D3 pada 3.7.2017 dan juga menandatangani Borang
14A dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan yang lain. Dalam
transaksi tersebut, D1 telah diwakili oleh D4 selaku
peguamcaranya manakala D3 diwakili oleh peguamcara
yang lain iaitu Tetuan Lim Wong & Partners.
11.4 Hartanah tersebut kemudiannya telah dipindahmilik kepada
D3 apabila D3 telah menyelesaikan bayaran penuh harga
belian kepada D1 dan bayaran duti setem yang dikenakan.
11.5 Akhir sekali, D1 memohon supaya tuntutan plaintif
terhadapnya ditolak.
11.6 D1 seterusnya juga telah mengemukakan tuntutan balas
terhadap plaintif bagi mendapatkan deklarasi mahkamah
bahawa perjanjian SPA 2016 di antara plaintif dan D1 adalah
sah dan berkuatkuasa. Selain itu, D1 juga menuntut ganti
rugi dan kos terhadap plaintif.
[12] Manakala D2 pula selain menafikan dakwaan-dakwaan plaintif,
telah membangkitkan versi pembelaannya seperti berikut.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
12.1 Pada sekitar bulan Mei 2015, plaintif telah bersetuju untuk
menjual kepada D2 dan D2 telah bersetuju untuk membeli
hartanah tersebut pada harga RM300,000.00.
12.2 Bagi tujuan itu, plaintif dan D2 telah mendatangani perjanjian
SPA 2015, Borang 14A dan dokumen-dokumen relevan
selainnya. D2 juga telah melantik D4 sebagai peguamcaranya
bagi transaksi tersebut. D2 juga telah membuat pembayaran
RN300,000.00 melalui banker’s cheque ke akaun bank
plaintif. Selepas itu, D2 juga telah memasukkan kaveat
persendirian ke atas hartanah tersebut pada 19.5.2015
melalui Perserahan No. 16399/2015.
12.3 D2 seterusnya mendakwa bahawa pada atau sekitar bulan
November 2015, plaintif memaklumkan bahawa beliau ingin
membatalkan perjanjian SPA 2015 tersebut. D2 bersetuju
dengan permintaan plaintif tersebut tetapi dengan syarat
plaintif memulangkan wang RM300,000.00 tersebut.
12.4 D2 seterusnya mendakwa bahawa plaintif telah pulangkan
RM150,000.00 secara tunai kepada D2 dan baki
RM150,000.00 secara bankers’ cheque atas nama firma D4.
12.5 Bagi tujuan pembatalan SPA 2015, D2 kemudiannya melalui
D4 telah menyediakan Deed of Rescission and Revocation
yang mana telah ditandatangani oleh plaintif dan D2 bertarikh
19.11.2015 (“DORR 2015”). D2 seterusnya telah menarik
balik kaveat persendirian yang dimasukkannya atas hartanah
tersebut.
12.6 D2 akhir sekali memohon supaya tuntutan plaintif
terhadapnya ditolak.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[13] Manakala D3 pula selain menafikan dakwaan-dakwaan plaintif,
telah membangkitkan versi pembelaannya seperti berikut.
13.1 Pada sekitar bukan Julai 2017, D1 setuju untuk menjual dan
D3 setuju untuk membeli hartanah tersebut dengan balasan
harga sebanyak RM900,000.00.
13.2 Satu perjanjian jual beli hartanah tersebut kemudiannya telah
ditandatangani di antara D1 dan D3 pada 3.7.2017 (“SPA
2017”). Selain itu, D3 dan D1 turut mendatangani Borang 14A
dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan yang lain. Untuk transaksi
tersebut, D3 diwakili oleh peguamnya sendiri dari Tetuan Lim
Wong Partners.
13.3 D3 seterusnya memplid bahawa beliau telah menerima
RM900,000.00 tersebut daripada D1 dan kini D3 telah
didaftarkan sebagai pemilik berdaftar bagi hartanah tersebut.
13.4 D3 akhir sekali memohon supaya tuntutan plaintif terhadap D3
ditolak.
13.5 D3 seterusnya membuat tuntutan balas terhadap plaintif dan
memohon perintah-perintah berikut: -
(a) bahawa plaintif dan/atau penghuni yang menduduki
premis hartanah tersebut menyerahkan hartanah
tersebut kepada D3 dalam tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh
perintah;
(b) perintah larangan dikeluarkan ke atas plaintif dan/atau
ejen-ejennya daripada memasukkan apa-apa kaveat
persendirian ke atas hartanah tersebut dan Pentadbir
Tanah diarah untuk memberi kesan serta merta kepada
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
perintah larangan ini di bawah seksyen 417 Kanun
Tanah Negara 1965; dan
(c) gantirugi, faedah dan kos.
[14] Akhir sekali bagi D4 pula, selain menafikan dakwaan-dakwaan
plaintif, telah memplid versi pembelaannya dalam Penyata
Pembelaan D4 seperti berikut.
14.1 Pada atau sekitar Mei 2015, plaintif telah bersetuju untuk
menjual dan D2 telah bersetuju untuk membeli hartanah
tersebut dengan balasan harga sebanyak RM300,000.00.
Bagi tujuan transaksi tersebut, D2 telah melantik D4 sebagai
peguam untuk mewakili D2.
14.2 Seterusnya, plaintif dan D2 telah menandatangani perjanjian
jual beli bertarikh 14.5.2015, Borang Pindahmilik 14A dan
dokumen-dokumen lain yang berkaitan.
14.3 D2 telah membuat bayaran penuh harga balasan jual beli
sebanyak RM300,000.00 melalui banker’s cheque atas
nama plaintif dan telah diterima oleh plaintif.
14.4 D4 seterusnya memplid bahawa semasa perjanjian di
tandatangani dan banker’s cheque diterima oleh plaintif,
seseorang yang bernama Chua Kian Cheel (No. KP.
500206-10-5803) ada hadir bersama-sama plaintif dan telah
menerangkan dokumen-dokumen kepada plaintif.
14.5 Seterusnya, pada 19.5.2015, D2 telah memasukkan kaveat
persendirian ke atas hartanah tersebut melalui perserahan
No. 16399/2015 bertarikh 19.5.2015.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
14.6 Pada sekitar November 2015, plaintif ingin membatalkan
perjanjian jual beli tersebut dan D2 telah bersetuju dengan
cadangan plaintif dengan syarat plaintif memulangkan
kesemua RM300,000.00 kepada D2.
14.7 Selepas plaintif membayar secara tunai sebanyak
RM150,000.00 kepada D2 tunai dan banker’s cheque
sejumlah RM150,000.00 atas nama D4, D2 kemudiannya
menandatangani DORR 2015 bersama-sama plaintif pada
19.11.2015.
14.8 Seterusnya, D4 memplid bahawa pada atau sekitar Januari
2016, plaintif telah bersetuju untuk menjual dan D1 telah
bersetuju untuk membeli hartanah tersebut dengan balasan
harga sebanyak RM300,000.00. Bagi tujuan itu, D1 telah
melantik D4 sebagai peguamcaranya untuk urusan
dokumentasi.
14.9 D4 telah menjalankan tugasnya sehingga selesai dan nama
D1 kemudiannya telah didaftarkan sebagai pemilik berdaftar
hartanah tersebut.
14.10 Pada sekitar bulan Julai 2017, D1 telah bersetuju untuk
menjual dan D3 telah bersetuju untuk membeli hartanah
tersebut dengan harga balasan sebanyak RM900,000.00.
14.11 D1 telah melantik D4 sebagai peguamcaranya untuk
mengendalikan urusan transaksi tersebut manakala D3 pula
telah melantik peguamnya sendiri dari Tetuan Lim Wong
Partners. Untuk transaksi tersebut, D1 dan D3 telah
menandatangani SPA 2017, Borang 14A dan dokumen-
dokumen lain yang berkaitan.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
14.12 Apabila semua urusan transaksi jual beli tersebut selesai,
D3 telah didaftarkan sebagai pemilik berdaftar hartanah
tersebut.
14.13 D4 akhir sekali memohon supaya tuntutan plaintif terhadap
D4 ditolak dengan kos.
Keputusan Mahkamah ini untuk Rayuan Lamp. 79
[15] Ketika perbicaraan sedang berlangsung, plaintif pada 3.5.2021
telah memfailkan Notis Permohonan untuk meminda Writ dan
Penyata Tuntutannya (Lamp. 79).
[16] Pada masa tersebut, perbicaraan di Mahkamah Sesyen telah pun
berada di peringkat kes defendan. Bahkan ketika itu juga, D1, D2
dan D3 telah pun menutup kes mereka manakala D4 hanya tinggal
seorang saksi sahaja lagi untuk dipanggil memberikan keterangan.
[17] HMS yang bijaksana, di dalam menolak Lamp. 79 telah
memutuskan bahawa kelewatan plaintif memfailkan Lamp. 79
merupakan suatu kelewatan yang tidak munasabah dan melampau
serta akan menimbulkan ketidakadilan dan prejudis yang serius
kepada defendan-defendan sekiranya dibenarkan. Selain itu, HMS
juga menolak Lamp. 79 atas alasan plaintif gagal memberikan
alasan yang bona fide mengenai kelewatan tersebut.
[18] Mahkamah ini memerhati bahawa pindaan yang dicadangkan oleh
plaintif di dalam Lamp. 79 adalah untuk meminda pengindorsan “c”
pada Writ Saman dan perenggan 37(c) Penyataan Tuntutan Plaintif.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Pindaan yang dicadangkan, secara ringkasnya, adalah seperti
berikut: -
(a) meminda tarikh SPA 2015 dari pliding asal yang diplidkan
bertarikh ‘14.5.2017’ kepada tarikh ’14.5.2015’; dan
(b) menambah dua lagi dokumen iaitu “SPA 2017” dan “DORR
2015” untuk turut diisytiharkan secara deklarasi oleh
mahkamah sebagai tidak sah dan batal bersama-sama
dengan SPA 2015 dan SPA 2016.
[19] Selepas meneliti Lamp. 79, afidavit-afidavit dan hujah-hujah pihak-
pihak serta keseluruhan hal keadaan kes, Mahkamah ini telah
membenarkan sebahagian sahaja rayuan plaintif iaitu
membenarkan plaintif untuk meminda tarikh perjanjian jual beli yang
asalnya diplidkan pada pengindorsan “c” dalam Writ Saman dan
dalam perenggan 37(c) Penyataan Tuntutan Plaintif sebagai
bertarikh 14.5.2017 kepada tarikh 14.5.2015. Pada hemat
Mahkamah, pindaan ini wajar dibenarkan kerana selain ia
merupakan kesalahan menaip semata-mata, ia tidak akan
memprejudiskan defendan-defendan dalam apa juga cara sekali
pun kerana ia sememangnya merujuk kepada dokumen SPA 2015
sahaja.
[20] Manakala terhadap permohonan plaintif untuk membuat pindaan
dan penambahan selainnya iaitu untuk menambah dokumen “SPA
2017” dan “DORR 2015”, Mahkamah ini mengekalkan keputusan
HMS yang telah menolak penambahan dokumen-dokumen tersebut
di dalam Writ dan Penyata Tuntutan plaintif sebagai mana yang
plaintif mohon.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[21] Dalam mengekalkan keputusan HMS yang tersebut, Mahkamah ini
bersetuju dengan dapatan HMS bahawa kelewatan plaintif
memfailkan Lamp. 79 merupakan satu kelewatan yang tidak
munasabah dan melampau. Tambahan lagi, alasan yang
dikemukakan dalam affidavit sokongan plaintif bahawa terdapat
ketinggalan yang tidak disengajakan atau ‘terlepas pandang’ di
pihaknya memang sukar untuk diterima jika dibandingkan dengan
tempoh kelewatan yang berlaku iaitu selepas lebih kurang 6 bulan
plaintif menutup kes dan selepas D1, D2 dan D3 menutup kes
mereka.
[22] Seterusnya, Mahkamah ini juga bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam
defendan-defendan bahawa berikutan kedudukan D1, D2 dan D3
yang telah menutup kes mereka, maka permohonan plaintif untuk
menambah “SPA 2017” dan “DORR 2015” pada peringkat yang
selewat itu akan mewujudkan ketidakadilan dan kesan prejudis
yang serius dan tidak mungkin boleh dipampas dengan kos
terhadap D1, D2 dan D3.
[23] Mahkamah ini seterusnya berpandangan, melalui sistem
adversarial sedia ada, defendan-defendan seharusnya tidak disekat
atau dihalang untuk mengketengahkan kes mereka masing-masing
mengikut pliding-pliding yang telah mereka failkan. Ini bermaksud,
mahkamah tidak boleh menghalang D1, D2 atau D3 untuk
mengambil peluang di atas kealpaan plaintif yang tidak memplidkan
bahawa dokumen “SPA 2017” dan “DORR 2015” juga patut
diisytiharkan sebagai tidak sah dan batal bersama-sama dengan
SPA 2015 dan SPA 2016 sejak dari perbicaraan bermula
sehinggalah D1, D2 dan D3 menutup kes mereka.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
[24] Dalam hal ini juga, Mahkamah ini memperingatkan dirinya akan
prinsip am mengenai kesan sesuatu pindaan pliding yang dibuat
(selain pindaan menambah pihak baharu) adalah bermula bukan
pada tarikh perintah pindaan dibenarkan tetapi bermula dari tarikh
pliding tersebut mula-mula difailkan. Prinsip ini merupakan prinsip
matan sebagai mana yang diperjelaskan di dalam kes Simetech
(M) Sdn Bhd v Yeoh Cheng Liam Constructions Sdn Bhd [1992]
1 MLJ 11 yang mana pada m.s 18, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Lim
Beng Choon menyatakan seperti berikut: -
“(It is a) general principle that any subsequent amendments to the
writ and statement of claim would relate back to or speak from the
original date when such writ or statement of claim were filed.”
[25] Sehubungan itu, jika Lamp. 79 dibenarkan, Mahkamah ini
berpandangan ia akan memberikan kesan mudarat dan
ketidakadilan yang serius kepada defendan-defendan terutamanya
D1, D2 dan D3 kerana ia bersifat sebagai memperkenalkan kausa
tindakan yang baharu terhadap defendan-defendan tersebut. Selain
itu, Mahkamah juga tidak mungkin boleh memaksa D1, D2 atau D3
untuk membuka semula kes mereka hanya bagi tujuan untuk
memenuhi kehendak plaintif atau untuk menampung kekurangan
kes plaintif yang hanya timbul pada peringkat yang begitu lewat
selepas D1, D2 dan D3 menutup kes mereka.
[26] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini telah mengekalkan keputusan
HMS selainnya yang telah menolak permohonan interlokutori
plaintif di Lamp. 79 untuk memasukkan SPA 2017 dan DORR 2015
sebagai dokumen-dokumen yang juga patut diisytiharkan sebagai
tidak sah dan batal.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Keputusan Mahkamah ini untuk Rayuan Penuh
[27] Di dalam menolak keseluruhan tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan-
defendan dan membenarkan tuntutan balas D1 dan D3 terhadap
plaintif, HMS di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya telah membuat
dapatan jelas bahawa plaintif melalui keterangan saksi-saksinya
iaitu plaintif sendiri (SP1) dan suami plaintif iaitu Chua Kien Cheel
(SP2) telah gagal untuk membuktikan di atas imbangan
kebarangkalian mengenai isu-isu frod, misrepresentasi, niat jahat
dan penipuan terancang sebagai mana yang diplidkan di dalam
Penyataan Tuntutan plaintif terhadap kesemua defendan.
[28] HMS juga turut merumuskan bahawa segala keterangan dan
pengataan yang dikemukakan pihak plaintif semasa perbicaraan
adalah cuma dakwaan kosong semata-mata, tanpa sebarang bukti
yang kukuh, tanpa sebarang merit dan juga tanpa sebarang asas
sama sekali.
[29] HMS yang bijaksana, walau pun tidak memberikan analisis
terperinci mengenai dapatan beliau yang tersebut, sudah tentu telah
menilai keterangan saksi-saksi dan dokumen-dokumen yang
dikemukakan oleh pihak-pihak secara keseluruhannya. Namun
demikian, di peringkat rayuan ini, Mahkamah ini mempunyai
tanggungjawab untuk meneliti semula keseluruhan keterangan dan
hal keadaan kes secara rehearing bagi menentukan sama ada
terdapatnya kekhilafan di pihak HMS dalam mencapai keputusan
beliau yang sedemikian.
[30] Mahkamah ini setelah meneliti semula keseluruhan keterangan SP1
dan SP2 mendapati keterangan SP1 dan SP2 yang cuba
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
menzahirkan satu keadaan bahawa keseluruhan transaksi di antara
SP1 dan D1 dan di antara SP1 dan D2 adalah semata-mata
merupakan transaksi pinjaman wang sebanyak RM300,000.00
ternyata tidak jelas, meragukan dan tidak selari dengan dokumen-
dokumen contemporaneous yang dikemukakan di mahkamah
terutamanya perjanjian SPA 2015, perjanjian SPA 2016, DORR
2015 dan borang-borang 14A yang berkaitan.
[31] Keadaan menjadi lebih merumitkan apabila keterangan SP1 sendiri
mendedahkan bahawa transaksi yang kononnya didakwa sebagai
pinjaman wang tersebut sebenarnya bukan dibuat oleh SP1 sendiri
tetapi dibuat oleh SP2 iaitu suami plaintif. Keterangan ini sahaja
menunjukkan percanggahan ketara dengan pliding plaintif sendiri
yang mengatakan bahawa SP1 adalah peminjam dan tidak apa-apa
yang diplidkan bahawa peminjam sebenar adalah SP2. Dalam hal
yang sedemikian, adalah bukan fungsi mahkamah untuk membantu
kes plaintif yang tidak selaras dengan plidingnya sendiri (rujuk The
Carbon Company Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ng Lee Hoon (conducting
under 'Forest Wood Flooring') [2017] 4 MLJ 791, di ms 811).
[32] Selanjutnya, walau pun SP1 mengakui wang RM300,000.00 ada
dimasukkan ke akaun Hong Leong Bank beliau pada 14.5.2015 (ms
8 Ikatan C) sebagai bukti pinjaman diberikan kepadanya, tetapi SP1
telah gagal memberikan naratif jelas mengenai cara bayaran balik
pinjaman tersebut kepada pemberi pinjaman yang didakwanya
sebagai ceti haram tersebut. Apa yang menjadi keterangan SP1
hanyalah bahawa bayaran balik pinjaman dibuat oleh SP2.
[33] Namun demikian, SP1 dan SP2 telah gagal untuk mengemukakan
apa-apa resit atau bukti bagi bayaran pinjaman tersebut ke
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
mahkamah bagi menyokong dakwaannya yang tersebut. Pada
hemat Mahkamah ini, jika benar ada pinjaman sudah tentu perlulah
ada bayaran. Jika bukti pinjaman RM300,000.00 ada, maka
kegagalan membuktikan bayaran balik pinjaman dibuat oleh SP1
atau SP2 sudah tentu mewujudkan keraguan terhadap elemen
pelengkap bagi transaksi pinjaman wang itu sendiri.
[34] Seterusnya, keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh SP1
dan SP2 apabila dinilai secara keseluruhan, tidak menzahirkan
apakah elemen-elemen representasi salah atau perlakuan-
perlakuan frod atau niat jahat atau penipuan terancang yang telah
dibuat oleh defendan-defendan terhadap plaintif sebagai mana
yang diplidkan di dalam Penyata Tuntutan plaintif.
[35] Satu perkara yang perlu diberikan perhatian adalah plaintif seolah-
olah meletakkan kesalahan utama ke atas D4 sebagai peguam
yang mana plaintif mendakwa D4 sepatutnya menasihatkan beliau
dalam hal transaksi-transaksi tersebut.
[36] Dakwaan ini ternyata tidak dapat dipertahankan kerana SP1 sendiri
di dalam keterangannya mengakui tidak pernah berjumpa dengan
D4 semasa beliau berada di pejabat D4 untuk mendatangani SPA
2015, SPA 2016 dan dokumen-dokumen lain. Tanpa berjumpa D4,
mana mungkin D4 boleh dikatakan sebagai telah ‘meyakinkan’
plaintif untuk menandatangani dokumen-dokumen tersebut?
[37] Frod dan representasi salah merupakan antara keadaan-keadaan
yang boleh menafikan kewujudan persetujuan ad idem di antara
pihak-pihak yang berkontrak. Malahan, seksyen 19 Akta Kontrak
1950 memperuntukkan bahawa di dalam ketiadaan persetujuan ad
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
idem akibat wujudnya frod atau representasi salah tersebut, pihak
yang menjadi mangsa frod atau representasi salah tersebut
mempunyai pilihan untuk membatalkan kontrak sedemikian.
[38] Namun demikian, persoalan mengenai sama ada wujudnya frod
atau representasi salah tetap kekal sebagai persoalan fakta yang
perlu disokong dengan bukti serta keterangan yang mencukupi.
Prinsip ini jelas sebagai mana yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah
Persekutuan di dalam ALW Car Workshop Sdn Bhd v AXA Affin
General Insurance Bhd [2019] 4 MLJ 561 seperti berikut: -
“[45] On this point, we agree with the Court of Appeal in its findings,
as stated in para 33 of its judgment, that:
Whether any particular claim is tainted with fraudulent intent is a
question of fact to be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances. Making a false statement in the belief that it is
true constitutes misrepresentation. However, making a false
statement with the knowledge that it is false or not believing it to
be true and the intention to deceive amounts to fraudulent
misrepresentation. The test of fraudulent misrepresentation as
enunciated by the Privy Council in Baron Akerheilm v Rolf De
Marc [1959] AC 789 PC is as follows:
The question was not whether the defendant in any given case
honestly believed the representation to be true in the sense
assigned to it by the court on an objective consideration of its
truth or falsity, but whether he honestly believed the
representation to be true in the sense which he understood it
albeit erroneously, when it was made.”
[39] Sehubungan dengan itu, kegagalan plaintif melalui saksi-saksinya
membawa keterangan jelas mengenai apakah frod atau
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
representasi salah yang dibuat oleh defendan-defendan
terhadapnya, maka HMS tidak boleh boleh dikatakan sebagai
terkhilaf apabila memutuskan bahawa plaintif telah gagal untuk
membuktikan elemen-elemen frod, representasi, niat jahat dan
penipuan terancang terhadap defendan-defendan sama ada secara
bersesama atau secara berasingan.
[40] Selain itu, khusus terhadap D4, memandangkan SP1 sendiri
mengakui bahawa beliau tidak berjumpa D4, maka D4 tidak boleh
dikatakan sebagai gagal melaksanakan tanggungjawab fidusiari
beliau selaku peguam. Lebih-lebih lagi kes plaintif sebagai mana
diplidkan adalah spesifik terhadap D4 dan bukan terhadap atau
termasuk ejen atau pengkhidmat D4. Maka sekali lagi, HMS tidak
boleh dikatakan sebagai terkhilaf apabila memutuskan bahawa
dakwaan-dakwaan plaintif secara keseluruhannya terhadap D4
adalah tidak berasas dan tanpa bukti.
[41] Seterusnya, Mahkamah ini turut memerhatikan bahawa plaintif di
dalam plidingnya cuba bersandar kuat dengan kewujudan tiga kes
lain di Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru yang kononnya melibatkan
skema (scheme) transaksi pinjaman wang haram yang serupa yang
diberikan oleh D1 atau D2 melalui peguam D4 kepada peminjam-
peminjam yang lain.
[42] Kes-kes tersebut telah dirujuk sebagai JA-24NCVC-220-02/2017
yang merupakan tuntutan D1 terhadap seseorang yang bernama
Tan Bok Eng, kes JA-22NCVC-2-01/2017 yang merupakan tuntutan
saman seseorang terhadap D2 dan D4 dan kes JA-22NCVC-18-
02/2016 yang merupakan tuntutan seseorang terhadap D4 dan
semua rakan kongsi firma D4.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
[43] Malangnya, di dalam keterangannya di mahkamah, SP1
menyatakan beliau tidak tahu apa-apa mengenai kes-kes tersebut.
Tidak cukup dari situ, plaintif juga telah gagal untuk mengemukakan
apa-apa rekod prosiding atau nota-nota keterangan atau keputusan
kes-kes tersebut di hadapan HMS, atau memanggil mana-mana
saksi dalam mana-mana kes tersebut untuk memberikan
keterangan di hadapan HMS bagi membolehkan HMS membuat
apa-apa penilaian atau dapatan yang jelas mengenai releven atau
sebaliknya atau berat yang harus diberikan kepada keterangan-
keterangan yang terkandung di dalam kes-kes tersebut yang boleh
mempengaruhi keputusan HMS.
[44] Maka, dengan ketiadaan keterangan jelas mengenai apakah
representasi salah, frod, niat jahat atau penipuan terancang yang
dilakukan oleh defendan-defendan terhadap plaintif dan dalam
ketiadaan apa-apa keterangan daripada kes-kes lain bagi
menunjukkan fakta yang sama (similar facts evidence), maka
Mahkamah ini berpandangan HMS tidak boleh dikatakan sebagai
terkhilaf apabila memutuskan bahawa plaintif telah gagal
melepaskan beban bukti di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa
defendan-defendan sama ada secara bersesama atau berasingan
telah melakukan frod, representasi salah, berniat jahat atau
melakukan penipuan terancang terhadap plaintif.
[45] Seterusnya, di dalam membenarkan tuntutan balas D1 dan D3
terhadap plaintif, HMS yang bijaksana telah membuat dapatan
bahawa D1 dan D3 telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa SPA 2016
dan SPA 2017 adalah sah di sisi undang-undang atas alasan
Borang Pindahmilik 14A yang telah ditandatangani oleh pihak-pihak
dan dokumen-dokumen penyeteman yang lain merupakan bukti
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
yang mengukuhkan bahawa segala urusan pindah milik hartanah
tersebut dari D1 kepada D3 adalah teratur.
[46] Pada pengamatan Mahkamah ini sendiri, dengan termeterainya
DORR 2015 di antara plaintif dan D2, maka SPA 2015 di antara
plaintif dan D2 dengan sendirinya telah menjadi tamat dan batal.
Lanjutan dari situ, tidak ada sebab untuk perjanjian SPA 2016 di
antara plaintif dan D1 dikatakan sebagai batal atau tidak sah kerana
selain SPA 2016, Borang 14A dan dokumen-dokumen penyeteman
yang dikemukakan, terdapat satu surat yang ditandatangani oleh
plaintif bertarikh 29.1.2016 yang mengesahkan telah menerima
wang sejumlah RM300,000.00 melalui bankers’ cheque daripada
D1 selaku pembeli sebagai bayaran penyelesaian keseluruhan
harga jual beli hartanah tersebut sebagai mana menurut SPA 2016
(rujuk m.s 277 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2A).
[47] Di dalam kes AWC Berhad (Formerly known as AWC Facility
Solutions Berhad) v Point-Euro Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [2012]
MLJU 474, Hakim Lee Swee Seng (Mahkamah Tinggi ketika itu)
memutuskan bahawa: -
“[25] The law is clear that a person is bound by what he has signed
and it is no Defence to say that he did not read the agreement as he
was in a rush or that the contents of an agreement was not explained
to him. Were it not so it would be most convenient for anyone who
wants to wriggle his way out of a contract to always adopt a busy
lifestyle or at least create the impression of having to rush for another
appointment and so did not have and could not have read the whole
agreement in the 3 minutes or so that was spent in signing at the
relevant pages. Neither is it a Defence to say that one does not
understand the language in which the agreement was drafted or that
the agreement was not explained before it was signed. The act of
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
signing has come to be taken to mean that one has agreed to be bound
by the terms of the agreement.”
[48] Berikutan dapatan HMS bahawa plaintif telah gagal mengemukan
bukti-bukti di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa defendan-
defendan telah melakukan frod, represetasi salah, niat jahat
dan/atau penipuan terancang terhadapnya, maka plaintif tidak
dapat mengelak liabiliti terhadap dokumen-dokumen yang telah
ditandatanganinya dalam perkara ini.
[49] Di hadapan Mahkamah ini, SPA 2015, SPA 2016 dan DORR serta
dokumen-dokumen selainnya jelas menunjukkan bahawa plaintif
telah melaksanakan dua transaksi perjanjian jual beli atas hartanah
yang sama tersebut – pertamanya dengan D2 pada tahun 2015
melalui SPA 2015 yang kemudiannya dibatalkan melalui DORR
2015, dan yang keduanya dengan D1 pada tahun 2016 melalui SPA
2016 yang mana plaintif tidak menafikan telah menerima balasan
harga sepenuhnya sebanyak RM300,000.,00.
[50] Lanjutan dari situ, apabila D1 telah menjualkan hartanah tersebut
kepada D3 pada tahun 2017 melalui SPA 2017 dengan balasan
harga RM900,000.00, maka plaintif tidak boleh sewenang-
wenangnya menimbulkan isu bahawa SPA 2015 dan SPA 2016
yang dimasuki olehnya dengan D2 dan D1 masing-masing sebagai
tidak sah dan batal tanpa alasan atau bukti kukuh bagi menyokong
dakwaannya.
[51] Perlu dinyatakan di sini sebagai pelengkap bahawa Mahkamah ini,
selain perlu mendengar rayuan ini secara perbicaraan semula
(rehearing), juga turut terikat dengan prinsip-prinsip asas rayuan
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
bahawa mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan hanya akan
mengubah keputusan mahkamah bicara jika ditunjukkan bahawa
keputusan hakim mahkamah bicara tersebut adalah secara terang-
terangannya salah (plainly wrong). Prinsip ini seringkali
diperingatkan oleh mahkamah tertinggi negara sebagai contoh di
dalam Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratix
for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12
MLJ 67, Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan di m.s 87 (para 37)
dan m.s 96 (para 78) seperti berikut: -
“[33] It was a long settled principle, stated and restated in domestic and
wider common law jurisprudence, that an appellate court should not
interfere with the trial Judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless
satisfied that he was plainly wrong. (The Supreme Court of United
Kingdom in Mc Graddie v Mc Graddie [2013] WLR 2472).
….
[78] Hence following this court’s ruling in Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra
Tengku Indra Petra (supra) an appellate court should not interfere with
the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the
decision of the trial judge was “plainly wrong” where in arriving at the
decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was
one which no reasonable judge could have reached. If the decision did
not fall within any of the aforesaid category, it is irrelevant, even if the
appellate court thinks that with whatever degree of certainty, it
considered that it would have reached a different conclusion from the
trial judge.”
[52] Maka, berdasarkan penelitian dan pertimbangan keseluruhan
terhadap keterangan dan bukti-bukti dokumentari yang terkandung
di dalam rekod-rekod rayuan, Mahkamah ini berpuashati bahawa
HMS tidak melakukan apa-apa kekhilafan undang-undang dalam
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
mencapai keputusannya menolak keseluruhan tuntutan plaintif
terhadap defendan-defendan dan membenarkan tuntutan balas D1
dan D3 terhadap plaintif.
Penutup
[53] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan seperti mana yang terkandung di atas,
Mahkamah ini membenarkan sebahagian sahaja rayuan plaintif
untuk Lamp. 79 dengan kos RM1,000.00 dibayar oleh perayu
kepada setiap defendan dan telah menolak keseluruhan rayuan
plaintif terhadap keputusan penuh HMS selepas perbicaraan
dengan kos RM10,000.00 dibayar oleh perayu kepada setiap
defendan. Sebagaimana kebiasaaan, kos adalah tertakluk kepada fi
alokator.
Tarikh: 13hb November 2023
………………………………………….
(NOOR HISHAM BIN ISMAIL)
Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman
Mahkamah Tinggi, Johor Bahru
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
Peguam bagi pihak Perayu/Plaintif:
Pn. Sugania Govind bersama-sama En. P. Rajagunaseelan
dan Pn. Khairunnisa (PDK)
Tetuan G. K. Sritharan & Co.
Johor Bahru
Peguam bagi pihak Responden/Defendan Pertama, Kedua dan Keempat:
En. David Leow
Tetuan TNG, Liew, David Leow & Co.
Johor Bahru
Peguam bagi pihak Responden/Defendan Ketiga:
Pn. Kenny Lo Jia Yi
Tetuan K S Pang & Co.
Johor Bahru.
Kes-kes yang dirujuk:
1. Simetech (M) Sdn Bhd v Yeoh Cheng Liam Constructions Sdn Bhd [1992]
1 MLJ 11;
2. The Carbon Company Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ng Lee Hoon (conducting
under 'Forest Wood Flooring') [2017] 4 MLJ 791;
3. ALW Car Workshop Sdn Bhd v AXA Affin General Insurance Bhd [2019]
4 MLJ 561;
4. AWC Berhad (Formerly known as AWC Facility Solutions Berhad) v
Point-Euro Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [2012] MLJU 474;
5. Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratix for the estate
of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67.
Undang-undang yang dirujuk:
1. Seksyen 19 Akta Kontrak 1950.
S/N hCOvS5fuWUS9xBKcXzrLNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 43,999 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-24C-15-02/2023 | PEMOHON SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD RESPONDEN EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTIONS (M) SDN BHD | 1st Issue: Whether there is delay in the filing of the Stay Application and if so, whether this amounts to an abuse of the court’s process - 2nd Issue: Whether there are clear and unequivocal errors in the AD? - 3rd Issue: Whether the Defendant’s financial position is such that it will be unable to repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff in the event the Plaintiff succeeds in the arbitration proceedings | 15/11/2023 | YA Dato' Hajah Aliza binti Sulaiman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=83c2d445-e265-4fde-8562-ae3d36a9a346&Inline=true |
1
IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: WA-24C-15-02/2023
BETWEEN
SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION
UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN. BHD.
(Company Registration No.: 59575-V) ... PLAINTIFF
AND
EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTIONS (M) SDN BHD
(Company Registration No.: 201201030507 / 1014994-T)
... DEFENDANT
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff pursuant to para 16(1)(b) of the
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746]
(‘CIPAA’) CIPAA, O. 69A, r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘RC 2012’)
and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under O. 92, r. 4 RC 2012
to stay the Adjudication Decision dated 18.8.2022 (‘AD’) by the learned
Adjudicator, Mr. Ivan Loo Yew Fook, and all execution proceedings,
winding up proceedings, request for direct payment under s 30 CIPAA
15/11/2023 08:14:43
WA-24C-15-02/2023 Kand. 61
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
or Clause 20.8 of the Particular Conditions of the Main Contract
between the Plaintiff and PNB Merdeka Ventures Sdn Bhd dated
28.3.2017 or suspension/ reduction in the rate of progress of the
subcontract works pursuant to s 29 CIPAA pending final determination
by way of arbitration (‘Stay Application’).
[2] After having considered the cause papers and submissions by the
parties, I had on 7.9.2023, allowed a conditional stay of the AD pending
final determination of the dispute between the parties by way of
arbitration. The Adjudicated Sum, which has been held by the
Defendant's solicitors since 3.5.2023, shall continue to be so held in
their stakeholders account until the disposal of the arbitration
proceedings. No order was made as to cost.
[3] The Defendant, being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, has since
appealed against the same and applied for an early hearing date at the
Court of Appeal. The full grounds for the decision are set out in the
succeeding part of this judgment.
The Cause Papers
[4] The cause papers for the Stay Application are as follows:
(a) the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons (‘O.S.’) dated 10.2.2023
(encl. 1);
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
(b) the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support (‘AIS’) affirmed by its Deputy
Project Director, Wan Nor Azman Bin Wan Salleh on 10.2.2023
(encls. 2 - 4);
(c) the Plaintiff’s Supplementary Affidavit affirmed by the same
deponent on 2.3.2023 (encls. 7 - 18);
(d) the Defendant’s Affidavit in Reply (‘AIR’) affirmed by its Director,
Nathan a/l Elumalay on 8.3.2023 (encl. 19);
(e) the Plaintiff’s AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 29.3.2023
(encls. 21 - 22);
(f) the Defendant’s Notice of Intention to use Affidavit dated
3.5.2023 (encl. 25);
(g) the Plaintiff’s Supplemental Affidavit (2) affirmed by the same
deponent on 10.5.2023 (encl. 31);
(h) the Defendant’s AIR (2) affirmed by the same deponent on
2.6.2023 (encl. 39);
(i) the Plaintiff’s Expert Affidavit affirmed by the Director of
PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Sdn Bhd (‘PwC’),
Lim Chee Teong (‘CT Lim’) on 3.7.2023 (encls. 41 - 43);
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
(j) the Plaintiff’s AIR (2) affirmed by its Project Manager,
Sunggyeom Kim on 3.7.2023 (encls. 44 - 46);
(k) the Defendant’s AIR (3) affirmed by the same deponent on
14.7.2023 (encl. 47); and
(l) the Plaintiff’s AIR (3) affirmed by Wan Nor Azman on 9.8.2023
(encl. 49).
Brief Facts
[5] The background facts of this case have been outlined in Eversendai
Constructions (M) Sdn Bhd v Samsung C&T Corporation UEM
Construction JV Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 2025, which is the judgment of
this Court in O.S. No. WA-24C-156-08/2022 in allowing the
Defendant’s application to restrain the Plaintiff from receiving the sum
under a Bank Guarantee until final disposal of all disputes between the
parties (‘Injunction Application’).
[6] The salient background facts will not be repeated here and suffice for
present purposes to state that –
(a) on 18.8.2022, the Adjudicator determined, among others, that
the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the sum of RM25,457,990.03
with simple interest at a rate of 6.4% per annum on the said sum
from 1.3.2022 until full payment;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
(b) the Defendant filed an application pursuant to s 28 CIPAA on
25.8.2022 (O.S. No. WA-24C-163-08/2022; 'Enforcement
Application') and the Plaintiff then filed its application under s
15 CIPAA on 8.9.2022 (O.S. No. WA-24C-174-09/2022; 'Setting
Aside Application');
(c) the Defendant issued a Notice of Arbitration on 11.11.2022;
(d) the Setting Aside Application and the Enforcement Application
were heard together, with the agreement of the parties, on
13.2.2023 and 9.3.2023. The hearing of the Injunction
Application took place on 7 and 14 April 2023. The decision for
all three applications was pronounced on 20.4.2023 whereby the
Setting Aside Application was dismissed, and the Enforcement
Application and the Injunction Application were allowed;
(e) the Plaintiff did not appeal against the decision of this Court for
the Setting Aside Application and the Enforcement Application.
The broad grounds of decision in relation to both Applications are
set out in Eversendai Constructions (supra at para 35); and
(f) the Stay Application was heard on 21.8.2023.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
The Stay Application
[7] The Plaintiff’s grounds in support of the Stay Application as stated in
the O.S. are as follows:
(a) there are clear and manifest errors in the AD; and
(b) in the event the adjudication sum is paid to the Defendant and
the Plaintiff succeeds in the Stay Application, it will be difficult to
recover the adjudication sum from the Defendant given that the
Defendant is facing financial difficulties.
[8] The Plaintiff argued that at the outset, the Plaintiff has met the
threshold requirement for a stay pursuant to para 16(1)(b) of CIPAA,
as this matter is pending final determination via arbitration which has
commenced. To support this position, counsel for the Plaintiff cited the
judgment in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2
MLJ 22 (FC) which held, among others at paras 82 and 84, that –
(a) s 16 CIPAA allows some degree of flexibility to stay an
adjudication decision where there are clear and unequivocal
errors, or to meet the justice of the individual case; and
(b) the correct approach under s 16 CIPAA is to evaluate each case
on its merits where the financial capacity of the party concerned
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
to repay the adjudicated sum could be a factor in determining the
outcome of the application.
Analysis and Decision of the Court
1st Issue: Whether there is delay in the filing of the Stay Application and
if so, whether this amounts to an abuse of the court’s process
[9] The Defendant complained that there is undue delay in the filing of the
Stay Application as the Plaintiff had filed the same three months after
the issuance of the Notice of Arbitration (reference was made to Rules
5.1 and 7.5 of the Asian International Arbitration Centre Arbitration
(‘AIAC’) Rules 2021) and one working day before the hearing of the
Setting Aside Application and the Enforcement Application.
[10] The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s conduct amounts to an abuse
of the court’s process as the Plaintiff wanted to ensure that the Stay
Application will not be disposed together with the Enforcement
Application and the Setting Aside Application, and to enable the
Plaintiff to obtain, upon dismissal of the Setting Aside Application, an
interim stay pending the disposal of the Stay Application.
[11] The Plaintiff denied the Defendant’s allegation of delay (see para 6,
encl. 21) on the grounds that –
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
(a) the Defendant had deliberately excluded the AD from the Notice
of Arbitration and hence, the Plaintiff had to include the AD in its
Response to the Notice of Arbitration which was submitted on
11.1.2023 (see exhibits “WNA-12” and “WNA-13”, encl. 4); and
(b) the Defendant had only submitted the Registration Request to
the AIAC to register the arbitration on 3.2.2023 (see exhibit
“WNA-14”, encl. 4).
[12] Having considered the parties’ averments and submissions on the
issue of delay, I was inclined to agree with the Plaintiff that any
allegations of mala fide intention on the part of the Plaintiff to delay
matters are unfounded.
[13] Moreover, on 14.9.2022, Lim Chong Fong J (now JCA) had granted an
ad interim stay of the AD in terms of prayer 1 in encl. 4 of the Setting
Aside Application until 27.9.2022 or such further order. After having
heard the parties on 27.9.2022, His Lordship then granted a conditional
stay of the AD in terms of the same prayer by ordering the Plaintiff to
pay the principal adjudicated sum amounting to RM25,457,990.03 into
an interest-bearing account held by Messrs. Zul Rafique & Partners
until the disposal of encl. 1 or further order within 14 days from the date
of the Order. The Plaintiff’s oral application for a stay against the
condition pending appeal was disallowed. The condition was
subsequently fulfilled within the stipulated time and the Plaintiff’s
appeal, which was filed on 17.10.2022, was withdrawn on 2.6.2023.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[14] In addition, the case authorities relied upon by the Defendant, namely,
Haji Wan Habib Syed Mahmud v Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Taib
Mahmud & Anor [1986] 2 MLJ 198 and Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt
Ahmad Fuaad & Ors [2021] MLJU 2293 can be distinguished on the
facts as both cases do not concern an application pursuant to s 16 of
the CIPAA and –
(a) in Haji Wan Habib Syed Mahmud, the Supreme Court affirmed
the decision of the High Court which found that the delay of two
months before the appellant sought relief was, in the
circumstances of the case, unreasonable and unexplained. The
relief sought was an interlocutory injunction, which the Court
said, being pre-eminently a discretionary remedy, is exceptional
in its nature and shall not be made available to those who sleep
on their rights. In the instant case, the Plaintiff has denied any
delay on its part in filing the Stay Application and has offered its
explanation as to why the Stay Application was filed on
10.2.2023. Furthermore, the passages from the judgment as
cited by the Defendant do not discuss abuse of process; and
(b) in Hisham bin Halim, the High Court held that there was a blatant
abuse of the court’s process as the applicant had come to the
civil court to injunct the Syariah Appeal Court from continuing
with the proceeding without making any application to the
Syariah Court for a stay of proceeding. The passage relied on by
the Defendant merely sets out an example of an abuse of
process which is trite i.e. “where a suit is duplicated or where a
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
party employs improper and perverse procedure to obtain an
advantage undeservedly” whereas in the instant application,
there is no duplicity or undeserved advantage emanating from
the same.
[15] Even assuming there is delay by the Defendant in filing the Stay
Application, that alone cannot justify a dismissal of the Stay Application
in limine as the CIPAA does not provide a timeline within which an
application to stay an adjudication decision must be filed. Pursuant to
O. 69A, r. 4 RC 2012, such an application may be made to the High
Court by way of an O.S. or a notice of application in the pending action
to set aside the adjudication decision, and the applicant must show that
an application under s 15 CIPAA has been made or the subject matter
of the adjudication decision is pending determination by arbitration or
the court.
2nd Issue: Whether there are clear and unequivocal errors in the AD?
[16] The Plaintiff alleged that there are 14 errors in the AD as follows:
(a) despite the Defendant’s own admission that the design changes
had taken place and varied the scope of the subcontract works,
the Adjudicator erroneously awarded the Defendant based on
the original sum or subcontract Price as if no variation had taken
place;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(b) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed the Plaintiff is not entitled to
the adjustment or reduction of the subcontract price despite the
substitution of heavy steel members with lighter ones which
reduced the tonnage and saved costs;
(c) the Adjudicator erroneously placed the burden on the Plaintiff to
provide evidence of the evaluation of the works;
(d) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Plaintiff’s claims for
an adjustment to the subcontract price due to variations and/ or
design changes have been waived pursuant to Article 2.3 of the
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 dated 5.11.2020 (‘SA No. 1’) and
therefore, waived by the Plaintiff;
(e) the Adjudicator erroneously found that Article 2.3.2 of SA No. 1
was not for the purpose of adjusting the subcontract price caused
by design changes despite the fact that the saving provision of
Article 2.3.2 proves that the issues of variation and/ or design
changes have yet to be waived;
(f) the Adjudicator erroneously found that it could not have been the
parties’ intention when they entered into SA No. 1 that the entire
Subcontract Agreement would be changed to a re-measurement
contract when the Plaintiff never took this position in the
adjudication;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(g) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that value engineering does
not amount to subcontract variation because the Adjudicator had
misconstrued provisions of the Subcontract such as Clause 13.1
of the Particular Conditions of Subcontract;
(h) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that there is insufficient
evidence to assess and conclude that the requirement for a valid
subcontract variation has been complied with despite the fact the
Plaintiff had provided evidence of the same;
(i) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed the subcontract works to
have been substantially completed by the Defendant despite the
Defendant’s failure to notify the Plaintiff of the completion of the
works in accordance with Clause 10.1 of the General Conditions
of the Subcontract;
(j) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the subcontract works
to have been substantially completed by the Defendant despite
the fact that the Defendant’s claim was pursuant to Clause 14.3
of the General Conditions of the Subcontract i.e. for an interim
claim;
(k) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the subcontract works
to have been substantially completed by the Defendant despite
the Defendant has not claimed for the first half of the retention
monies pursuant to Clause 14.7 of the Particular Conditions of
the Subcontract;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(l) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Defendant had
completed the Roof Floor and Crown installation works and the
Plaintiff was not entitled to withhold the sum of RM1.3 million
when in fact the Plaintiff had issued numerous non-conformance
reports to the Defendant which shows that the subcontract works
had not been completed;
(m) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Plaintiff is not
entitled to claim or deduct liquidated damages against the
Defendant unless the Plaintiff had given notice of decision
pursuant to Clause 3.3 of the Subcontract; and
(n) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Defendant is
entitled to a further extension of time to complete the subcontract
works without determining the extent of the extension of time to
which the Defendant would be entitled. Further, the Defendant
failed to comply with Clauses 8.4 and 20.2 of the Subcontract.
[17] The Defendant submitted that the purported errors are essentially a
repetition of the grounds raised by the Plaintiff in the Setting Aside
Application, and the “errors” in subparas 16(a), (b) and (g) above were
even withdrawn by the Plaintiff’s solicitors during the hearing of the
Setting Aside Application on 13.2.2023. With regards to the “error” in
subpara 16(h) above, the Adjudicator had decided in the Plaintiff’s
favour.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[18] I have scrutinised the alleged errors and I agree with the Defendant’s
contentions as aforesaid. As submitted by Mr. James Monteiro, the
scenario is akin to the earlier cases which were decided by this Court,
namely, JEKS Engineering Sdn Bhd v PALI PTP Sdn Bhd and another
case [2022] 9 MLJ 541, Zeta Letrik Sdn Bhd v Jaks Sdn Bhd and other
cases [2022] MLJU 2734 and Meridian Contracts Sdn Bhd v Bauer
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another summon [2020] MLJU 1405 where
the Court found that the applicants for a stay of the adjudication
decision had put forth the same grounds as in the applications under
15 CIPAA, which had been considered and determined to be
unmeritorious.
[19] In the circumstances, the 2nd Issue is answered in the negative.
3rd Issue: Whether the Defendant’s financial position is such that it will
be unable to repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff in the
event the Plaintiff succeeds in the arbitration proceedings
[20] The Plaintiff relied mainly on the decision of the Court of Appeal in ASM
Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals
[2023] 1 CLJ 1 (see in particular paras 53, 54, 59, 61 and 77) to support
its arguments, among others, that there is lack of clarity in the
Defendant’s true financial ability to pay back the Adjudicated Sum, if
required and this amounts to a special circumstance that justifies a stay
of the AD pending final determination of the dispute between the
parties pursuant to the arbitration process (see too, paras 22, 26 and
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
30 - 33 of the judgment in Pinnacle Supreme Sdn Bhd v DSG Projects
Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 852 which were quoted in the
Plaintiff’s Submission In Reply).
[21] The Defendant vehemently countered the Plaintiff’s arguments by
insisting that it is an ongoing business concern and not one under
financial distress for the reasons which were summarised as follows:
(a) there is no evidence that the Defendant is unable to repay any
debts;
(b) the Defendant is not under any winding-up or threatened
winding-up;
(c) the Defendant has been suffering losses because of breaches
by the Plaintiff;
(d) the substantial portion of the Defendant’s liabilities are owed to
Eversendai Corporation Berhad (‘ECB’; the Defendant’s holding
company) and its other subsidiaries, and its directors, who are all
supporting the Defendant;
(e) despite being owed substantial amounts of money, the
Defendant was able to finance the works and had completed the
project, except for a few drawings that are being submitted. The
Defendant pursued adjudication against the Plaintiff only after
substantially completing the works; and
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
(f) the Plaintiff’s expert, CT Lim, is not qualified and he did not deny
that the Defendant is a going concern.
[22] I have duly considered the affidavit evidence and the submissions of
the parties and I find that the Plaintiff has established the Defendant’s
inability to repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff, if required to do
so after the arbitration. My reasons are as follows:
(a) CT Lim’s Qualifications
The Defendant submitted that, based on CT Lim’s curriculum
vitae (‘CV’; see exhibit “LCT-1”, encl. 41), he is an accountant
and not a qualified or licensed auditor or liquidator. Thus, CT Lim
does not have the requisite expertise and qualifications to
comment or opine on auditing matters, liquidity, solvency and
capital adequacy. Furthermore, as compared to the Defendant’s
experts, Dawin Tang Keng Wai and Marilyn Ngu Siow Ping (see
the Expert Accountant Opinion On The Solvency Of Eversendai
Corporation Berhad (‘PKF Report’) in exhibit “NT-19”, encl. 39
at pp 283 - 286), CT Lim is not proverbially peritus, with skill or
knowledge on the matters of audit and liquidity. Hence, the
Defendant urged the Court to take caution when considering the
PwC Report and that its experts’ findings and views are to be
preferred over that of CT Lim.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
Firstly, the issue as to CT Lim’s qualifications as compared to the
Defendant’s experts was not mentioned at all in the Defendant’s
AIR (3) (encl. 47). Therefore, there was no opportunity for CT Lim
to respond to the statements which were made for the first time
in the Defendant’s Reply Submissions.
Secondly, CT Lim has affirmed that he is a chartered accountant
with more than 17 years of experience in performing statutory
audits, management accounting and financial reporting
functions, and providing independent valuation advice. Upon
perusal of his CV, I am unable to agree with the Defendant’s
contention as to CT Lim’s purported lack of expertise and
qualifications to carry out the task falling under the scope of
instructions, namely, to provide an independent assessment of
(i) the financial health and financial soundness of the Defendant;
and (ii) the arguments and conclusions raised in the PKF Report.
I am satisfied that CT Lim has the requisite peculiar skills and
knowledge in analysing the Defendant’s audited financial
statements and the PKF Report to arrive at his findings and
conclusions. In my opinion, CT Lim qualifies as an expert (see
Dato’ Mokhtar Bin Hashim & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1983] 2
MLJ 232) and there is no justification for me to reject his evidence
as being inadmissible or to give lesser weight to his report.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
(b) Ability to Repay the Adjudicated Sum
The Defendant relied on para 26 in the judgment by Lim Chong
Fong J (now JCA) in Kayangan Kemas Sdn Bhd v TMT Solutions
Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 1277 where His Lordship had explained
regarding project cash flow and corporate cash flow and said,
among others, that “… the continuing subsistence and survival
of the construction company as an ongoing concern to undertake
projects is dependent on corporate cash flow. …” to support the
submission that the Defendant remains a going concern and is
not a PN17 company with no evidence of inability to repay debts.
Based on the report prepared by CT Lim (‘PwC Report’), –
(i) the expert had adopted the Capital Adequacy Test to
indicate whether the Defendant has sufficient assets to
meet all its liabilities, and the Liquidity Test to indicate
whether the Defendant is able to pay its debts as and when
they fall due.
With regards to the Capital Adequacy Test, CT Lim found
that the Defendant’s net liability was deteriorating to a
deficit of RM66,126,000.00 at the end of financial year
2022 (‘FY22’) and this indicates that the Defendant does
not have sufficient assets to meet its liabilities. The
alarming decline from 2020 to 2022 where total liabilities
exceeded total assets is “… a very strong indicator of the
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
Defendant’s increasingly insufficient capacity to meet its
financial obligations.”.
As for the Liquidity Test, it “… reveals a significant
worsening in the Defendant’s financial position from a net
current liability of RM5,495,727 in FY18 to a net current
liability of RM56,096,360 in FY21, highlighting an acute
inability to fulfil short-term debt repayments.”.
CT Lim goes on to say that “Using the same tests applied
by PKF in assessing solvency, it is evident that the
Defendant would have consistently failed the Capital
Adequacy Test and the Liquidity Test in each of the
past four (4) financial years leading up to FY21”;
(ii) apart from the two Tests as above mentioned, CT Lim had
conducted further analysis on the Defendant’s profit and
loss statements and cash and bank balances for financial
year-end 31.12.2017 to 31.12.2021 and found that:
(A) the Defendant has consistently suffered net losses in
each of the four financial years up to FY21, with a net
loss of RM41,410,672.00 recorded in FY21;
(B) there is a pattern of consistent losses in escalating
amounts from FY18 to FY21, resulting in the
Defendant having to rely on intercompany financial
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
support. The Defendant owes its related companies
a net total of RM55,741,194.00 as at 31 December
2021, mainly from trade transactions and payments
on behalf which are unsecured, interest-free and
repayable on demand. Hence, these intercompany
liabilities gives the lenders the right to request
repayment of debt at any time without prior notice or
a specific repayment schedule;
(C) any surplus cash available to the Defendant by way
of receipt of the Adjudication Sum may potentially be
allocated towards repaying the intercompany
liabilities;
(D) the Defendant is heavily reliant on financial support
from its immediate holding company to meet its
obligations and carry on operations. Any failure on
the part of the holding company to provide the
necessary funds could have serious implications on
the Defendant's operations and its ability to fulfil its
legal and contractual commitments.
(E) from FY17 to FY21, the Defendant had an average
year-end cash balance of RM1,434,811.00 over the
past five years. By the end of FY21, the cash balance
held by the Defendant was RM210,563.00 which is
insignificant when compared against the Adjudication
Sum of RM25,457,990.03;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
(F) as an operating subsidiary, the Defendant does not
hold substantial cash balance at any one point in
time. Instead, any surplus cash balances held by the
Defendant are either used to pay down external
borrowings or intercompany liabilities based on
observations on the accounts from FY17 to FY21.
The PwC Report summarised that:
“6.3.1. Based on Section 6.1 to Section
6.2.10 of this PwC Report, it is evident
that the Defendant has been, and still
is, facing severe solvency challenges.
The Capital Adequacy Test reveals
that the Defendant has consistently
been in a net liability position over the
past five (5) financial years, indicating
an inability to meet its financial
obligations. Similarly, the Liquidity
Test demonstrates a significant
deterioration in the Defendant’s net
current liability position, further
highlighting its insufficient capacity to
fulfil short-term repayments.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
6.3.2. These solvency issues are
exacerbated by the continued
substantial losses incurred by the
Defendant and its reliance on
intercompany financial support,
leading to a substantial amount of
intercompany liabilities owed to
related parties. The fact that these
liabilities are repayable on demand
raises concerns about the allocation
of any available cash towards
repayment, potentially further
compromising the Defendant's
financial stability. In light of these
compelling facts, I believe that the
Defendant’s is at high risk of being
unable to repay the Adjudication Sum
in the event the Plaintiff prevails in the
Arbitration.”.
In the light of the above excerpts from the PwC Report, there is
uncertainty over the Defendant’s ability to carry on as a going
concern. In fact, in Kayangan Kemas, the court concluded that
“… since there is only possibility but no cogent evidence of actual
insolvency balanced with the need for corporate cash flow, I am
of the view that the just approach in the circumstances is to order
part payment of the adjudicated sum to TMTS with the balance
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
of the other part of the adjudicated sum held in escrow pending
the disposal of the Suit.”. In the instant suit, I was inclined to
make the order as I did because the Plaintiff has proven, on a
balance of probabilities, the precarious financial position of the
Defendant and it is not a certainty that the Adjudicated Sum will
be re-paid to the Plaintiff should the outcome of the arbitration be
in the Plaintiff’s favor such that a conditional stay is appropriate
in the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.
(c) The Defendant’s Financial Position Was Never An Issue?
Mr. James Monteiro had submitted for the Defendant that the
Plaintiff’s arguments on the Defendant’s finances are
afterthoughts because of the following reasons:
(i) The Defendant’s financial position was never previously a
concern as the Plaintiff had executed SA No. 1 in 2020,
which increased the subcontract price by RM36.293
million, despite full knowledge of the Defendant’s financial
position being largely the same as it is now. However, there
is no expert evidence to show that the Defendant’s
financial position is the same as at the time of the
Subcontract Agreement in 2016. In any event, the PwC
Report shows significant worsening of the Defendant’s
financial standing from 2018 to 2021.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
(ii) The Plaintiff is already holding ample monies or securities
from the Defendant in the form of the Adjudicated Sum,
retention sums in the amount of RM17,13,549.92 and
monies secured pursuant to a Bank Guarantee in the
amount of RM32,849,223.61. I agree with the Plaintiff that
this factor has nothing to do with the Defendant’s ability to
repay the Adjudicated Sum.
The fact is that the Adjudicated Sum is being held by the
Defendant’s solicitors and will be released to the
Defendant if the Stay Application is dismissed. Meanwhile,
the purpose of the retention sum is to ensure that the
Defendant attends to any defective works during the
Defects Notification Period. As for the Bank Guarantee,
there is an injunction as a result of the Injunction
Application and the matter is pending appeal (at the time
of writing this judgment, the Court of Appeal has affirmed
the decision of this Court on 24.10.2023).
(iii) The Plaintiff returned the Defendant’s Advance Payment
Bond in the sum of RM17,710,997.48 in early 2022 even
though there were advance/ on-account payments that had
not been recovered by the Plaintiff at the material time.
However, it is my considered view that this fact does not
prove the Defendant’s ability to repay the Adjudicated
Sum. The Advance Payment Bond was issued for the
purpose of guaranteeing the return of the sum which was
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
advanced to the Defendant. Once that has been recouped,
the Advance Payment Bond must be returned to the
Defendant (see para 36, encl. 21).
(iv) The Plaintiff had consistently under-certified payments,
caused late issuance of payment certificates, made late
payments and underpayment and sudden design changes
in the name of “value engineering”. However, this
contention does not assist the Defendant’s case in
establishing its ability to repay the Adjudicated Sum.
Moreover, there is no expert evidence to show that the
Defendant’s financial position is due to the Plaintiff’s failure
in paying the Adjudicated Sum.
(v) The Plaintiff or its affiliates had invited the Defendant or its
affiliates to tender for steelworks in the project and had
awarded the same to the Defendant; to tender for metal
works in the project; to tender for projects in Qatar, Taiwan
and Singapore; and to purchase steelworks for a Petronas
project in Kuala Lumpur, all worth hundreds of Malaysian
Ringgit (see paras 35 - 41 of the Defendant’s Written
Submissions for the listing). Again, this does not show that
the Defendant will be able to repay the Adjudicated Sum to
the Plaintiff. In any event, the Plaintiff explained that “…
the invitation to the Defendant to participate in the tender
exercise was part of the competitive process. … the
Defendant was invited to the tender exercise mostly
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
because the Defendant had already been present and
mobilised on site-a fact the Plaintiff believed at the time
could give the Defendant price advantage over other third
party contractors, as there would be little to no preliminary
and mobilisation costs. … the invitation to participate in the
tenders do not in any way reflect the Plaintiff’s confidence
in the Defendant's financial position at any moment.” (see
para 34, encl. 21).
(d) Alleged Attempt to Infer the Defendant’s Financial
Impecuniosity vis-à-vis ECB’s Financial Statements
The affirmations in the Defendant’s AIR (2) (encl. 39) are mainly
to rebut the Plaintiff’s allegation that there exists significant doubt
on the ECB Group’s and ECB’s ability to continue as going
concerns. In particular, it was averred, among others, that –
(i) the statement in ECB’s Financial Statements is a qualified
view formed by ECB’s independent auditor, Messrs. Baker
Tilly Monteiro Heng PLT (‘Baker Tilly’) without the benefit
of perusing documents on ECB’s support from the financial
institutions, ECB’s restructuring plans and borrowings and
ECB generating adequate cash flows for its operating
activities. The statement is also a common and generic
statement by independent auditors and not to be taken to
mean that ECB is insolvent or not a going concern;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
(ii) in the PKF Report, it was concluded that ECB and its
individual companies are solvent and going concerns. ECB
has sufficient assets to repay its liabilities, along with those
of its subsidiaries including the Adjudicated Sum;
(iii) ECB is a going concern and not under liquidation or dire
distress, which is why it is not classified as PN17 by Bursa
Malaysia; and
(iv) ECB continues to receive funding and financial instruments
from banks. ECB and its individual companies have been
awarded large iconic projects worth approximately RM1.1
billion across India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Singapore and
United Arab Emirates, which would not be the case if the
companies are indeed in distress.
At the outset, it must be emphasised that the PKF Report centres
on the solvency of the ECB Group i.e. ECB and its 19
subsidiaries, one of which is the Defendant. The PKF Report did
not consider the Defendant’s financial status and the key
question on the Defendant’s ability to repay the Adjudicated Sum
to the Plaintiff. No rebuttal expert report to the PwC Report was
prepared and exhibited although there was ample opportunity for
the Defendant to do so. In other words, the PwC Report stands
unopposed by the Defendant.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
I am mindful that the court may not reject unopposed expert
evidence unless the evidence is obviously lacking in defensibility
(see paras 34 and 35 in the judgment of the Court of Appeal
Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] 9 CLJ 337). In this
case, the PwC Report is not obviously indefensible. Therefore,
the court not being an expert on financial matters in determining
the financial health and financial soundness of the Defendant for
purposes of the Stay Application, should defer to expert opinion
as found in the PwC Report.
The Plaintiff asserted that it has raised issues regarding the
Defendant’s finances from the start and whatever evidence on
ECB (see paras 3.10 - 3.30 and 7.1 - 7.7.1 of the PwC Report on
CT Lim’s commentary on the PKF Report) is additional evidence
to support the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant is not able
to repay the Adjudicated Sum. CT Lim had concluded in the PwC
Report that:
“3.31. From my analysis above, the claims put forth
by the Defendant and its expert, PKF, are first
and foremost irrelevant as they focus
exclusively on the Defendant's parent entity,
ECB, instead of on the actual Defendant itself,
ECMSB.
3.32. If the same assessments had been done on the
Defendant as the relevant party, ECMSB would
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
have clearly failed both the solvency tests put
forth by its own expert PKF, and the financial
evidence I have presented based on the
audited financial statements of the Defendant
demonstrate that there is significant risk that it
will not be able to repay the Adjudication Sum
to the Plaintiff should the Plaintiff prevail in the
Arbitration.
3.33. Even if one were to resort to relying on the
financial strength of the parent entity of
ECMSB, i.e. ECB, as a means to justify the
ability of ECMSB to repay the Adjudicated Sum
(which in any case is technically incorrect and
conceptually unsupportable), there would still
be a significant risk of the Adjudicated Sum not
being recoverable by SUJV, based on ECB's
own financial position.”.
In my view, the Plaintiff had rebutted the Defendant’s averments
as set out in subparas (i) - (iv) above whereby –
• in respect of subpara (i), in the Reports And Financial
Statements for the Financial Year Ended 31 December
2022 dated 26.4.2023 (‘2023 Report’), Baker Tilly had
stated as follows:
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
“During the financial year ended 31 December
2022, the Group and the Company incurred net
losses of RM366,861,000 and RM302,956,000
respectively, and as of that date, the Group's and
the Company's current liabilities exceeded their
current assets by RM168,333,000 and
RM532,206,000 respectively. As disclosed in
Note 28, the Group and the Company are in
discussion with multiple financial institutions on
restructuring plans for the Group's and the
Company's borrowings.
These conditions indicate material uncertainties
exist that may cast significant doubt on the
Group's and the Company's ability to continue as
going concerns.
The ability of the Group and the Company to
operate as going concerns is dependent on:
(i) The continuous support from the financial
institutions and the discussion on
restructuring plans for the Group's and the
Company's borrowings be successfully
concluded; and
(ii) The Group and the Company to achieve
sustainable and profitable operations or
through the disposal of non-core assets to
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
generate adequate cash flows for their
operating activities.”
The Defendant has not shown that it is able to meet the
matters in (i) and (ii) as quoted above.
Further, Baker Tilly did not expressly state that they did not
have the benefit of perusing documents in relation to the
contingencies and the documents exhibited in encl. 39 pre-
date the 2023 Report and should have been given or made
available to Baker Tilly.
As for the allegation that Baker Tilly’s statement is common
and generic, the PwC Report makes reference to the
International Standard on Auditing 570 which “… requires
the auditor to make adequate disclosures, under a
separate section with a heading that includes reference to
the fact that a material uncertainty related to going concern
exists, to alert users to this circumstance as it is a matter
deemed important to the users’ understanding of the
financial statements. It is important to note that a MUCG is
only issued when events or conditions create significant
doubt about a company’s ability to continue its operations
or meet its financial obligations, and/ or the company may
be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities
in the normal course of business.”. Hence, the statements
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
by Baker Tilly are not a “blanket” cautionary statement nor
are they a common occurrence;
• in respect of subparas (ii) and (iii), these were countered
by paras 3.31 - 3.33 of the PwC Report as quoted earlier
(see too, paras 7.1.1 - 7.7.1 of the PwC Report, especially
paras 7.5.4 and 7.5.5). In para 7.7.1 of the PwC Report, it
was opined that “Certain representations made by PKF in
the PKF Report such as commenting on the success of
ECB Group’s debt restructuring exercise and ECB
Group’s potential to raise funds from the capital markets
based on its status as a publicly listed company, are
speculative in nature given no substantial evidence was
provided to support the claims.”; and
• in respect of subpara (iv), the loans and financing secured
by other member companies of the ECB Group do not
reflect the financial soundness of the Defendant which is
a separate entity from the other members of the Group and
ECB, which are located outside Malaysia. The Defendant
did not exhibit any financial records of the other member
companies of the ECB Group which have secured the
facilities or the assets, and the collateral used to secure
them.
As for ECB being awarded projects across numerous
countries, all the documents on the projects as exhibited
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
were issued in 2022 except for one Subcontract
Agreement dated 2.3.2023. These project documents
should have been made available to Baker Tilly for the
purposes of the 2023 Report. In any case, these
documents do not prove that ECB and its Group’s finances
are healthy and do not mean that the Defendant is able to
repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff.
(e) The Defendant and ECB Are Allegedly Financially Sound
The Defendant submitted that the following behaviour of the
markets, both domestically and abroad, towards itself and ECB
do not support the various allegations made by the Plaintiff and
its expert:
(i) ECB’s principal bankers have continued to work with, and
support, ECB and its individual companies on a day-to-day
basis which includes the issuance of performance bonds
on behalf of ECB and its individual companies as well as
the granting of loan facilities (sees paras 9 and 10 and
exhibits “NT-9” and “NT-10”, encl. 39 for the details).
However, the performance bonds have nothing to do with
the Defendant and the exact circumstances revolving
around the issuance of these bonds are unclear. With
regards to the loans and financing secured by other
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
member companies of the ECB Group, the Defendant did
not exhibit the financial records of these other member
companies and the collateral used to secure the loans and
financing. Anyway, this fact does not reflect the financial
soundness of the Defendant, which is separate entity.
(ii) ECB’s clients have seen no issue in providing bank
guarantees to ECB’s individual companies (see para 11
and exhibit “NT-11”, encl. 39). I am, however, inclined to
agree with the Plaintiff that the Bank Guarantee by BUCG
(M) Sdn Bhd to another ECB subsidiary, Eversendai
Engineering Sdn Bhd does not advance the Defendant’s
case in any way.
The Defendant additionally presented that ECB’s Interim
Financial Report for the Financial Year Ending 31 December
2023 – First Quarter Ended 31 March 2023 has shown a profit of
RM1.432 million with assets exceeding liabilities (see para 16
and exhibit “NT-14”, encl. 39). However, in para 7.3.1 of the
PwC Report, the expert opined that “… the translated profit of
RM1,432,000 is insignificant when compared to the reclassified
amount from the Syndicated Term Loan and Ijarah Facility to
current liabilities outstanding (short term obligations) of
RM707,06,000.”.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
(f) The Defendant Allegedly Financially Backed
According to the Defendant, ECB as its holding company, is at
all material times a going concern as confirmed in the PKF
Report and will support the Defendant. RM89,525,168.00 out of
the total liabilities in the sum of RM131,812,870.00 as stated in
the Defendant’s Financial Statements 2021 are sums owed to
related companies, an immediate holding company and a
director, all of whom will support the Defendant.
On this point, suffice to say that the PwC Report (see paras 3.33
and 6.2.4 - 6.2.10) casts doubt on the Defendant’s assertions on
“support” as it is unlikely the Defendant will obtain financial
assistance from ECB, and the substantial amounts owed to
related companies, a holding company and a director is in fact
indicative of the Defendant not being in a position to repay the
Adjudicated Sum.
[23] On a final note, the Defendant’s submissions pertaining to the
Plaintiff’s financial health with reference to the Plaintiff’s Financial
Statement 2022 which shows losses of RM84 million, and on the issue
of balance of convenience, are not relevant considerations for the Stay
Application.
[24] The importance of upholding the intent of the CIPAA has been
repeatedly emphasised in many cases on the CIPAA, two of which as
cited by Mr. James Monteiro are Sime Darby Energy Solution Sdn.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
Bhd. (formerly known as Sime Darby Offshore Engineering Sdn Bhd)
v RZH Setia Jaya Sdn. Bhd. [2022] 1 MLJ 458 and IRDK Venture Sdn
Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2020] MLJU 939. I
have also alluded to the intention and objective of the CIPAA in the
context of s 16 CIPAA in several judgments to date (see among others,
Syarikat TD Sdn Bhd v Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd and another case
[2019] MLJU 1754 at para 129 and MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v
Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd and another case [2023] MLJU 52 at
para 90).
[25] Nevertheless, in the final analysis of the present case, I am satisfied
that the justice of the case warrants a stay of the AD pending final
determination by way of arbitration as there is a real risk that the
Adjudicated Sum, if released to the Defendant, would not be able to be
re-paid to the Plaintiff in the event the Plaintiff finally succeeds in the
arbitration proceedings (see CRCC Malaysia Bhd v M101 Entity Sdn
Bhd and other cases [2021] MLJU 1305 at paras 55 and 57; Zeta Letrik
(supra) at paras 63 and 64; and RA Suria Sdn Bhd v Cedy Third
Contracting and Trading (M) Sdn Bhd and other cases [2023] MLJU
247 at para 37 for the discussion on the meaning of “justice of the
case”).
[26] In the premises, the 3rd Issue is answered in the affirmative.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
Conclusion
[27] In view of largely the findings of the Court in respect of the the 3rd Issue
above, the Stay Application in encl. 1 was allowed with no order as to
costs.
[28] I was of the further view that, in the circumstances of the case, a
conditional stay is appropriate and hence, the Adjudicated Sum, which
is currently held by the Defendant’s solicitors, shall continue to be so
held in the stakeholder's account until the disposal of the arbitration
proceedings.
Dated: 31 October 2023
(ALIZA SULAIMAN)
Judge
Construction Court 2
High Court
Kuala Lumpur
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
Counsels/ Solicitors:
For the Plaintiff: Kuhendran Thanapalasingam (Daniel Lau Hsien
Yuong and Agesh Krishendra Jeyaratnam with him)
Messrs. Zul Rafique & Partners
Advocates & Solicitors
D3-3-8, Solaris Dutamas
No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1
50480 Kuala Lumpur
For the Defendant: James Monteiro (Vishal V Kumar and Ban Qiao Hui
with him)
Messrs. James Monteiro
Advocates & Solicitors
D4-6-1, Solaris Dutamas
No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1
50480 Kuala Lumpur
Cases, legislation and other sources referred to in the submissions by
learned counsels and in the Grounds of Judgment:
Cases:
ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals
[2023] 1 CLJ 1
Batu Kemas Industri Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2015] 7 CLJ 849
Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Vanden Avenne-Izegem PVBA [1978] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 113
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
CRCC Malaysia Bhd v M101 Entity Sdn Bhd and other cases [2021] MLJU
1305
Dato’ Mokhtar Bin Hashim & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1983] 2 MLJ 232
Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2015]
2 MLJ 293
EA Technique (M) Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Sdn
Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1851
Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd v ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd and another
summons [2020] MLJU 1146
Eversendai Constructions (M) Sdn Bhd v Samsung C&T Corporation UEM
Construction JV Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 2025
Haji Wan Habib Syed Mahmud v Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud &
Anor [1986] 2 MLJ 198
Henia Investments Inc v Beck Interiors Ltd [2015] EWHC 2433 (TCC)
Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuaad & Ors [2021] MLJU 2293
IRDK Venture Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2020]
MLJU 939
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
Ireka Engineering and Construction Sdn. Bhd. v PWC Corp Sdn. Bhd. and
another appeal [2019] MLJU 35
JEKS Engineering Sdn Bhd v PALI PTP Sdn Bhd and another case [2022] 9
MLJ 541
Junaidi Bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [1993] 3 MLJ 217
Kayangan Kemas Sdn Bhd v TMT Solutions Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 1277
Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] 9 CLJ 337
Meridian Contracts Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another
summon [2020] MLJU 1405
MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd and another case
[2023] MLJU 52
Pinnacle Supreme Sdn Bhd v DSG Projects Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS
852
RA Suria Sdn Bhd v Cedy Third Contracting And Trading (M) Sdn Bhd [2023]
1 LNS 209; [2023] MLJU 247
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No. 3) 62 [2002] 1 WLR
1397
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
Sime Darby Energy Solution Sdn. Bhd. (formerly known as Sime Darby
Offshore Engineering Sdn Bhd) v RZH Setia Jaya Sdn. Bhd. [2022] 1 MLJ
458
Subang Skypark Sdn Bhd v Arcradius Sdn Bhd [2015] 11 MLJ 818
Sun Plaza Development Sdn Bhd v Hejongkang Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 2066
Syarikat TD Sdn Bhd v Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd and another case [2019]
MLJU 1754
Tecnicas Reunidas Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v Petrovietnam Engineering
Consultancy JSC (PVE) & Anor and other cases [2021] MLJU 2633
Terminal Perintis Sdn Bhd v Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd and
another case [2017] MLJU 242
View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22
Zeta Letrik Sdn Bhd v Jaks Sdn Bhd and other cases [2022] MLJU 2734
Legislation:
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss 15, 16, 28, 29
& 30
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
42
Rules of Court 2012, O. 69A r. 4 & O. 92 r. 4
Other sources referred to:
Julian Bailey, Construction Law Volume II, 2nd edition, Taylor and Francis,
2016
Stephen Furst & The Hon. Sir Vivian Ramsey, Keating on Construction
Contracts, 9th edition, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2015
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 56,142 | Tika 2.6.0 |
AB-42S-10-09/2022 | PERAYU Sahrol Bin Shamsudin RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [PEJABAT TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA NEGERI PERAK (TAIPING)] | Criminal procedure - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant was found guilty on 3 charges of possession of dangerous drugs - Whether Appellant had possession and knowledge of drugs - Whether prosecution evidence believable in light of contradicting evidence by Appellant's sister who was called to give evidence as a prosecution witness - Whether the Appellant's IC was found in the bag containing the drugs - Whether the Appellant's sister was an interested witness Proper findings of fact on a maximum evaluation of prosecution case - Whether defence properly considered by trial court - Appeal against conviction dismissed - Appeal against sentence - First offender - Appellant sentenced to 20 strokes of rotan in total - Reduced number of whippings imposed | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0499dc96-54c4-4fe0-9aed-1322ae526dd5&Inline=true |
15/11/2023 10:54:01
AB-42S-10-09/2022 Kand. 39
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ltyZBMRU4Ea7RMirlJt1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
m
15
m
m
Aa—¢2s—1u—u9/2n22 Kand.
,5, 142023 ms
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI TAIPING
DALAM NEGERI FERAK DARUL RIDZUAN MALAYSIA
RAVUAN JENAYAH NO: ABJZS-10-D9/2022 A As-42s-11-us/2022
[KES NO »Aa-szu-1oa—os/2020 5 A5620-121-owzozn
SAHROL BIN SHAIIISUDIN
mo. KIP.: 380311086465] . PERAVU
v
PENDAKWA RAVA ...REsPoNnEN
GROUNDS or JUDGMENT
m The Appeflam was charged in ms Sessions com for 3 offences ul
passessmn mi dangevous drugs under 2 case numbers as lollows
- fludu glndnn
A3420-1a:H1s/zoza
Bahawa uamu,pa.1=. 29/2/zazo Jam lebm kuranq 01.30 Pagw, benampm .1. tepi
man war Kzmvung Sangkm. uek. Ham Kuvau Da\am Dasrah mm Mmang
aan Sslam-n, dalam Negen Perak «even ada flalam mlhkan mu. m2 gram
bahan kelman Gan semuk wama palang yang mengamungl
Mannacelylmammnss O\eh yang dsrmklan kamu mam memkukan salu
kesavahan a. hawah seksysn 12(2) Akin nmn Eenbahaya 1952 yang bolah
dihukum m bawah Saksyen 39A zzum yang sama
Agfizfl-521-In/2020
Bahawa kamu, pm 29/2/znza yam Vebm kurang 01,31: Pagl, befl2mna| a. law
plan an Knmmmg Sangkm, Imk, aam Kumu Dahm Dauah Laml Mavsng
den Sebma dzlam Megan Pevak |aIah afla dalam mmm mm. 34 gm
Hemln onen yang demlkxan kamu lehh mehkukan mu kesalshan m hawan
N \IyZaMfiu4Ea7RMm.mu
mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns!
39
-m
15
saksyerl l2l2l Akla nadan Esrbahaya 1952 Yam: Doleh fllhukum dl aawan
Seksyerl 59A lIlAk\a yar-9 sama
Bahama Kamu. pada zwlzuzo ran. lehlh kumng 01 30 Pigl, herlzmpm dl Iepl
lalin went Kammmg sanded um, aard Kunln oalarn Daersh Luml Malang
dun Sslamn. dalarn Negarl Pemk lzlah ada dalarn mlllkan kamu U13 gram
nlernanrnneranrrne. olen yang demlklan kamu relan melakukan salu kesalahan
dl dawan sak5yen12(2)AkIa nedan Eemahaya msz yanp bulsfl dlmlknm dl
bawah sensyen 3?/1(HA><Iz we iama.‘
[2] sum eases were neard logelner anne sessions Court ln Taiplng as
lney involved me sarne wltnesses and same laa1s.l=or cunvenlenue, l will
reler lo me 3 charges as me flrst charge, seoond cnarge and Ihlrd charge,
raspeellvely. slanlng WM’! me cnarge in case No AE—62D—103—06/2020
Alter a lull lnal. me Appellant was lound gully on all charges by me
sessrdns com Judge lsc.ll and on 2 9.2022 he was eonvieled and
senleneed la 7 years’ rmpnsdnrnem end 10 elroxee Mme mlan ldrlne rrrel
charge and Syears‘ lrnpnesnrnenl and 5 slrakes ellna rolan larlns second
and third charges The imprlsanmenl «arms were lo edrnrnenee lronr lne
dale elarresl un 29 2 2020 and In he served eansdrrenlly
[3] Prior In lns neanng al Ihe appeal, are Appellant sedgnl lne cudrrs
leave to Ne lne Fel on of Appeal um pl Ilme e. aboul 2 weeks after me
deadline. The Court allowed me appllcallon slnoe me Denuly Public
Pmssculor (DPP) dld nal oblect lo lne applicalron.
[4] ladm appeals were neard logelher by one cam on 9.5 2023 on
1 9 2923, I amrrned the convicfians hm varled lne senlenees of me rdtan.
Thu 5 nrekes dl man oalzh ler lne suumd and mini enarges were
reduced lo 3 slrekas loraach charge The Appellant nas new appealed
agalnsl lhe wnple declslorl pl Ihls Conn. This Grounds pl Judgment
oonlaln my reasons lor dlsmissing poln appeal Nos. 10 and ll.
Nl|yZBMRUAE:7RMIl.ll1D
Mme a.n.l n-vlhnrwlll re used m mm ms nflnlrrallly sun. dun-mm wa mane wnxl
to
Zn
1;
are other uugsnl evidence to establish its ease in perticuiar direct
evidence soon as in the present case: Mahendren Arivetsn v PF [2020]
1 LNS 1213; man) ut..iu 1286 cam.
[21] The SCJ iurther stated that what was out to the prcseertion
witnesses without more cannot be accepted by the com as evidence per
se: senieiirt Iain Tumln v PP (201115 ML! 353. she oonciuded that the
evidence oi the prosecution witnesses in regard to the hnding oi the
oriendine drugs were eredioie evidence. which it unrebutted by the
deience wananted a conviction on the charges preierrett The main issue
tor oonsideretien was whether the prosecution had proved that the
Aopetient had possession eiihe black FVLA backpack (P14) which he held
with his right haridius1 beiere SP1 arrested him SP1 admitted that the
engine oi the car was still running but denied that PM was ever round in
the car. The SCJ iound that the Aopeiient had ectuei pussessioit oi P14
which contained the drugs. By virtue oi the iaet that the 3 plastic par.ke|s
in P14 were transparent and the ponies oouid cieeriy see the contents
suspected to be dnrgs, the SCJ iounti that the Appellant had the requisite
knawiedgs ot the opntents of the a transparent oiastie packets. The
Appeiiant atse admitted that P14 was the bag that the pohce seized that
night although he denied the bag and its contents were his.
[22] The SCJ aiso addressed the issue oi the or
prosecution witnesses in her grounds oiiudgrnerit The defence submitted
there were inatenai oontredtottons among the prosecution witnesses and
that they were bound by the testimonies of their own witnesses, to the
ex1enI that there a
ed two distinct interences and thereiore, the more
favourable inierenoe should be drawn by the mun ior the deiense. The
SCJ found that the discrepancies in the prosecution witnt§sas' evidenoe
iNilyZBMRUAE:7RMIiJl1D “
-rise Smni In-vihnrwiii re used M mm ms nflnihaiily siiii. dun-vinirl v.. nFit.ING Wflxi
ID
zo
were nor marenal conrrauiciions Ihat were fatal to me pvaseculiun case.
The discrepancies only weni io showihauhe prosecution witnesses were
noi mached Ia give evidence in mun They gave ewdenee based on meir
ve::ollac.1ion ai events: Llm euan Enq v PP [1933] 3 MLJ 769; choarr
Slang Guai v PP[1l'I69]2 ML! 53. some were able to give more cierails
man oihers. Moreover, the preseouhan witnesses r.a ihe policeman
Involved VI the arrest did nnl have any molive lo Ila: FF v shaabarr sin
Abdul Rarrrrrrm [1 ans] 2 MLJ 313 aesiues, the SCJ funnel manhere was
nothing mhereniiy rneredihle about the evidence man were glven by SP1
and SP4 In respect oi the llrldlng oi the drugs in P14: Moham-d Alias v
PF[1lll]1 LN: zno.
[23] The Appellant submllled that mere were serious oanlradicllons In
the prusecutiun ease regarding «mm where his menmy card no) was
lound/taken He claimed that ll’\ElE were 3 different versions in the
prosecution case ilsell and Ihelefurs, the Appellant must be acquitted and
discharged as me charges had nei heen proved, one versiun was it was
iourm in «he middle part 0! P14(SP1 and spa), the second version was
that SP1 asked ior the ic Mam rhe Appeiiani (SF'1)and me third vsrsiun
was [hat spz look it our «mm the Appellanfs wallet and handed it over io
SP1 (SP2). In the police report lodged by SPH, he stated it was found in
We bag together with ma drugs.
[24] The deienoe disputed the firsl version heoause It was illogical lnr
someone Io put his II) VI a bag ooniarnrng drugs and walled fur me police
to arrest him. The deienee subminau it was more iogical lorlhe Appellanl
to rnrow away PM upon seeing me poliee ream as I| was dark where his
car had stopped. Bul ihis coun none: in re-exsnunahon, SP1 ciariiied
'Ssmasa langkapsn drbual saya ieiah mam/nla kad pengsnaian darfpada
!NllyZBMRUAE:7RMIlJl1D “
Nuns s.n.i In-vihnrwlll be used m mm ms nflfllhnllly sun. dnunmnl wa mum wnxi
15
OKT darl dia keluarkan darfpada beg damper die’. TNS showed that me
Avbellarlt was not yel hahdcuwed when SP1 asked in! ms IC and the
dormer look 1 oul lrom his wallet.
[25]
9 12.2021. Hsr evldencs was hol vary lahglhy. she came lo me place
where the Appellant was arrested at Na. 24 PPRT, which was all lapl
rumah' around 3 as am. By the lime she amved mere, the Appellant was
l will naw address lhe evldenee 0! SP2 who (esllfied lh court on
already hanooulleo. she saw a lew polloemen there and she knew 2 ul
them whom she called “Pak va' ano ‘Marl’ she pleaded wlzh the police
no: lo arresl her brolher as she was gone to get marred soon
(presumably he was la be her guardian al me ceremony or that she lusl
wanted hlm lo be preeenl al her weddlrlg). In heroraasaxamlhallan, SP2
stated that she took out his wallet and gave the Appellant‘: III to the
policeman. She also look his ilver bangle out from hls pocket. The Court
also mined that she did not knew much about wha| happened that mght as
she had been sleeping prlor tn the angst SP2 stated that her bmther
came home In take 2 shower She said "Dia masuk ke Iumah iiu km Masa
nu says udur, SH)/N (idsk lahu..
[251 ln ma evldenoe ol lhe Appellant, he stated lhel SP1 asked lur his
IC The Appellant said he did not have his IC and than SP2 told them It
was with her. Therefore‘ SP2 tank am the IC {mm NS wallet and gave It
to SP1. Now, this Court ahservsd that SP2 was um an impnrlant wllnsss
because she was nol there when me Appellanl was fllst oetalhed by the
police she came laser and that too was aner she woke up lrom sleep;
aner gemng a phone call lrom her omer brother. The Court noted man in
her examlnatlon In chiet she was He! asked about her taking me
la llyZBMRUAE:7RMIlJI1u
-we s.n.l 1-vlhnrwfll be used m mm ms mm-y MIN: mm. wa nFluNG ma
10
15
25
Appsiianrs IC oul horn his waflet II was puzzling why me p e wuuld iec
her handle ine Appellanfs Ic/millet it me had alveady been under anesi
[271 The SCJ in ner grounds M iudgmerit eddisased inis issue by stating
as follows.
we» Dalam kes wenian V sun. ei Mnhmashlrsi min 7 sec 295.
Mahkamah Agung indn mnh mamulusknn hnhawa nuhungari sama ada
ari|am mei dengan mangsa nlau derigari Tammuh udax akan sena mena
menoemarkari niin xeierangan saksi (ersebm isiapi sebaliknya kalararigari
saxsi meshlan dneim secara havrialwiali Mankamah Agung India mzmflllllklfl
semi yang Darlklll
'|H7iaIravu1:m>e i. Vmmd In be cnnxis1enln»dlme.|1IeVac\ cl being
a I=LI|we canml by nsen discredit ineii ewidenae. in einer WGIGS.
me ie\a|mrish\p is nm a Vaclor In amen ine qediminy era wnnsss
and the mun; have in scnmrilss men evidence rneuouiousiy WM a
lime cam "
[23] Neverlhelessi inis cum lound inai when SP1 was giving evidence,
he was not cmssexamined about SP2 taking his walletoul drain the back
pocket and handing over me it: io SP1, In «act, SP1 was uniy asked that
SP2 was at me piaoe oi arrest and then me DPP re—examined mm as
moms (in page :2 ol the Notes 0! Evidence dated 24.11.2021)
“TFR' Semasa pemeriksaan dijaiankari kakak om’ ede hedir di siiu
dan Koperai setuiu?
SP1. Semasa pamanksaan dibuai, ada orang kampung yang
telefon keiuarga om. Kakak OKT yang ieian dalang ke
ienipai kajadlanf.
[291 Mareover. ine aniy cnaiienge about ms is to SP1 was man i\ was
nal «nine in me bag. SP1 denied inie suggsslinri. Upon lunher scnniny or
{he cmss—m<amInal\on on this Issue, I bund [Hal counsel did no| 5|-19965!
a| all that the IC was surrendered by SP2 to SP1. I lound (hal SF2's
evidenoe must be scrulinised Galdully as she, admiltedly, was an
A
SIN \IyZBMRUAE:7RMIUI1D ‘
«-we e.n.i ...n.mn be used m mm s. nflmnnflly sun. dun-mm VII .num WM!
1m
in
15
an
mtalerstad wnness. sne pleaded wun me police not |o arrest her brother
as sne was genmg mamas! Tnere men he a good or Imporlanl reason
why sne said mat. Tne Cnun tonne met her ewuence about «akmg me
Appellanvs \c from N5 wane: was an aitarlhuught and ply unbehevable
as SP1 was nevererossexernuned abuullms wnen n was pm to sm mac
lhe Appensnrs sister was present at the scene, sun msagreea In «nis
suggestion. n was pm to SP4 that me Appeuenvs sister lock um the we
and gave n to SP1 and ne darned n. SP4 was adsmam lhal the \c was
taken out from F14.
[30] The Oourl refers In cne ease of Lima Slow Long v PP[1n1o]1 ML!
40 and PP v Than-aaran A/L Mumgan [21111] 3 ML] 323. FarI\cu\ar1y
in Llnw Slaw Lorry‘ was scaled‘
- u .s amen |n nccepl max suggesflon mu w a wnness Vs shown In be e
relalmn enne deceased ms evidence Vslahvled Tesumorvy amuse re:-Vauons
Vs nn xamlsd .r n Vs nthenwfse rehable n «ne sense ma| «ne wnnessee am
oumpe«en( wrmesses we wake at one scene 0! me ueeunenee and eenxe
have seen vmal had Happened. But n n n plvwd am "my an um -minly
dlslnluul-d wilnlslnl, . lhny ... Iilhur ...na..n. er me
complallunl M an In lny wny . . :1 to me nccuud, than men
hatlmuny lllllnmd and raqnires conobornflon Inn be semen upnn
[Emphasws added]
[31] n was very dsarlhal PW2 was nm an snuraly msnxeresxee wnness.
Tnerevene, her evidence must be treated wnn cannon and rsqmred
corroboration we be aclem upnn. x fuund lhat SP2‘: evmence am not hold
much Value The sc.rs nun-dirsc1\anIhatSF2 was an interested wnneea
did not resun in a tenure at the proseculvorv case because she had made
the correct findings 01 (act that possession had been proved despne
cnnmcflng evreenee gwen by sin, spa and en a certain extent SP2
N\|yZBMRUAE:7RMIUl1D *5
Nuns s.nn n-nhnrwm es used m mm s. nrwhuflly mm: dun-mm wa mum Wm
11]
Zn
zs
[:21 SP1 and SP4 gave oonllicling evidence ahuul ins IC whether iiwas
lakenlmm ihe bag or eisewhsrs. i found ihai SP4‘sevidenoein\I1is vegard
was nnl so crucial such ihai in would iesiiii in ihe aoiispse ihe prusecmiun
case. ii appeaieii ie nie imni me neies cl evidence ihsi SP4 gave
evidence based an the paiiee report ‘Edged by SP1 lhal was (OH in him
by SP1; In which il was stated the III was found In [he bag P14. And so,
he would not ‘budge’ (turn his stand
[:43] Esseniieuy, we point to note is mac n we evidence of SP1 ihai
he asked ierihe IC «mm the Appeuani who men took il ouuicin his wallet‘
aha ihai iheie was no reason wriy SP1 woiiid frame him, the svldenzze
slnad ihaiihe is was oiiiaineii bySP1.am1 not by SP2, lmm the Appeueni
himseii. Daspiie me discrepancy of we piece of eviaeni-,e between SP1
and SP4. iiiis coiiii lound ihai iiie black FVLA backpack (F14) aanieining
iris drugs was seized lrom ihe Appeiiani The coim agieea ihai with me
findings of the SCJ that the pmseculiun had pmvsd upon a maximum
einiiiieiien oiihe evidence iheiine Appellanl had adual pusssssirm DHIIG
bag and iis conienis and ihsi he knew what they mnienis were, i.e.
dangerous drugs
[34] In [he uflen-cllsd case ul Chan Pun Mon v PF [1956] MLJ 237
whale Thumsnn J. saia iiiai "possessian“ lnr ins purposes of criniiriai iew
imaives pnssessiun nsen — which seine aulhamies ierm "custody" or
"conimi" — and knewisdge M019 iiaiiiie at ihe mmg possessed. As to
possession iiseit he cued the loiiuwing deriiiiiipn in Stephen’; Digesf(9th
edn, p 304), in which ihe exclusive eienieri: ineniiuned by Tayiar J
appears:
‘A muveablelhmg is said (0 be mine possession eia person when he Is
se sMuz|ed wiiri iespeai ia ii inni us has ins powdvlo ueai wiih ii as vwnur
in \lyZBMRUAE:7RMIUl1D ‘“
Nuns s.n.i n-vihnrwm as used M vafli he eniiniiiy MIN: dnunmnl n. nF\uNG WM!
s
in
in
15
an
15
in ms exciusxm 0? an umev DGISDHS, and when the simunismness sie
such mas he may be pvesumnd is imam In flu sis in mse of need:
[35] In the case oi shah lrwan run v. FF as Anochsr case [2013] 1
LNS :71‘ Balls Yuscf Hi Wahl JCA s|atedlhelnl|i1w|ng:
-hue Khal ins evidence of spa and 5m, bath at wnem ass pmsesisish
wimessea and both are nouns amceri. em me kaamsd JD was very I:2|veM
in dealing wim mess Mo wrtnuiiss en lllalrmsllmnnias as is me me M
me informal. AI pages 115- 115 OHHE sepesi seem in avnrsciaimw ins
svidsnce in mass Iwu pmsaculinn wnnasseai Her Ladysmp has em a
caution neon... aaaseune lheir evidence and sisied as mudws:
‘Bums?-A and smweie pence wilnesses and inenevidsnee wss
naflnhammly imemeanie Fnllawlnw PP v Menainea Au n 3521 1 1-
NS129,[(9€Z] MN 257 and appned in nninauimnan. Orig V an
[army 3 cu guy [may] 1 LNS1130;|2n‘iD]7 MLJ 175, ca, such
evidence snemd al his: insianss es accspled unless shaken in
Doss-examnnamn ur cnnvnditled by ather evidence -nsess wssa
conlvidlcdnnn In ms pmaseusisn use sa aiseusssd lbovn um
I did um llndlhn sanissdicuona w serious as In shuns nl sach
mhss sueh lhil ms psasecuuen was loll win: no "a1 |'burI
was no suuulstlml that man had burn my csissiesuas. by
snssa whmisasi ws no no! rind anylhmg mass with ms
Ippwldl and ms Cuflcluliun ssssnaa by Ihe ieamsd .u:"
[Emphasis added]
[36] There is one ouher Issue whiuh was raised by the Appeilani mat it
did not make sense (or him to just wait «hens in be anesied with a bag 0!
dmgs and his ic VI it when he could have easily (hruwn me bag away to
avoid anes1. The Court has considered this submissiun by the Appauani
as against the weight a! evidence adduced by «he pmsecunun and
delenoe In me case of isannpsihy all Rnngsaamy v PP [1993] 2 MLJ
577. the noun heid.
-ii needs |o be Vemambarsd «nan hawaviv weak s devense may be, via:
mam bulng ludgu ofholhllcl-n-1 Ilw shsssd sssxinamusn aside
IM dlhllcu on Ch: esaia lhll me pmaseuuos wmiesses su to bc
DI vud Ind nmlhl dflinbhwhen me iaw caeva IM onus nlulvlng
N\lyZBMRUAE:7RMILAl1D "
Nuns s.n.i IIIVVDIVWN be is... m mm s. nflmnsflly minis dun-mm VII snum WM!
In uxplxnlilun liven .n Iccnued nelson. an the cxvlanalnon il
glvnn. which in consimniwnn innmnu, in. com I: duty bnunn ha
Dunaldlr vmelher ll inigm reasonably ha inn, xlmuuqh nut
cmivlnctd of II: mm. on the issue 07 the cuur\‘s duly In mmidm me
5 i1elance.meage4>\d dacislon in Man up [may MLJ us i! am: gand iaw
as ilwas men. This isvaiimu by the Suplema Court in Mflhamad Radm
nin Yaakoh V PF[1991]3 MU iav.
[Emphasis added]
[37] This Coun Vuund mm the SCJ um nut misdllecl herseii in law and W!
(am when she wnsidered me delence afisr applying ine aimvemenuoned
cases wmai are still good law. The case of PP v. Mohd Radxl ain Abu
Eakar [aims] 5 ML! 393 discussed ins meaning :2! prime rams case and
I5 ii defence n. called, ins cinssic case oi Mal v PPI1963] 1 MLJ 25: is |o
be apphed in that case. the Federal coun held:
“in this connm:1inn,caunseHar|he apneiiani had mlevved in us me can
.71 pp V Snimm & Dr: [1971] 2 MN 16 where5harmaJ nniainaninminiy
ID a! line deience does mi reilsve me pmisculiun «mm waving |he
umss|:u(inn‘s case beyond reasonania aaum w. an of in. V m um
whlnlvll n criminal can dlcldud on in. buls oi in. mnh nflhe
prasaculh-an‘: can as IV :1 en. mmy 9! in. dfllnu swam n vlal
inane must in iccnvdnncn wllh an nrinelnln lilu down
25 ll! uni vppnmi i MLJ zna go om mp iumm boron convicting
Ihn accund by nu due mnshiernllun as in why in. dnkncv slum
though could not he belleved. did not Hill: a nasonabll dnum n in
nnmciniun use. Thus. mn llwugh n Judgu dun nm nccem or
bi lhn minus-s lxplanntiun, in. lccullfl must not be
an mnvi-an: urml (M court in n mm in! lnfllclanl rl an um such
nxvlanallom am not can nnlnnnbll doubl in in» pros-cuiinn
am To x fy was it nnl an much (III woms um by «M
|udgI but mhnnhe mun: npniic-non on». last to (M facts min.
an that innnm. in this case, we found than (M nlmud man mg.
as mama pncllcnlly nu Mum: why mu dnhnu. nolwllhxundlng ilx
hlslty anu unconvincing nalun, nun mm lo cal ullanlhll duulm
in ma pros-cinlnn can 01?!" Khan in xhll lay my in us «Me. {In
duty pllcnd by in. law on Ihn dnhncl m Jul nn icqnlml.”
ID [Emphasis added]
n iIyZaMfiuAEa7RMui.mu “‘
nan Sum ...n... wn be HSQG m mm in ninnin MVM5 dun-mm n. AFVLING mm
.n
IS
1.
an
[33] Tne Court also relerred to the case oi Ali Ian Bin Ahdullah v PP
[zany 2 MLJ an which stated that prooi beyond reasonanie doubt does
not mean proof beyond the shadow of doub| (see Mlllu v Minimr cl
Pensions M471 2 All ER :72). Evan umugr. me benefit of evsry
reascnabie doubt musi be given in me accused and cannot be wimheiu
Irom him. me cuurl must nm, on the mher hand, enlenain ii on grounds
which are ianciiui or VI me nalure oispecuiahun (see Public Fwsecutol
v Salmin a. On [1911] 2 MLJ16).
[39] In All mi sin Abdullln (supra), me appeiiaie coun heia:
‘[251 Ind .a. ...... .1... I u. wmmina 3 hue story of immunm.
xuch .. ... I111 .i.cu......n..-. ollht vrcum us. e.......i ....a....i lo
nasnnnblu duubi. the noun‘: acndnrtincn um. nxnlanation nmnu
by ... ancunfl pmun must bu baud upon nasal! and conunen
sen.-. and cannnl n. lllonlcal .. .....i.....i 11.. .. ....e. oi
nuallalslu mm In dupundum up... Ihl mmllty ulttvl .. ...=. and
on un . ....i...u.... mi: in. ..i.:...e. in Hair ...a missomble mnnner
...a rim .. lsolnlnn. In the pveserd case. ine learned Jc in hlsludwueni
had very meflculausiy otmsiflered me delslwe at me appeiiani The
learned J!) was sshsnea Ihal me apgeiiani had «aim in cast any
reasonable cum on ma prosecution‘: case and that Ills charglr WIIB
waved menu reamnahl: dnubl We are .n mnmiei. agreemelI|wllh ine
lumed JG WE are salisfied |hn| lhe ieamed JC had um misiflreclefl
..........n in any way In occasion an ecmr mine. an lhe law av ine iznls In
WEFYIM meiime inleflerenrxe We ..e unanlmnus [hat Ihe ieamsd .15 had
nut made any wrong inferences on me «am. pen». him. we iuunu nu
menis In this apneai We aeoeminniy dismissod ms appsai and avnnnea
lhe ounviclions and sanlences an mm Ina =..=.g...-
[Emphasis added]
[40] The SCJ did no: believe his expianaiion and «ha: in did not raise a
.easu..ai.ie doubt in her mind as to his gum. she iouna that the defence
was a bare deniai and an anennaugni. The sm had appiiea me cause:
pnncipiej i e a maximum evaiuaiiun nflhe pmsscuiion case and delance
case. and Donsidered Mn v PF (supra) and found that me defence am
I9
N iIyZaMfiu4Ea7RMui.mu
.4... Sum ....... M“ be .5... .. mm .. .n.i..u-y MVM5 dun-mm VI] munc pm...
in
1D
not raise a reasonable doupt on the prosecution case. Hence, the
prosecution has proved its case peyond a reasonable doubt. on the
whole‘ this court too did not believe the Appellants explanation and that
explanation did not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind as to hra puilt.
[41] The evidence were overwhelming agalnsl the Appellant and this
court agreed with the llndings and rationale at the sc.l whom had the
panent oi observing the derneanour oithe witnesses pelore hen Having
said that, the court did not see it lit to disturb the flrldlrlg ol guilt against
the Appellant. This court alllrmed the convicuoris recorded against the
Appellant as proper and sale in tight at the evidence against hirri. The
appeals EgalVI§|COVIVil71lD|'l were aooprdlngly dismissed.
Appeal ana sg gin Q
[42] on pehall oi the Appellant, it was submitted that the SCJ had used
the wrong considerations in applying the pnneiptes at senlenclng The
total sentence oi imprisonment was actually 7 years almmlgh there were
3 charges against the Appellant as they were made to run concurrently
Thls court noted that he would he whipped a total at 16 stmkss oi the
mtan ll the epnulctlons are upheld (reduced pylhta court item 20 stmkes).
[43] The DPP replied that the sentences were apt and the SCJ had
considered all lactprs and decided that public interest was the clveni ng
oonstderaliorl in the prsenl case as against the interest of the Appellant
The plea in mitigation was that the Appellant was a hrst ofiender, he was
caring tor his elderly mother and that ha had repented while in prison.
in llyZBMfiUAE:7RMIlJllD
-use s.n.i In-vlhnrwlll be used is mm has nflnlhhllly MIME flnunvllnl wa nFlt.lNG Wflxl
I5
1::
THE APPEAL
[51 ll is lrlle law me: an appellale own would be slow to dls1urb me
llrmlngs or me xriel mun unless mere had been errors ol law or teen,
mlsdlrectian or nan-dlrectinn or rnsumerenl luulplsl eppreclellen egelnsl
me welgnl plme evidence adduced. Ths lnel paurl weulu have me benelll
of seelng and hearing are wllnesses and iherelare of essesslng melr
credi ty Lai Kim Han a. on v. PP [wall 1 ML! an (FC); Fubl|c
Prosecutor v. wun Rauli Kusslrn [1970] 1 ms 121: (191012 MLJ 79.
[6] Hence, an eppellale coun has to scrullnlse me grounds o1 appeal
and delermlns whe|hermey are supporlsd py me evlderrpe in me rewms
rrereur which wlH pe relerrsu lo lrl srren lorm es RRJ1, RRJ2, RRJ3 and
RRJA The appeal agalnsl eerwrcllorr and senlence uanleureu a numper
pl grounds es staked in me Pelilinn emppeel ln RRJ1. Haweuer, el me
hearing. counsel ler lhe Appellant pursued appruxlmalsly 5 lssues mac
ppuld be summarised es lolluws
l. possession and opnlrol lol me drugs)
u. the Drosecullon was bound by xnelesuruony or us own wurress
lll lrreerrsrslerrclee in the Appellant’: evidence
Iv. pcssesslorl olthe bag (P4)
u. serzure plrhe car KBF 9139.
[7] R! the Pflma fade Stage for a charge of possesslon cl drugs, the
prosecution must prove the fullclwing ingredients
.. that lhe Appellam had actual possesslon cflhe dings:
u that me Appellenl had krmwledge olme drugs: and
m. the drugs were pl lhe lypes listed lrl the Flrsl Schedule 01 me
DDA 1952.
ru llyzamwmiavfimuullu
-use smsl n-vlhnrwm be used m mm s. mrmrr-r mm: dun-vlnrrl VI] urlum pm
[44] In regard to me ‘one nransecnan rule“ prxncxme because the 3
charges salisfied me cntana 91 pmxArm|y 0! «me, praxnmny ov plans,
ccn\ImMy ar ecnun and conllnmly of purpose or das\gn as scared m
Bnchik Abdul Rahman v PF [2004] 2 cu 512, hence me SCJ imposed
5 concurrent terms The weamed Conn av Appeal Judge in that case he\d
mevouuwmg
A The exercise nhhe msmeuanmaenemme me date an x>ommencemsn|
cl me sentence 0! Vmvllsonmem Vs aspenaam on the vaas and
cwcumsmncas 0! each me. In a- Ifllnu whllhnv flu Iumu M
m lmprlionmunl mum In oonuculivl or cumm-nu .1 ....m... an.
42.. Conn mu 5. nu .4 by m. unl Iunsucliun nu. mu m. lmnlily
prInc|p|I.PulsunM|a me one uansaclmn rule whevelwaormme eflevmes
are oummixled mm mmeeorasingue vansacunn an semencesm respeu
oi lhese oneness shown he ooncunem rathevman wnseculwe (see R v
.5 Se/eemI195¢lCnm LR 4e2- R v. we/sn [1 gas! Cnm LR 245) Far mm
to In an. Iunsacuon tum - -ms mun bu pr-um. mm is m ..y,
pmxmny M um-. pr-mmily vi mm, uznlinuily nl lcliun um
cnmmuIlY ufvurpnu :1! design 1... Jlylrumln A Dr: VvPPH979l1
ms :1: [ma] 2 mu an; Amllu Ln! mm -1. Empemuz Ca|
m 957; cm» Cnoy V. pp 119551 1 ms vr. [1:55] MLI zany. Yhe mve.
mum, It not ibsoluh. As Yong Purvq How 54 and
m Kanavasunmarim v. PF'[IvE2I1 sm 31 at p on
Thu Engllxll com. um Mcogniud mm Ihu: ..e . men.
whim connculivl ..m...m m neeunry m -fiscaurafle the
2; W of =.amm.| condnu helnfi Punished: see a v.
F-ulknorllifll sa cups R sum V. Wheatle}/[RN15 crlnv
R (51 417 and}? v. sumrnm) 5 Cr APII R (5) we. run
awhllcablllly ul 2:. -xc-won vs ms in an-ma on m. mm M
an nu and m. c umlhncu ullill .m...e.. u 15 xvatad m
an broad and glnsvalmmzlnd ahhnugh may be mmmea «vague
n \s meuanny \n such Isms m mder mm me senlenoer may
muse an nvhmnfiale sentewe Vn each nsmcular case upon each
Den\cu\aralfemeral the Dafllcmav Mme lhe case ws heavd -.
[Emphasws added]
[45] In one onermceu case of Govlndnan cmnden Nan v PP [1993] 2
cu am m respecl ml taking into aooounl punnc mleresl wnsmeyeuen in
21
N xlyzamwmzavfimuunu
we Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
JD
zu
lhe principles oi seniencing and usinnn Bin Juinnsen v PP [201 51 MLIU
1352 me coun oi Appeai sinned:
‘In me exercise er nis discretionary Duwer ine senieneinu mace rnusi apniy
nis mind In ine Vaclual malnx oi ine case In oiner words‘ me sentence
Dassed mus! reieie Io me iac|s and circurnevanmaieecn case -.
[45]
uisnure e senience Passed by a lower court unies s maniiwiy Wrong
In me sense ei being mega: or uneuiiabie Io ine proved Vials and
eimurnsianees: PP v Moiiamoe Nor 5. Or: [ ma 2 ML! zoo
in is (rile iaw inai an appeiiaie eeun weniu be slow lu inienere or
[47] Having ucinsidsrsd an iaciors in me iniiigauen en eenieneei inns
ceun viewed that me son had conducted a balancing exercise on me
cumpefing inieiesi bemeen me pimiie and me Appeiianrs PF v Lee
cimon Fm [1976] 1 ms 102 Annougn me 3 charges min bring a
maximum oi 40 years, she imposed uoncurrsnt senieneee upon me
Appenani which coma be considemd as being on me Iowerside given inai
he had been ieuna in possession iii 3 types ei dangerous drugs and the
case had gone on with iuii men and a ieiai ois piesecuiion wiinesses were
called to iesmy in mm
[45]
ceun nduud iii. whipping
Nevenneiees, given inai me Appeiiani was a nrsi crflender, the
posed uynie SCJ in rlsplcl oniie
second and mlrd onargu only. In nilecn ine minimum oi 3 strokes
01 Ch: mun uch. The punisnrneni at 10 snakes or me man for me iirsi
cnarge is mainiained. The coun did nei inierieie wiin me irnpnsonrneni
ienne of 7 years, 5 years and Syears to he served coneunenily Tne com
nae aise mnsidsred ine principie in Pundxkwl Ray: v. Abdul mum
lsllak a. saw Lagi [2011] 9 cu 559 where me ceun ei Appeal neie inai
22
in iIyZaMfiu4Ea7RMui.iIiu
-nee s.n.i ...ne.r MU be used e mm we niimruflly MVM5 dun-mm via .nene WM!
possessiurl nl a large ainuunl a! any lann of pmmmlea drugs must
cammensuvale with me sanlanca in be passed on ma peculiar law; oi
each case
5 cancluslun
[491 Premlsed on me above, the Com did not lma any %nor of last or
law such l|1alWDLl\d]IJS(WydlSlUlDlng|hel>0rNiC\I07l5 Vllhe 2 cases against
ma Appellanl. Hawsver, ma Court had iaaucea Ihe number of wmppings
by reducing the tale‘ number cf slmkes [ram 20 (0 V6
ID Appeal against cunvirliun dismissed. Appeal agalnal senlancs partly
allowed,
Dated 15 November 202:
“ W
/
NOOR RUWENA EINYI MD. NURDIN
Judicial Commissioner
Hlgn com 0! Malaya. nlping
Roms ta on
1; I-'arIhoAppcIlant:
Ml. Varpnl slngli AIL Meilomier Slngh (VBGK)
Varpal Q Assoclatn, Talplng
an
Fnr the Rnspondcnl:
DPP Mend. wally Bin Ismail
Pnllnm Tlmbalan Pulldakwa Raya Negeri Ferak. Taiping
lNllyZBMRUAEa7RMlllJl1D
-ma Sum IHIVVDIY will be HSQG m mm ua nllmrullly MIN; glam. VII mum mm
In
1D
15
PRosEcu‘HON CASE
[3]
aomrdmg m ma pmeaeuuon werelhat me on 29 2.2020 al1.30am a team
The prosecution caHsd s witnesses to prove W5 case The «acts
of puhoe olfiuers namely FW1, FW4 and 2 others were making thew cnme
prevermon rounds at PPRT Kampung Sangkul, ljck In Batu Kurau on their
motorcyds when may saw me suspect (mm was later manunee as me
Appeflankj behaving suspmmusly by me ruadsids aflsr gettmg out at his
car WWI the engine stiH runmng SP1 saw the Appellant huldlng a black
backpad( SP1 was the first I0 reach the Appellant He tnnk cut his
authority card and menhfied Mmsefl as 8 poliueman tn the AppeHarIl. He
did not ly tn run away. A physical many search was conducted an me
Appeflant but wt was VIBgatlVB. As soon as the other policemen amved at
lhe spot where they were mm standmg, they surrounded me Apoeuem
and SP1 mspeclsd the b\ad< FILA backpaw whwch was seized (rum the
Appeflant (P4). From mm" me middha part of ma black FILA backpack,
SP1 Iound 3 transparent plastic packets ounlammg drugs suspected la be
harem and melhamphetamme He iflsofuund the AppeHant's idsntwty card,
a d\g|Ia|we1ghIng scale (P6), 5 mourned mass bottle fur drug eanaumpmn
(P5) and a lighter m me sams bag (F7). The Appeuam and mgemer wwth
ma items seized «mm hum were brougm back to me lbu Feiabat Pohs
Daerah Selama, Perak UPD Smama). Throughout the attest and ioumey
back to the \PD,SP1 had uustody oflhe drugs and other nerns seixed
[91 At me ma, 5?: lodged a police report as per Rsdang Panjang
Report 132-we/zo (marked as mm. The Appellant and the items seized
were handed ever to (he Investlgahcn Offiuer Vnsp Kamarm Ariffin Bin
Kamaruzaman qspa). spa weighed the drugs and recorded me gross
weight as 500 grams cl herom and 25 grams of methamvhetamine.
IN \IyZaMwu4E:7RMu\.mu
‘Nata Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; ..a mmmy MIME dun-mm VIZ nF\uNG wrm
15
Tespeclively. SP1 and SP5 marked the drugs and other items seized with
lheir awn maI‘kH’I§S SP1 completed and signed the Borang aengkar and
Eorarlg sersh Tenma Barang Kes. The Appellant disputed that he signed
lhe Borang Eangkar which was later marked in earn as P1. The Edi-ang
serah Teriiria Earang Kes was signed by SP5 and later markm in eaitrt
as P2
[in] The SCJ was satisiied mat the chain oi evidence in regard to the
exhibits had not been brvken where sl=i held on to the drugs irorri the
lime they were seixed until they were handed over to spa, SP5 kept them
under lack in his oinae until they were senl lo the chemistry Depanmerll
In lpoh. There the Chemist, Faznur»Axllah Elnli Mahmud (SP3) received‘
kepland analysed the drugs and prepared the Laporari Kimla aooerdingly
The Resil Klmia and Lapnran Kimia both had the same report number 2U—
FR-Av01B9Q and were marked as P15 and P13, respecllvaly Nlhclugh
SP3 was challenged Ihal the $<hibitS were not the same which she
received irorri sl=5, she was consistent in her answer and identified the
drugs positively. The drugs were iound lo eonlain 14.1: grams oi
Melamnhelamlrie, 3.4 grams ei Herein and io.2 grams oi
Menoaoetylniorhahines. The neh weight oiihe drugs lorrried the basis ier
lhe 3 amended charges againsl Ihe Appellant
[11] Upon a maximum evaluaiien ol me evidenoe helore ihe CCHAVL the
SCJ iound mat the Appellant had aclual physical possession or the drugs
in PM and knowledge oi the said drugs The ccurl was satisiied that the
prosecution had proved a prirna iaeie case against lhe Appellant on all 3
charges and called lor his deiense. The Appellant was explained the 3
cholcss and he chose to give sworn evidenoa. He was the sale witness
idr the deienee case and relied on the evidenoe at his sls|ar. spz
iNllyZBMRUAE:7RMILlI1D 5
-we s.n.i n-vlhnrwm be used M mm as nflnlhnllly MIME aa..i.i. wa nFluNG WM!
THE DEFENCE CA§E
[12] The delence case can be summarised as 1u||l7ws'
r. on me night allne srresl. al l1,:lo pm me Auuellanl went I»:
s nls (nerld’s house ln Kampurlg Keriarlg. Hls menu was known
as Farnan:
at 1 so am l=arnan asked me Appellanl la lake ms car (KEF
91 39) and to go buy some load‘
me Appellanl told Faman ne wanted lo gu norna llrsl lo Oaks
so a shower;
IV. me Appellanl drove me car In his house and passed by a
warurlg ksdal makan by me slde oflne mad:
v. ns saw 2 policemen In urnlarrn an lns wan/ng kedal makan:
VL ne drove on urml ma luncllon la hls kampurlg and saw 3
15 molorcyolas behlnd mm but did run know who were me
momrcycllsls;
allar auosoo rnelres, he saw (hey were sllll mowing him arm
men ne knewlhey were policemen,
he SVDPDSU the car wlthnul being asked and one L/Kpl Hafiz
In came to the drivefs side bu! dld nnl ldenlfly himself as pohce,
IX ma Appellanl sand ne wlll cooperate with Ihem:
x spa came In me from passenger side, openeo me door and
sat beslde hlml
xi. SP1 arrwefl at the drivsfs side and lmmedralely handwfled
25 the APPfi||an\ without him knawlng the reasnn why he was
belflg arvesled,
Xli. ne was told (0 come oul of the car an slano beside the
drivefs side:
IN lIyZBMfiU4E:7RMuLlI1u
-we s.n.l n-vlhnrwm be used m mm .. nflnlnnllly MIN: glam. VI] .nunc pm
so
zn
xiiw, L/Kpl Hamz cnnducled a physical check on me Appellamwmre
SP4 searched ma passengev side;
xw. enareaner LIKpl Harm lmmd a black FILA bag “a: alas lanlai
belakzng alas kusyen belakang";
xv UKp| Hafiz gave me black bag to sun
the Appellanfs sister (SP2) amved at IP15 scene and asked
xvi
wny he was being arremsd
the Appsllanl replied he dud nnl know wh
xvui. me watch and a silver bangle were taken and ms wallet
remevad lmm me back pocket at his pants,
xix SP1 and SP4mspec1edlhe cunlsnl ol the black FILA bag on
me hamlet of lhe car wmnom snowing mm as content:
xx A pohoe car cams and look mm |o me IPD
[131 It was also me delenoe case, n eroaaexaminauan ollhs Appellant,
mm when he smppsd me car, there was a house neamy, wmcn he
referred to as Na. 2-1. He saw a woman known as Jone. a swslzr uf ms
menu, Mao was playing with her handphone m lronl cl lhs house The
police told Jane |o gal min the house, The mierenoe that the delenee
Mshed the court to draw was that he was framed for the drugs lound H’!
me car and me police did not warm any members nf lhe public In wuness
what may were doing there The Appellanl alsa dispuled the pnmograpns
Isndarsd by the police which showed the place where they conduclsd the
mspecliun: the Appellant alleged ¢ha| none onne phoxograpns showed
(he acme! place mare ne was arrested The Appenann sawd nis sisler
earns ID know about his arvesl from men brmher. He Iold Ihe DDUVK that
Fame?! has since lzfl lhe village to find wurk elsewhere and did ncl know
where he was. He Sflld Che Car might belong lo Farhan‘s s\sIe( bu! he dld
nut knaw me name ol Famens lather.
7
!NllyZBMRUAE:7RMIUl1D
‘Nata em ...n.mn be used m mm n. nflfllnnllly mm: dun-mm wa .nuNG wrm
[141 After hearing and wevgmng his swasnca, the sm cancmded (ha!
H18 delenoe was 3 bare denial 171 the pmsecmion case and did nm rinse
any rsasnnalfls doubt at an. The Appellant at me usvsncs stage had
suddenly given the names oi characters whom were not meumonea at an
5 dunng the pmseculiun case. Therelore. me sea «me that me names of
Jcjle and Farhan were an aflenhoughl and envy brought up allhe defence
stage an wave that he am rm! Know about the drugs and to dissociale him
(mm the drugs lound m the black FlLA bampack max he was holdmg at
[he ume 07 (he anest. These can be SBBI1 in the Una M quesliomng as
m Inflows:
‘ pa Selevasinfl
ow Ad!k say: henanyz keoada ssys 'iabab apa ahlng xsns |angk3p’l'
Saw man says uaak lzhu.5=¥ilmuKuye<n[Znkm1.n flan Kane!-al
us Hawulmanelah mlmarlksa hug gsxss Ienehm nu ma: benelhahaglun
belakzng kaleta (sup: snyn mm apaapa yang ada dalam beg
mssm
we Kamu Mak lmal nsngsunm
m on fidak mm Valvusuw can meruka pun Imnk lumuk spa dalnm 1799 Hu
vs. sswspss mm
on: sewspas nu Kaparal Havmlmal datanu kavada says dan msmmvs kad
psngsnsxsn snya. Lalu seya memnsnuanu kad penganalan ssys Had:
:5 9363 says Aflxk pemmpuan saya benlzhu yang kad pengunalan say:
sas pads as man adlk pnvampuan saya huka hag dnmpal says din
nsnkan no psngsnsxsn ssys kspada Knpef-ll Hailulmm
:3 mm mm. km beg nu aux... mlhkkzmu lap! pans kala ma
puagenamn kamu her-ada flalam ruann lsngah beg nm
em; llu ssys Husk Iahu. Apa yang pssn asn belulnyu km panglnnhn s.ys
(Man msuvahkan kepafla Kaps-sx Nmmlmal ole?! amx perempuan says
as sendm mg usmsms Nov wssmsn mma Shamsudm Jika belul kad
pervganalan uya hands dalam beg Iersebuh uasu muilalm kaa
penganilan Iiyl dlleliklmn dxflam bag Lavsahulunluk meuguaflxan lag:
msneka punya kes
sw \IyzaMwu4E:7RMuLmu ‘
“Nuns smsw ...m.mm be used m mm ms mm-y mm: dun-mm y.. muNG pm
.5
an
[15] Ilwas «he defence case loo that SP4 had some lssuss wun nlm ln
lne pas1 wnlon was alleged In be in mnnecliun wlm lne Appellanfs
purporled drugs-relaled a
a personal level, SP4 uld rlal nave any problems wiln nirn. He also agreed
5 However, me Appellant agreed cnal an
that neimer lne elner 3 palloemen had any reason lo lrame him
[16] The defence also tried lo Vales doubt on the proeeeulion ease by
laklng me line or quesllunlng that me drugs were leuna IIV ma car and
which was why me no oe selzed me car However, lne SCJ lmmd thal
SP6 nad explalned me car was selzad a law days aflerlhe arrest and nut
imrrledlalely as the drugs were lounu wilh me Aphellanl wna was holding
me bag and nut ln lne ear. The wilnees also lolo me coumhal me car was
sslzefl under lne Dangerous Drugs (Fcrlellure ol Propenyl An was
based on lnlennalmn reeslveu max ll naa been used ln drugs-relaned
amlvlnes ln the past; albell nol In connection wlm lne arves1 ol lne
Appellant. SP5 lesllfied that the carwas nm selxed by SP1 because lrom
nls lnvesllganon, l( had naming to do wiln me me l.S. lne drugs were not
lnund In me tar as alleged by me Appellant, SP1 tasli Isd lnal vvlanurul
ape yang dlpe/alarf. Ilka kereta /aun den" suspsk darl ksnela man balan
disirisjlka lidak ada barallg kes myumpai da/am kerelaf.
[17] finally, Ihe SCJ slalea ln lne gorunds 0! Judgment ner opservalion
as follows.
-[as] Selaln nu, xaya ma rnanuapall psmbalnarl yang dikemukakan nleh
Tenuduh pemeamman Ferbezun luga hnleh alllnal damn xelerangan
Yemduh bemuhurla lemval penemuarl baa sanaang hemp bslwama Hiram
.enarna ‘FlLA' [ekslbll Fl] Tenuduvl msrlgatakarl hag binding blrzip
berwarrla mum panama 'FI|A“ [Mulhll Palyang ulleukkan alaalanlamelakang
alas xleyen Delakarla sedannkarl peguamhela mengulakarl hag sarldarlg
lmakrlyfl alas lanlal Dada banaylarl Iempal duduk vsnurnpanu nsaapan el klrl
telvluat duduk Dfimarldu
n l:yzaMnu4:=rnn.unu
Nuns Smal In-rlhnrwlll be used M mm ms nflnlnallly ml. dun-vlnrrl wa .nuna Wflxl
zn
an
[90] Dalzm nal mi, dlpemallkzn psmbalaan yang dlhenkan elen Tammlm
adalall hslbaza-bun dan benllnndeen mengikul kemaarl Pemhelsan
secegilll membalenkarl Dlhak rllahkamah mambuai lmmen bahawa
seherlamya lenudun llanz pemtzelaall ks alas eenudunan darl k2: ying
dlkerlakarl kn alas bollau
EVALUATION AND FINDINGS or THE COURT
[18] The scws gmunds at ludgmsnl was qulle lengthy and Included
chunks olcne notes eleyidenee as well as subm ns afths pmsecuhan
and defence. From my perusal ollne sc.l's gmlmds unudgmam, ens had
lnomugnly analysed me evidence adduced by me pmseeullen and cmss—
axamlnallon onhe prnsecullml wllnsses in crderlo delennlne lne line all
delenee el me Appellanl belore calllng upon me Appellenl to defend
nlmsell agalrlst lne charges
[19] Then she analysed the evldence glven by the Appellant‘ whlch was
allegedly suppuflsd by the evldence of his sister, SP2. ln summary, (he
SCJ dld not believe me defence case as can be seen ln her arlalysls ln
pigfi 8410 116 of the grounds D? judgment (RRJ1). The SCJ had also
addressed lne lssues raised by (he delenee as I have summarised earller
In lnls Graunds euudgmenl. namely:
l possssslm end conlml (dune drugs)
pnssssslm el me bag (P4)
lli seizure of the car KEF 9139
me pmseculinn baund by lne leslllneny ol lls own wllrless
y. lncunsislencles in me Appellenrs evldanoe.
[20] The sad had addressed lne Issue 0! nunexlslenee el DNA
evldenoe on lne black FILA backpack and transparent plastlc packets
wnlcn ene slated was nol lelel (0 me prosecullcn case as may are melely
cormhoratlvs evldsnoe. The prosecullorl case does nm collapse ll lnere
IN lIyZBMRUAE:7RMul.lIlu ‘°
-we Smnl n-vlhnrwlll be used m mm ms nflmnnllly suns dnunvlnnl wa .nune wrul
| 3,003 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
AB-42S-11-09/2022 | PERAYU SAHROL BIN SHAMSUDIN RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya | Criminal procedure - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant was found guilty on 3 charges of possession of dangerous drugs - Whether Appellant had possession and knowledge of drugs - Whether prosecution evidence believable in light of contradicting evidence by Appellant's sister who was called to give evidence as a prosecution witness - Whether the Appellant's IC was found in the bag containing the drugs - Whether the Appellant's sister was an interested witness Proper findings of fact on a maximum evaluation of prosecution case - Whether defence properly considered by trial court - Appeal against conviction dismissed - Appeal against sentence - First offender - Appellant sentence to 20 strokes of rotan in total - Reduced number of whippings imposed | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b4368e0f-72f1-4232-99d7-322ac1fe1a19&Inline=true |
15/11/2023 11:03:15
AB-42S-11-09/2022 Kand. 41
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Aa—¢2s—11—u9/2u22 Kand. 41
,5, 142023 11vz”- 15
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI TAIPING
DALAM NEGERI FERAK DARUL RIDZUAN MALAYSIA
RAVUAN JENAYAH NO: ABJZS-10-D9/2022 A As-42s-11-us/2022
[KES NO »Aa-szu-1oa—os/2020 5 A5620-121-owzozn
SAHROL BIN SHAIIISUDIN
mo. KIP.: 380311086465] . PERAVU
v
m
PENDAKWA RAVA ...REsPoNnEN
GROUNDS or JUDGMENT
15 m The Appauam was charged in ma Sessions com for 3 offences ul
passessmn mi dangevous drugs under 2 case numbers as lollows
- fludu glndnn
m A3420-1a:H1s/zoza
Bahawa uamu,pa.1a 29/2/zazo Jam lebm kuranq 01.30 Pagw, benampal .1. lepi
man war Kzmvung Sangkm. uek. Ham Kuvau Da\am Dasrah Lam! Mmang
aan sanama, dalam Negen Perak «even ada flalam mlhkan mu. m2 gram
:5 bahan kelman aan semuk wama palang yang mengamungl
Mannncelylmammnss O\eh yang dsrmklan kamu Iekah mehakukan salu
kesavahan a. hawah saksysn 12(2) ma Dadah Eenbahaya 1952 yang bolah
dihukum m bawah Saksyen 39A zzum yang sama
In Agfizn-521-In/2020
Bahawa kamu, pm 29/2/znza an Vebm kurang 01,31: Pagl, bafl2mna| a. law
,a:an ppm Knmmmg Sangkm, Imk, aam Kumu Dahm Dauah Laml Mavsng
den Sebma dzlam Megan Pevak |aIah ana dalam mmxan kamu 34 gm
Hemln Olen yang demlkxan kamu lehh mehkukan saw kesalshan m hawan
N Duzwrymxxztzlqwuaisu
ma Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy MIN; dun-mm VII mum puns!
15
saksyerl l2l2l Akla nadan Esrbahaya 1952 Yam: Doleh fllhukum dl aawan
Seksyerl 59A lIlAk\a yar-9 sama
Bahama Kamu. pada zwlzuzo ran. lehlh kumng 01 30 Pigl, herlzmpm dl Iepl
lalin went Kammmg sanded um, aard Kunln oalarn Daersh Luml Malang
dun Sslamn. dalarn Negarl Pemk lzlah ada dalarn mlllkan kamu U13 gram
nlernanrnneranrrne. olen yang demlklan kamu relan melakukan salu kesalahan
dl dawan sak5yen12(2)AkIa nedan Eemahaya msz yanp bulsfl dlmlknm dl
bawah sensyen 3?/1(HA><Iz we iama.‘
[2] sum eases were neard logelner anne sessions Court ln Taiplng as
lney involved me sarne wltnesses and same laa1s.l=or cunvenlenue, l will
reler lo me 3 charges as me flrst charge, seoond cnarge and Ihlrd charge,
raspeellvely. slanlng WM’! me cnarge in case No AE—62D—103—06/2020
Alter a lull lnal. me Appellant was lound gully on all charges by me
sessrdns com Judge lsc.ll and on 2 9.2022 he was eonvieled and
senleneed la 7 years’ rmpnsdnrnem end 10 elroxee Mme mlan ldrlne rrrel
charge and Syears‘ lrnpnesnrnenl and 5 slrakes ellna rolan larlns second
and third charges The imprlsanmenl «arms were lo edrnrnenee lronr lne
dale elarresl un 29 2 2020 and In he served eansdrrenlly
[3] Prior In lns neanng al Ihe appeal, are Appellant sedgnl lne cudrrs
leave to Ne lne Fel on of Appeal um pl Ilme e. aboul 2 weeks after me
deadline. The Court allowed me appllcallon slnoe me Denuly Public
Pmssculor (DPP) dld nal oblect lo lne applicalron.
[4] ladm appeals were neard logelher by one cam on 9.5 2023 on
1 9 2923, I amrrned the convicfians hm varled lne senlenees of me rdtan.
Thu 5 nrekes dl man oalzh ler lne suumd and mini enarges were
reduced lo 3 slrekas loraach charge The Appellant nas new appealed
agalnsl lhe wnple declslorl pl Ihls Conn. This Grounds pl Judgment
oonlaln my reasons lor dlsmissing poln appeal Nos. 10 and ll.
N euzwryunaunmsee
Mme a.n.l n-vlhnrwlll re used m mm ms nflnlrrallly sun. dun-mm wa mane wnxl
to
Zn
1;
%
are other uugsnl evidence to establish its ease in perticuiar direct
evidence soon as in the present case: Mahendren Arivetsn v PF [2020]
1 LNS 1213; man) ut..iu 1286 cam.
[21] The SCJ iurther stated that what was out to the prcseertion
witnesses without more cannot be accepted by the com as evidence per
se: senieiirt Iain Tumln v PP (201115 ML! 353. she oonciuded that the
evidence oi the prosecution witnesses in regard to the hnding oi the
oriendine drugs were eredioie evidence. which it unrebutted by the
deience wananted a conviction on the charges preierrett The main issue
tor oonsideretien was whether the prosecution had proved that the
Aopetient had possession eiihe black FVLA backpack (P14) which he held
with his right haridius1 beiere SP1 arrested him SP1 admitted that the
engine oi the car was still running but denied that PM was ever round in
the car. The SCJ iound that the Aopeiient had ectuei pussessioit oi P14
which contained the drugs. By virtue oi the iaet that the 3 plastic par.ke|s
in P14 were transparent and the ponies oouid cieeriy see the contents
suspected to be dnrgs, the SCJ iounti that the Appellant had the requisite
knawiedgs ot the opntents of the a transparent oiastie packets. The
Appeiiant atse admitted that P14 was the bag that the pohce seized that
night although he denied the bag and its contents were his.
[22] The SCJ aiso addressed the issue oi the or
prosecution witnesses in her grounds oiiudgrnerit The defence submitted
there were inatenai oontredtottons among the prosecution witnesses and
that they were bound by the testimonies of their own witnesses, to the
ex1enI that there a
ed two distinct interences and thereiore, the more
favourable inierenoe should be drawn by the mun ior the deiense. The
SCJ found that the discrepancies in the prosecution witnt§sas' evidenoe
SIN D442|PFyMkKz1xlnvmed3u “
-use s.n.i In-vihnrwiii re used M mm me sriiiniiy MIME dun-vinirl v.. nFit.ING Wflxi
ID
zo
%
were nor marenal conrrauiciions Ihat were fatal to me pvaseculiun case.
The discrepancies only weni io showihauhe prosecution witnesses were
noi mached Ia give evidence in mun They gave ewdenee based on meir
ve::ollac.1ion ai events: Llm euan Enq v PP [1933] 3 MLJ 769; choarr
Slang Guai v PP[1l'I69]2 ML! 53. some were able to give more cierails
man oihers. Moreover, the preseouhan witnesses r.a ihe policeman
Involved VI the arrest did nnl have any molive lo Ila: FF v shaabarr sin
Abdul Rarrrrrrm [1 ans] 2 MLJ 313 aesiues, the SCJ funnel manhere was
nothing mhereniiy rneredihle about the evidence man were glven by SP1
and SP4 In respect oi the llrldlng oi the drugs in P14: Moham-d Alias v
PF[1lll]1 LN: zno.
[23] The Appellant submllled that mere were serious oanlradicllons In
the prusecutiun ease regarding «mm where his menmy card no) was
lound/taken He claimed that ll’\ElE were 3 different versions in the
prosecution case ilsell and Ihelefurs, the Appellant must be acquitted and
discharged as me charges had nei heen proved, one versiun was it was
iourm in «he middle part 0! P14(SP1 and spa), the second version was
that SP1 asked ior the ic Mam rhe Appeiiani (SF'1)and me third vsrsiun
was [hat spz look it our «mm the Appellanfs wallet and handed it over io
SP1 (SP2). In the police report lodged by SPH, he stated it was found in
We bag together with ma drugs.
[24] The deienoe disputed the firsl version heoause It was illogical lnr
someone Io put his II) VI a bag ooniarnrng drugs and walled fur me police
to arrest him. The deienee subminau it was more iogical lorlhe Appellanl
to rnrow away PM upon seeing me poliee ream as I| was dark where his
car had stopped. Bul ihis coun none: in re-exsnunahon, SP1 ciariiied
'Ssmasa langkapsn drbual saya ieiah mam/nla kad pengsnaian darfpada
sw D«2iPryMhKzixn-mmansu “
Nuns s.n.i In-vihnrwlll be used m mm ms nflfllhnllly sun. dnunmnl wa mum wnxi
15
%
OKT darl dia keluarkan darfpada beg damper die’. TNS showed that me
Avbellarlt was not yel hahdcuwed when SP1 asked in! ms IC and the
dormer look 1 oul lrom his wallet.
[25]
9 12.2021. Hsr evldencs was hol vary lahglhy. she came lo me place
where the Appellant was arrested at Na. 24 PPRT, which was all lapl
rumah' around 3 as am. By the lime she amved mere, the Appellant was
l will naw address lhe evldenee 0! SP2 who (esllfied lh court on
already hanooulleo. she saw a lew polloemen there and she knew 2 ul
them whom she called “Pak va' ano ‘Marl’ she pleaded wlzh the police
no: lo arresl her brolher as she was gone to get marred soon
(presumably he was la be her guardian al me ceremony or that she lusl
wanted hlm lo be preeenl al her weddlrlg). In heroraasaxamlhallan, SP2
stated that she took out his wallet and gave the Appellant‘: III to the
policeman. She also look his ilver bangle out from hls pocket. The Court
also mined that she did not knew much about wha| happened that mght as
she had been sleeping prlor tn the angst SP2 stated that her bmther
came home In take 2 shower She said "Dia masuk ke Iumah iiu km Masa
nu says udur, SH)/N (idsk lahu..
[251 ln ma evldenoe ol lhe Appellant, he stated lhel SP1 asked lur his
IC The Appellant said he did not have his IC and than SP2 told them It
was with her. Therefore‘ SP2 tank am the IC {mm NS wallet and gave It
to SP1. Now, this Court ahservsd that SP2 was um an impnrlant wllnsss
because she was nol there when me Appellanl was fllst oetalhed by the
police she came laser and that too was aner she woke up lrom sleep;
aner gemng a phone call lrom her omer brother. The Court noted man in
her examlnatlon In chiet she was He! asked about her taking me
am u«2lPryMkKzlxh1m4an3u '3
-we Smnl n-vlhnrwm be used m vafli .. nflmnallly MIN: dun-mm VII nFluNG WM!
10
15
25
as
%
Appsiianrs IC oul horn his waflet II was puzzling why me p e wuuld iec
her handle ine Appellanfs Ic/millet it na had alveady been under anesi
[271 The SCJ in ner grounds M iudgmerit addressed inis issue by stating
as follows.
we» naiam kes wenian V sun. ei Mnhmashlrsi min 7 sec 295.
Mahkamah Agung indn mnh mamulusknn hnhawa nuhungari sama sda
ari|am mei dengan mangsa nlau derigari Tammuh udax akan sena mena
menoemarkari niin xeierangan saksi (ersebm isiapi sebaliknya kalararigari
snxsi meshlan dneim secara havrialwiali Mankamah Agung India mzmflllllklfl
semi yang Darlklll
'|H7ieIravu1:me i. Vmmd In be cnnxis1enln»dlme.|1IeVac\ cl being
a I=LI|we canml by nsen discredit ineii avlderiae. in einer WGIGS.
me ie\a|mrish\p is nm a iaclor In amen ine qediminy era wnnsss
and the mun; have in scnmrilss men evidence rneuauiousiy WM a
lime cam "
[23] Neverlhelessi inis cum lound inai when SP1 was giving evidence,
he was not cmssexamined about SP2 taking his walletoul drain the back
pocket and handing over me it: io SP1, In «act, SP1 was uniy asked that
SP2 was at me piaoe oi arrest and then me DPP re—examined mm as
moms (in page :2 ol the Notes 0! Evidence dated 24.11.2021)
“TFR' Semasa pemeriksaan dijaiankari kakak om’ ede hedir di siiu
dan Koperai setuiu?
SP1. Semasa pamanksaan dibuai, ada orang kampung yang
telefon keiuarga om. Kakak OKT yang ieian dalang ke
ienipai kajadlanf.
[291 Marewer. ins aniy cnaiiengs about ms is to SP1 was man i\ was
nal «nine in me bag. SP1 denied inie suggsslinri. Upon lunher scnniny or
{he cmss—m<amInal\on on this Issue, I bund [Hal counsel did no| 5|-19965!
a| all that the IC was surrendered by SP2 to SP1. I lound (hal SF2's
evidenoe must be scrulinised Galdully as she, admiltedly, was an
A
SIN e«2mum«.um.ae ‘
"Mme e.n.i ...n.mn be used m mm .. nflmnnflly sun. dun-mm VII .nune WM!
1m
in
15
an
mtalerstad wnness. sne pleaded wun me police not |o arrest her brother
as sne was genmg mamas! Tnere men he a good or Imporlanl reason
why sne said mat. Tne Cnun tonne met her ewuence about «akmg me
Appellanvs \c from N5 wane: was an aitarlhuught and ply unbehevable
as SP1 was nevererossexernuned abuullms wnen n was pm to sm mac
lhe Appensnrs sister was present at the scene, sun msagreea In «nis
suggestion. n was pm to SP4 that me Appeuenvs sister lock um the we
and gave n to SP1 and ne darned n. SP4 was adsmam lhal the \c was
taken out from F14.
[30] The Oourl refers In cne ease of Lima Slow Long v PP[1n1o]1 ML!
40 and PP v Than-aaran A/L Mumgan [21111] 3 ML] 323. FarI\cu\ar1y
in Llnw Slaw Lorry‘ was scaled‘
- u .s amen |n nccepl max suggesflon mu w a wnness Vs shown In be e
relalmn enne deceased ms evidence Vslahvled Tesumorvy amuse re:-Vauons
Vs nn xamlsd .r n Vs nthenwfse rehable n «ne sense ma| «ne wnnessee am
oumpe«en( wrmesses we wake at one scene 0! me ueeunenee and eenxe
have seen vmal had Happened. But n n n plvwd am "my an um -minly
dlslnluul-d wilnlslnl, . lhny ... Iilhur ...na..n. er me
complallunl M an In lny wny . . :1 to me nccuud, than men
hatlmuny lllllnmd and raqnires conobornflon Inn be semen upnn
[Emphasws added]
[31] n was very dsarlhal PW2 was nm an snuraly msnxeresxee wnness.
Tnerevene, her evidence must be treated wnn cannon and rsqmred
corroboration we be aclem upnn. x fuund lhat SP2‘: evmence am not hold
much Value The sc.rs nun-dirsc1\anIhatSF2 was an interested wnneea
did not resun in a tenure at the proseculvorv case because she had made
the correct findings 01 (act that possession had been proved despne
cnnmcflng evreenee gwen by sin, spa and en a certain extent SP2
N n«2|PFyMxKz1xInm4an3u ‘‘
we snn ...n.Mn es used m vafli n. nnmnnuly mums dun-mm wa nnum Wm
11]
Zn
zs
%
[:21 SP1 and SP4 gave oonllicling evidence ahuul ins IC whether iiwas
lakenlmm ihe bag or eisewhsrs. i found ihai SP4‘sevidenoein\I1is vegard
was nnl so crucial such ihai in would iesiiii in ihe aoiispse ihe prusecmiun
case. ii appeaieii ie nie imni me neies cl evidence ihsi SP4 gave
evidence based an the paiiee report ‘Edged by SP1 lhal was (OH in him
by SP1; In which il was stated the III was found In [he bag P14. And so,
he would not ‘budge’ (turn his stand
[:43] Esseniieuy, we point to note is mac n we evidence of SP1 ihai
he asked ierihe IC «mm the Appeuani who men took il ouuicin his wallet‘
aha ihai iheie was no reason wriy SP1 woiiid frame him, the svldenzze
slnad ihaiihe is was oiiiaineii bySP1.am1 not by SP2, lmm the Appeueni
himseii. Daspiie me discrepancy of we piece of eviaeni-,e between SP1
and SP4. iiiis coiiii lound ihai iiie black FVLA backpack (F14) aanieining
iris drugs was seized lrom ihe Appeiiani The coim agieea ihai with me
findings of the SCJ that the pmseculiun had pmvsd upon a maximum
einiiiieiien oiihe evidence iheiine Appellanl had adual pusssssirm DHIIG
bag and iis conienis and ihsi he knew what they mnienis were, i.e.
dangerous drugs
[34] In [he uflen-cllsd case ul Chan Pun Mon v PF [1956] MLJ 237
whale Thumsnn J. saia iiiai "possessian“ lnr ins purposes of criniiriai iew
imaives pnssessiun nsen — which seine aulhamies ierm "custody" or
"conimi" — and knewisdge M019 iiaiiiie at ihe mmg possessed. As to
possession iiseit he cued the loiiuwing deriiiiiipn in Stephen’; Digesf(9th
edn, p 304), in which ihe exclusive eienieri: ineniiuned by Tayiar J
appears:
‘A muveablelhmg is said (0 be mine possession eia person when he Is
se sMuz|ed wiiri iespeai ia ii inni us has ins powdvlo ueai wiih ii as vwnur
sin DM2|PFyMkKl1xlqviMafl3u ‘“
Nuns s.n.i n-vihnrwm as used M vafli he eniiniiiy MIN: dnunmnl n. nF\uNG WM!
s
in
in
15
an
15
in ms exciusxm 0? an umev DGISDHS, and when the simunismness sie
such mas he may be pvesumnd is imam In flu sis in mse of need:
[35] In the case oi shah lrwan run v. FF as Anochsr case [2013] 1
LNS :71‘ Balls Yuscf Hi Wahl JCA s|atedlhelnl|i1w|ng:
-hue Khal ins evidence of spa and 5m, bath at wnem ass pmsesisish
wimessea and both are nouns amceri. em me kaamsd JD was very I:2|veM
in dealing wim mess Mo wrtnuiiss en lllalrmsllmnnias as is me me M
me informal. AI pages 115- 115 OHHE sepesi seem in avnrsciaimw ins
svidsnce in mass Iwu pmsaculinn wnnasseai Her Ladysmp has em a
caution neon... aaaseune lheir evidence and sisied as mudws:
‘Bums?-A and smweie pence wilnesses and inenevidsnee wss
naflnhammly imemeanie Fnllawlnw PP v Menainea Au n 3521 1 1-
NS129,[(9€Z] MN 257 and appned in nninauimnan. Orig V an
[army 3 cu guy [may] 1 LNS1130;|2n‘iD]7 MLJ 175, ca, such
evidence snemd al his: insianss es accspled unless shaken in
Doss-examnnamn ur cnnvnditled by ather evidence -nsess wssa
conlvidlcdnnn In ms pmaseusisn use sa aiseusssd lbovn um
I did um llndlhn sanissdicuona w serious as In shuns nl sach
mhss sueh lhil ms psasecuuen was loll win: no "a1 |'burI
was no suuulstlml that man had burn my csissiesuas. by
snssa whmisasi ws no no! rind anylhmg mass with ms
Ippwldl and ms Cuflcluliun ssssnaa by Ihe ieamsd .u:"
[Emphasis added]
[36] There is one ouher Issue whiuh was raised by the Appeilani mat it
did not make sense (or him to just wait «hens in be anesied with a bag 0!
dmgs and his ic VI it when he could have easily (hruwn me bag away to
avoid anes1. The Court has considered this submissiun by the Appauani
as against the weight a! evidence adduced by «he pmsecunun and
delenoe In me case of isannpsihy all Rnngsaamy v PP [1993] 2 MLJ
577. the noun heid.
-ii needs |o be Vemambarsd «nan hawaviv weak s devense may be, via:
mam bulng ludgu ofholhllcl-n-1 Ilw shsssd sssxinamusn aside
IM dlhllcu on Ch: esaia lhll me pmaseuuos wmiesses su to bc
DI vud Ind nmlhl dflinbhwhen me iaw caeva IM onus nlulvlng
n DM2|PFyMkKl1xlqmAafl3u "
Nuns s.n.i IIIVVDIVWN be is... m mm s. nflmnsflly minis dun-mm VII snum WM!
ID
In uxplxnlilun liven .n Iccnued nelson. ana me cxvlanalnon il
glvnn. which in consimniwnn innmnu, IM com I: duty mninn ha
Dunsldlr vmelher ll inigm reasonably ha um, xlmuuqh nut
cmivlnctd of II: mm. on the issue 07 the cuur\‘s duly In mmidm me
i1elance.meage4>id dacislon in Man up {may MLJ m i! am: gand iaw
as ilwas men. This isvaiimu by the Suplema Court in Mflhamad Radm
nin Yaakoh V PF[1991]3 MU iav.
[Emphasis added]
[37] This Coun Vuund mm the SCJ um nut misdllecl herseii in law and W!
(am when she wnsidered me delence afisr applying ine aimvemenuoned
cases wmai are still good law. The case of PP v. Mohd Radxl ain Abu
Eakar [aims] 5 ML! 393 discussed ins meaning :2! prime rams case and
ii aaiencs n. called, ins ciassic case oi Mal v PPI1963] 1 MLJ 25: is |o
be apphed in that case. the Federal coun held:
“in this oonnm:1inn,caunseHar0ie appeiiani had reienea (0 us me case
.71 pp V Snimm & Dr: [1971] 2 MN 16 where5harmaJ naiainaninminiy
a! line deience dues mi reiim me pmisculiun «mm waving |he
umss|:u(inn‘s case beyond reasonania aaum w. an of in. V m um
winnmi . cflmlnal can dlcldud on in. buls oi in. mnh nflhe
prasaculh-an‘: can as Hg :1 en. mmy 9! in. dfllnu swam n vlal
inane must in iccnvdnncn wllh an. nrinelnln lilu down
ln mi vppnmi i mu m an om ilnp iumm boron convicting
Ihn lacuna by nu an: mnshierlllun as In why an dnkncv slum
though could not he belleved. did not Hill: a nuonabln dnum n in
pnmciniun use. Thus. mn llwugh n Judgu dun nm nccem or
bi lhn accin-H‘: lxplanniun, in. Icon:-d must not be
mnvlnui unui on court in n mm in! Infllclanl a mu um such
nxvlanallom am not can rinlnnnbll douhl in in» pros-cuiinn
am To x fy was it nnl an much (III woms um by «M
|udgI inn mhnnhe mu-i nppiic-non on». last to (M facts min.
an that inmm. in this case, we found than (M nlmud man judg-
imma pncllcnlly nu mun why in. amnu. nolwllhxundlng ils
hlslty anu unconvincing nalun, nun mm lo cal ullanlhll duulm
in ma pros-cinlnn can 01?!" Khan in xhll lay my in us «Me. {In
duty pllcnd by in. law on Ihn dnhncl m Jul nn icqnlml.”
[Emphasis added]
n DM2|PFyMkKz1zlqwNaI3u “‘
nan Sum IHIWDIY wn be HSQG m mm n. ninmin MVM5 dun-mm VII AFVLING mm
.n
IS
1.
an
[33] Tne Court also relerred to the case oi Ali Ian Bin Ahdullah v PP
[zany 2 MLJ an which stated that prooi beyond reasonanie doubt does
not mean proof beyond the shadow of doub| (see Mlllu v Minimr cl
Pensions M471 2 All ER :72). Evan umugr. me benefit of evsry
reascnabie doubt musi be given in me accused and cannot be wimheiu
Irom him. me cuurl must nm, on the mher hand, enlenain ii on grounds
which are ianciiui or VI me nalure oispecuiahun (see Public Fwsecutol
v Salmin a. On [1911] 2 MLJ16).
[39] In All mi sin Abdullln (supra), me appeiiaie coun heia:
‘[251 Ind .a. ...... .1... I u. wmmina 3 hue story of immunm.
xuch .. ... I111 .i.cu......n..-. ollht vrcum us. e.......i ....a....i lo
nasnnnblu duubi. the noun‘: acndnrtincn um. nxnlanation nmnu
by ... ancunfl pmun must bu baud upon nasal! and conunen
sen.-. and cannnl n. lllonlcal .. .....i.....i 11.. .. ....e. oi
nuallalslu mm In dupundum up... Ihl mmllty ulttvl .. ...=. and
on un . ....i...u.... mi: in. ..i.:...e. in Hair ...a missomble mnnner
...a rim .. lsolnlnn. In the pveserd case. ine learned Jc in hlsludwueni
had very meflculausiy otmsiflered me delslwe at me appeiiani The
learned J!) was sshsnea Ihal me apgeiiani had «aim in cast any
reasonable cum on ma prosecution‘: case and that Ills charglr WIIB
waved menu reamnahl: dnubl We are .n mnmiei. agreemelI|wllh ine
lumed JG WE are salisfied |hn| lhe ieamed JC had um misiflreclefl
..........n in any way In occasion an ecmr mine. an lhe law av ine iznls In
WEFYIM meiime inleflerenrxe We ..e unanlmnus [hat Ihe ieamsd .15 had
nut made any wrong inferences on me «am. pen». him. we iuunu nu
menis In this apneai We aeoeminniy dismissod ms appsai and avnnnea
lhe ounviclions and sanlences an mm Ina =..=.g...-
[Emphasis added]
[40] The SCJ did no: believe his expianaiion and «ha: in did not raise a
.easu..ai.ie doubt in her mind as to his gum. she iouna that the defence
was a bare deniai and an anennaugni. The sm had appiiea me cause:
pnncipiej i e a maximum evaiuaiiun nflhe pmsscuiion case and delance
case. and Donsidered Mn v PF (supra) and found that me defence am
I9
N D«2iPFyMnKz1xh1m4an3u
.4... Sum ....... M“ be .5... .. mm .. .n.i..u-y MVM5 dun-mm VI] munc pm...
in
1D
%
not raise a reasonable doupt on the prosecution case. Hence, the
prosecution has proved its case peyond a reasonable doubt. on the
whole‘ this court too did not believe the Appellants explanation and that
explanation did not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind as to hra puilt.
[41] The evidence were overwhelming agalnsl the Appellant and this
court agreed with the llndings and rationale at the sc.l whom had the
panent oi observing the derneanour oithe witnesses pelore hen Having
said that, the court did not see it lit to disturb the flrldlrlg ol guilt against
the Appellant. This court alllrmed the convicuoris recorded against the
Appellant as proper and sale in tight at the evidence against hirri. The
appeals EgalVI§|COVIVil71lD|'l were aooprdlngly dismissed.
Appeal ana sg gin Q
[42] on pehall oi the Appellant, it was submitted that the SCJ had used
the wrong considerations in applying the pnneiptes at senlenclng The
total sentence oi imprisonment was actually 7 years almmlgh there were
3 charges against the Appellant as they were made to run concurrently
Thls court noted that he would he whipped a total at 16 stmkss oi the
mtan ll the epnulctlons are upheld (reduced pylhta court item 20 stmkes).
[43] The DPP replied that the sentences were apt and the SCJ had
considered all lactprs and decided that public interest was the clveni ng
oonstderaliorl in the prsenl case as against the interest of the Appellant
The plea in mitigation was that the Appellant was a hrst ofiender, he was
caring tor his elderly mother and that ha had repented while in prison.
10
SN Du2lPFyMkKztxluvmaA3u
-use s.n.i In-vlhnrwlll be used is mm has nflnlhhllly MIME flnunvllnl wa nFlt.lNG Wflxl
15
m
%
THE APPEAL
[51 II is true lew me: an appenale own would be slow to dls1urb me
llrmrngs or me xriel mun unless mere had been errors at law or teen,
misdirection or nan-dlrectinn or rnsumerenl ruulplsl epprecrelren agalnsl
me welgru ptme evidence adduced. Ths lnel mun weulu have me benelu
of seelng and hearing are wilnesses and therefore of essesslng meir
credi ty Lai Kim Han a. on v. PP man 1 ML! an (FC); FuhI|c
Prosecutor v. wun Rauli Kusslrn [1970] 1 ms 121: (191012 MLJ 79.
[6] Hence, an eppellale coun has to scrullnlse me grounds o1 appeal
and delermms wneurermey are supporlsd py me evrderrpe ln me rewms
rrereur which wlH pe relerrsu to m srren lorm es RRJ1, RRJ2, RRJ3 and
RRJA The appeal against eerwrcuorr and seruence uanleureu a numper
of grounds es staked in me Pelilinn emppeel ln RRJ1. Haweuer, el me
hearing. counsel rer lhe Appellant pursued appruximalsly 5 lssues mac
ppuld be summarised es «alums
r. passesslon and ocmwl lol me drugs)
the Drosecullon was bound by Xhslesnrnorly or us own wurress
rrreerrsrslerrclee in the Appellant’: evlnenee
pcssesslorl olthe bag (P4)
serzure uflha car KBF 9139.
[7] R! the Pflma fade Stage for a charge of possesslon cl drugs, the
prosecution must prove the fulluwing ingredients
.. that lhe Appellam had actual pclssesslon cflhe dings:
that me Appellenl had krmwledge onne drugs: and
the drugs were at he lypes llsted lrl the Flrsl Schedule 01 me
DDA 1952.
SW u«2lPryMlrl<z<xh1m4an3u 3
-use smsl n-vlhnrwm es used m my .. mrmr-r mm: dun-mm VIZ muue pm
[44] In regard to me ‘one nransecnan rule“ prxncxme because the 3
charges salisfied me cntana 91 pmxArm|y 0! «me, praxnmny ov plans,
ccn\ImMy ar ecnun and conllnmly of purpose or das\gn as scared m
Bnchik Abdul Rahman v PF [2004] 2 cu 512, hence me SCJ imposed
5 concurrent terms The weamed Conn av Appeal Judge in that case he\d
mevouuwmg
A The exercise nhhe msmeuanmaenemme me date an x>ommencemsn|
cl me sentence 0! Vmvllsonmem Vs aspenaam on the vaas and
cwcumsmncas 0! each me. In a- Ifllnu whllhnv flu Iumu M
m lmprlionmunl mum In oonuculivl or cumm-nu .1 ....m... an.
42.. Conn mu 5. nu .4 by m. unl Iunsucliun nu. mu m. lmnlily
prInc|p|I.PulsunM|a me one uansaclmn rule whevelwaormme eflevmes
are oummixled mm mmeeorasingue vansacunn an semencesm respeu
oi lhese oneness shown he ooncunem rathevman wnseculwe (see R v
.5 Se/eemI195¢lCnm LR 4e2- R v. we/sn [1 gas! Cnm LR 245) Far mm
to In an. Iunsacuon tum - -ms mun bu pr-um. mm is m ..y,
pmxmny M um-. pr-mmily vi mm, uznlinuily nl lcliun um
cnmmuIlY ufvurpnu :1! design 1... Jlylrumln A Dr: VvPPH979l1
ms :1: [ma] 2 mu an; Amllu Ln! mm -1. Empemuz Ca|
m 957; cm» Cnoy V. pp 119551 1 ms vr. [1:55] MLI zany. Yhe mve.
mum, It not ibsoluh. As Yong Purvq How 54 and
m Kanavasunmarim v. PF'[IvE2I1 sm 31 at p on
Thu Engllxll com. um Mcogniud mm Ihu: ..e . men.
whim connculivl ..m...m m neeunry m -fiscaurafle the
2; W of =.amm.| condnu helnfi Punished: see a v.
F-ulknorllifll sa cups R sum V. Wheatle}/[RN15 crlnv
R (51 417 and}? v. sumrnm) 5 Cr APII R (5) we. run
awhllcablllly ul 2:. -xc-won vs ms in an-ma on m. mm M
an nu and m. c umlhncu ullill .m...e.. u 15 xvatad m
an broad and glnsvalmmzlnd ahhnugh may be mmmea «vague
n \s meuanny \n such Isms m mder mm me senlenoer may
muse an nvhmnfiale sentewe Vn each nsmcular case upon each
Den\cu\aralfemeral the Dafllcmav Mme lhe case ws heavd -.
[Emphasws added]
[45] In one onermceu case of Govlndnan cmnden Nan v PP [1993] 2
cu am m respecl ml taking into aooounl punnc mleresl wnsmeyeuen in
21
N n«2|PFyMxKz1zIuwuan3u
we Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
JD
zu
%
irie principles oi seniencing and usinnn Bin Juinnsen v PP [201 51 MLIU
1352 me coun oi Appeai sinned:
‘In me exercise er nis discretionary Duwer ine senieneinu mace rniisi apniy
nis mind In ine Vaclual malnx oi ine case In oiner wmdsi me sentence
Dassed mus! reieie Io me iacns aria ciicurneianmaieecn case -.
[45]
uisnure e senience Passed by a lower court unies s maniiwiy Wrong
in me sense ei being iiiegai or uneuiiabie Io ine proved Vials and
eimurnsianees: PP v Moiiamoe Nor 5. Or: [ ma 2 ML! zoo
in is nice iaw inai an appeiiaie eeun weniu be slow lu inienere or
[47] Having lJ0nS¥dSrBd an iaciors in We niiiigauen en eenieneei iriis
ceun viewed that uie son had conducted a balancing exercise on me
cumpefing inieiesi bemeen me pimiie and me Appeiianrs PF v Lee
Choon Fm [1976] 1 ms 102 Annougn me 3 charges min bring a
maximum oi 40 years, she imposed uoncurrsnt senieneee upon me
Appenani wriicn coma be consideied as being on me Iowerside given inai
he had been ieuna in possession iii 3 types ei dangerous drugs and the
case had gone on with iuii men and a ieiai ois piesecuiion wiinesses were
called to iesmy in mm
[45]
ceun rnduud iii. whipping
Nevenneiees, given iriai me Appeiiani was a nrsi crflender, the
posed uynie SCJ in rlsplcl oniie
second and mlrd onargu only. In nilecn irie minimum oi 3 strokes
01 Ch: mun ucii. The punisnrneni at 10 snakes or me man for me iirsi
cnaige is niainiained. The coun did nei inierieie wiin me irnpnsonrneni
ienne of 7 years, 5 years and Syears to he served coneunenily Trie com
nae aise mnsidsred ine principie in Pundxkwl Ray: v. Abdul Hauni
lsllak a. saw Lagi [2011] 9 cu 559 where Arie ceun ei Appeal rieie inai
22
sin D442|PFyMkKz1xlnmAaA3U
-nee s.ii.i ...ne.i M“ be used e mm we niwiruflly MIN; dun-mm via nFiuNG WM!
possessiurl nl a large ainuunl a! any lann of pmmmlea drugs must
cammensuvale with me sanlanca in be passed on ma peculiar law; oi
each case
5 cancluslun
[491 Premlsed on me above, the Com did not lma any %nor of last or
law such l|1alWDLl\d]IJS(WydlSlUlDlng|hel>0rNiC\I07l5 Vllhe 2 cases against
ma Appellanl. Hawsver, ma Court had iaaucea Ihe number of wmppings
by reducing the tale‘ number cf slmkes [ram 20 (0 V6
ID Appeal against cunvirliun dismissed. Appeal agalnal senlancs partly
allowed,
Dated 15 November 202:
“ W
/
NOOR RUWENA EINYI MD. NURDIN
Judicial Commissioner
Hlgn com 0! Malaya. nlping
Roms ta on
1; I-'arIhoAppcIlant:
Ml. Varpnl slngli AIL Meilomier Slngh (VBGK)
Varpal Q Assoclatn, Talplng
an
Fnr the Rnspondcnl:
DPP Mend. wally Bin Ismail
Pnllnm Tlmbalan Pulldakwa Raya Negeri Ferak. Taiping
as
2
SN D442|PF‘/MkKl1xlflwNil3U 3
-ma Sum lhlflhll will .. is... w my ..a DVWVVVIWY MIN; mm. VIA nFlLING W
In
1D
15
%
PRosEcu‘HON CASE
[3]
aomrdmg m ma pmeaeuuon werelhat me on 29 2.2020 al1.30am a team
The prosecution caHsd s witnesses to prove W5 case The «acts
of puhoe olfiuers namely FW1, FW4 and 2 others were making thew cnme
prevermon rounds at PPRT Kampung Sangkul, ljck In Batu Kurau on their
motorcyds when may saw me suspect (mm was later manunee as me
Appeflankj behaving suspmmusly by me ruadsids aflsr gettmg out at his
car WWI the engine stiH runmng SP1 saw the Appellant huldlng a black
backpad( SP1 was the first I0 reach the Appellant He tnnk cut his
authority card and menhfied Mmsefl as 8 poliueman tn the AppeHarIl. He
did not ly tn run away. A physical many search was conducted an me
Appeflant but wt was VIBgatlVB. As soon as the other policemen amved at
lhe spot where they were mm standmg, they surrounded me Apoeuem
and SP1 mspeclsd the b\ad< FILA backpaw whwch was seized (rum the
Appeflant (P4). From mm" me middha part of ma black FILA backpack,
SP1 Iound 3 transparent plastic packets ounlammg drugs suspected la be
harem and melhamphetamme He iflsofuund the AppeHant's idsntwty card,
a d\g|Ia|we1ghIng scale (P6), 5 mourned mass bottle fur drug eanaumpmn
(P5) and a lighter m me sams bag (F7). The Appeuam and mgemer wwth
ma items seized «mm hum were brougm back to me lbu Feiabat Pohs
Daerah Selama, Perak UPD Smama). Throughout the attest and ioumey
back to the \PD,SP1 had uustody oflhe drugs and other nerns seixed
[91 At me ma, 5?: lodged a police report as per Rsdang Panjang
Report 132-we/zo (marked as mm. The Appellant and the items seized
were handed ever to (he Investlgahcn Offiuer Vnsp Kamarm Ariffin Bin
Kamaruzaman qspa). spa weighed the drugs and recorded me gross
weight as 500 grams cl herom and 25 grams of methamvhetamine.
aw uuzwryukkztxiqmunsu ‘
‘Nata Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ms nrtmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm
15
%
Tespeclively. SP1 and SP5 marked the drugs and other items seized with
lheir awn maI‘kH’I§S SP1 completed and signed the Borang aengkar and
Eorarlg sersh Tenma Barang Kes. The Appellant disputed that he signed
lhe Borang Eangkar which was later marked in earn as P1. The Edi-ang
serah Teriiria Earang Kes was signed by SP5 and later markm in eaitrt
as P2
[in] The SCJ was satisiied mat the chain oi evidence in regard to the
exhibits had not been brvken where sl=i held on to the drugs irorri the
lime they were seixed until they were handed over to spa, SP5 kept them
under lack in his oinae until they were senl lo the chemistry Depanmerll
In lpoh. There the Chemist, Faznur»Axllah Elnli Mahmud (SP3) received‘
kepland analysed the drugs and prepared the Laporari Kimla aooerdingly
The Resil Klmia and Lapnran Kimia both had the same report number 2U—
FR-Av01B9Q and were marked as P15 and P13, respecllvaly Nlhclugh
SP3 was challenged Ihal the $<hibitS were not the same which she
received irorri sl=5, she was consistent in her answer and identified the
drugs positively. The drugs were iound lo eonlain 14.1: grams oi
Melamnhelamlrie, 3.4 grams ei Herein and io.2 grams oi
Menoaoetylniorhahines. The neh weight oiihe drugs lorrried the basis ier
lhe 3 amended charges againsl Ihe Appellant
[11] Upon a maximum evaluaiien ol me evidenoe helore ihe CCHAVL the
SCJ iound mat the Appellant had aclual physical possession or the drugs
in PM and knowledge oi the said drugs The ccurl was satisiied that the
prosecution had proved a prirna iaeie case against lhe Appellant on all 3
charges and called lor his deiense. The Appellant was explained the 3
cholcss and he chose to give sworn evidenoa. He was the sale witness
idr the deienee case and relied on the evidenoe at his sls|ar. spz
SIN D«2lPFyMhKzixlrivmaA3u 5
-we Sunni In-vlhnrwlll be used m mm as nflnlhallly MIME d...i.i. wa aFluNG WM!
THE DEFENCE CA§E
[12] The delence case can be summarised as 1u||l7ws'
r. on me night allne srresl. al l1,:lo pm me Auuellanl went I»:
s nls (nerld’s house ln Kampurlg Keriarlg. Hls menu was known
as Farnan:
at 1 so am l=arnan asked me Appellanl la lake ms car (KEF
91 39) and to go buy some load‘
me Appellanl told Faman ne wanted lo gu norna llrsl lo Oaks
so a shower;
IV. me Appellanl drove me car In his house and passed by a
warurlg ksdal makan by me slde oflne mad:
v. ns saw 2 policemen In urnlarrn an lns wan/ng kedal makan:
VL ne drove on urml ma luncllon la hls kampurlg and saw 3
15 molorcyolas behlnd mm but did run know who were me
momrcycllsls;
allar auosoo rnelres, he saw (hey were sllll mowing him arm
men ne knewlhey were policemen,
he SVDPDSU the car wlthnul being asked and one L/Kpl Hafiz
In came to the drivefs side bu! dld nnl ldenlfly himself as pohce,
IX ma Appellanl sand ne wlll cooperate with Ihem:
x spa came In me from passenger side, openeo me door and
sat beslde hlml
xi. SP1 arrwefl at the drivsfs side and lmmedralely handwfled
25 the APPfi||an\ without him knawlng the reasnn why he was
belflg arvesled,
Xli. ne was told (0 come oul of the car an slano beside the
drivefs side:
SIN D«2lPFyMkKz1xlrlmAaa3u ‘
-we s.n.l n-vlhnrwm .. o‘... M my .. nflnlnnflly mm: dun-mm VIZ .nuns WM!
:0
zn
%
xiiw, L/Kpr Hemz cnnducled a physical check on (he Appellamwmre
SP4 searched the passengev side;
xw. ehereener LIKp¥ Hera lmmd e mack FILA bag “a: alas lanlai
belakzng mas kusyen belakang";
UKp| Hehz gave (he black bag to sun
the Appeflanfs sister (SP2) amved at IP15 scene and asked
xv
xvi
why he was being arremsd
the AppsHanl replied he dud nnl know wh
his watch and a silver bang\e were taken and ms wallet
retrieved from the back pocket 0’ his pants‘
SP1 and SP4 mspemed Ihe cunlsnl M H18 Mack FILA bag on
me bonnet or lhe car wmhoul showing mm as content:
A pohoe car cams and look mm |o me um
xvhi.
xix
[131 It was also the delenoe eeee, Vn cmss—examina|inn onhe Appenenx,
mat when he smppsd the cal, there was e house nearby, wmeh he
revened to as Na. 24. He saw a woman known as Jone. a swsler er his
menu, Mm wee maying with her handphone 1!: «mm a! me huuse The
peuee told Jane |o gal min the house, The mierenoe that the aevenee
Mshed the court to draw was that he was lramed for the drugs lound H’!
me car and the peace did hm wan| any members nf «he public In wnneee
what may were doing there The Appellanl also dispuled the photographs
tendered by the police which showed me place where they condudsd the
mspecuun; me Appeflanl anege-1 ma| none enhe phoxogrepns showed
the acme! mace where he was arrested The Appenem sawd his esxer
earns ID know about his arvesl from mew brother. He Iold Ihe DDUVK that
Faman has since Iefl the vfllage to find wnrk elsewhere and did not know
where he was. He sawd Che Dar might belong lo Farhan‘s s\sIe( bu! he d\d
not knaw me name 0! Ferhens (ether.
7
sw u«2|PFyMkKz1xM1m4ea3u
-wee enn n-nhnrwm be used m vafli n. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm wa .nuNG wrm
In
15
35
%
[14] Afler hearing and wevghmg his aytdanaa, tna SCJ cancmded that
the delenoe waa a bare denial at me pmsaamaon case and am not rataa
any raaaanabxa doubt at an. The Appellant at the uavanca stage had
atmdamy given the names at characlers whom were not menttonaa at an
dunng the pmseculiun case. Therelore. me set tom that ma names :2!
Jcjle and Faman were an aflenhoughl and onty brought up Ellhe defence
stage tn pmve mat na am rmt know about the drugs and to dissociate him
«mm the drugs lound M me black FILA badqzack mat he was holdmg at
me Ume oi the anest. These can be aaan in ma Hne M queatiomng as
tanawa:
‘ us
on-
we
on-
vs.
on:
as
aw;
Selevasinfl
Ad!k says henanyz keoada saya 'iabab apa ahxng xana |angk3p’J'
Saw mkap saya Izaak lzhu,SayalmuAKuye<n[Znkm1.n flan Kane!-al
Hawulmanelah mlmarlksa hug gatas Ienehm at alas benelhahawtnn
belakzng kaleta tanpa snyn hhal apasapa yang ada dalam beg
maatmt
Kamu Mak nnat tanasungt
fidak tmat ta-gum can nwaka pun lmnk tumuk non dalnm 1799 Hu
$s\apas tan
setapas nu Kaparal Havrulmal dananu kevada say: aan memmva kad
panganatan snya. Lalu seya mecnnsnuanu kad panganatan aaya nsaa
9363 says Aflxk pemmpuan saya benlzhu yang kad pangsnalan say:
aaa peda aa dart adtk pnvampuan saya huka hag dnmpal saya din
beflkzn no pangnnatan saya kspada Knper-3| Hailulmm
T-Id! ksmu km beg nu Dukan mlhkkzmu Iapt pans kata kad
puagenamn kamu her-uda flalam ruann tangan beg um
llu saya Husk tahu. Apa yang pash Gan belulnyn tan panglnnhn 1-ya
tatan msavankan kepafla Kapa-at ttatmtynat atan amx perempunn aaya
sanmn mg bemama my waaman tumi Shamsudln Jlka belul ma
pervganalan uya hands dalam beg Iersebuh uaau muilalm kad
penganilan hiya dlleliklmn aatant bag Lavsahulunluk mewgumtan lag:
msteka ptmya kes
aw a«mymzt.am.aa
«ma Sam n-nhnrwm be as... m van; ms nrighvnflly sums dun-mm y.. mum pans!
.5
an
[15] Ilwas «he defence case loo that SP4 had some lssuss wun nlm ln
lne pas1 wnlon was alleged In be in mnnecliun wlm lne Appellanfs
purporled drugs-relaled a
a personal level, SP4 uld rlal nave any problems wiln nirn. He also agreed
5 However, me Appellant agreed cnal an
that neimer lne elner 3 palloemen had any reason lo lrame him
[16] The defence also tried lo Vales doubt on the proeeeulion ease by
laklng me line or quesllunlng that me drugs were leuna IIV ma car and
which was why me no oe selzed me car However, lne SCJ lmmd thal
SP6 nad explalned me car was selzad a law days aflerlhe arrest and nut
imrrledlalely as the drugs were lounu wilh me Aphellanl wna was holding
me bag and nut ln lne ear. The wilnees also lolo me coumhal me car was
sslzefl under lne Dangerous Drugs (Fcrlellure ol Propenyl An was
based on lnlennalmn reeslveu max ll naa been used ln drugs-relaned
amlvlnes ln the past; albell nol In connection wlm lne arves1 ol lne
Appellant. SP5 lesllfied that the carwas nm selxed by SP1 because lrom
nls lnvesllganon, l( had naming to do wiln me me l.S. lne drugs were not
lnund In me tar as alleged by me Appellant, SP1 tasli Isd lnal vvlanurul
ape yang dlpe/alarf. Ilka kereta /aun den" suspsk darl ksnela man balan
disirisjlka lidak ada barallg kes myumpai da/am kerelaf.
[17] finally, Ihe SCJ slalea ln lne gorunds 0! Judgment ner opservalion
as follows.
-[as] Selaln nu, xaya ma rnanuapall psmbalnarl yang dikemukakan nleh
Tenuduh pemeamman Ferbezun luga hnleh alllnal damn xelerangan
Yemduh bemuhurla lemval penemuarl baa sanaang hemp bslwama Hiram
.enarna ‘FlLA' [ekslbll Fl] Tenuduvl msrlgatakarl hag binding blrzip
berwarrla mum panama 'FI|A“ [Mulhll Palyang ulleukkan alaalanlamelakang
alas xleyen Delakarla sedannkarl peguamhela mengulakarl hag sarldarlg
lmakrlyfl alas lanlal Dada banaylarl Iempal duduk vsnurnpanu nsaapan el klrl
telvluat duduk Dfimarldu
n Du2lPFyMkKzlxlnmAaI3D
Nuns Smal In-rlhnrwlll be used M mm ms nflnlnallly ml. dun-vlnrrl wa .nuna Wflxl
zn
an
%
[90] Dalzm nal mi, dlpemallkzn psmbalaan yang dlhenkan elen Tammlm
adalall hslbaza-bun dan benllnndeen mengikul kemaarl Pemhelsan
secegilll membalenkarl Dlhak rllahkamah mambuai lmmen bahawa
seherlamya lenudun llanz pemtzelaall ks alas eenudunan darl k2: ying
dlkerlakarl kn alas bollau
EVALUATION AND FINDINGS or THE COURT
[18] The scws gmunds at ludgmsnl was qulle lengthy and Included
chunks olcne notes eleyidenee as well as subm ns afths pmsecuhan
and defence. From my perusal ollne sc.l's gmlmds unudgmam, ens had
lnomugnly analysed me evidence adduced by me pmseeullen and cmss—
axamlnallon onhe prnsecullml wllnsses in crderlo delennlne lne line all
delenee el me Appellanl belore calllng upon me Appellenl to defend
nlmsell agalrlst lne charges
[19] Then she analysed the evldence glven by the Appellant‘ whlch was
allegedly suppuflsd by the evldence of his sister, SP2. ln summary, (he
SCJ dld not believe me defence case as can be seen ln her arlalysls ln
pigfi 8410 116 of the grounds D? judgment (RRJ1). The SCJ had also
addressed lne lssues raised by (he delenee as I have summarised earller
In lnls Graunds euudgmenl. namely:
l possssslm end conlml (dune drugs)
pnssssslm el me bag (P4)
ui selzure nfthe car KEF 9139
me pmseculinn baund by lne leslllneny ol lls own wllrless
y. lncunsislencles in me Appellenrs evldanoe.
[20] The sad had addressed lne Issue 0! nunexlslenee el DNA
evldenoe on lne black FILA backpack and transparent plastlc packets
wnlcn ene slated was nol lelel (0 me prosecullcn case as may are melely
cormhoratlvs evldsnoe. The prosecullorl case does nm collapse ll lnere
SIN DO42|PFyMkKllxInvMafl3u ‘°
-we Smnl n-vlhnrwlll be used m mm ms nflmnnllly suns dnunvlnnl wa .nune wrul
| 3,026 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-21NCvC-18-02/2021 | PLAINTIF Kerajaan Malaysia DEFENDAN KOTA LAKSAMANA 2 SDN. BHD. | Civil Procedure: Summary judgment – Tax Recovery by Government of Malaysia – Applicability of the normal rule of triable issue – Whether a proper case for summary determination – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14.Revenue Law: Income Tax – Whether tax due, payable and recoverable – Defences available to a taxpayer seeking to challenge a summary claim – Whether court could hear merits of assessment – Income Tax Act 1967, ss, 90(3), 99, 103(2) and (5), 106(1) and (3), 145 and 152. | 15/11/2023 | YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3cc53572-0b4f-44c6-b8ad-f865c60f7b36&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: BA-21NCvC-18-02/2021
ANTARA
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … PLAINTIF
DAN
KOTA LAKSAMANA 2 SDN. BHD.
[201401006828)(1082911-X)] … DEFENDAN
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] It has been said that death and taxes are the two certainties in life.
The Defendant can attest to the latter.
[2] In the matter before this Court, the Defendant has to confront the
reality of not just having to resist a claim for recovery of tax by the
Government of Malaysia for a sum of RM6,919,230.63 but with a claim for
summary judgment to boot.
15/11/2023 09:22:34
BA-21NCvC-18-02/2021 Kand. 34
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
[3] The Defendant is certainly not the first and will undoubtedly not be
the last to face a claim for the recovery of tax by way of summary
procedure by the Government of Malaysia.
The Primary Issues
[4] The dual vital issues for consideration in this case are
(a) whether the Government of Malaysia is entitled to summary
judgment for the sum that it is seeking to recover from the
Defendant; and
(b) whether there are defences that the Defendant may rely on to
challenge the claim by the Plaintiff.
The Case for the Plaintiff
[5] The case for the Plaintiff is simply that it is entitled under the law to
claim, as in this case, for income tax assessed for the Year of Assessment
2018 including increases under the Income Tax Act, 1967.
[6] The position of the Plaintiff is that not only is it entitled to claim for
the amount of tax claimed, it is entitled to summary judgment, that is,
without a plenary trial of the action.
[7] The Plaintiff is relying on the various provisions of the Income Tax
Act 1967.
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[8] The starting point for the Plaintiff is section 90(3) of the Income Tax
Act 1967. It provides as follows:
(3) Where a person for a year of assessment has not furnished a
return in accordance with section 77 or 77A, the Director General
may according to the best of his judgment determine the amount of
the chargeable income of that person for that year and make an
assessment accordingly: Provided that the making of an
assessment in respect of a person under this subsection shall not
affect any liability otherwise incurred by that person by reason of his
failure to deliver the return.
[9] It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that an assessment for
Year of Assessment 2018 has been made pursuant to section 90(3) of the
Income Tax Act 1967.
[10] The Plaintiff further averred that the relevant Notice of Assessment
has been sent to the Defendant in accordance with the provisions of
section 145(1) and (2)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967. Section 145, which
govern the Service of Notices, provides as follows:
145. (1) Subject to any express provision of this Act, for the
purposes of this Act notices may be served personally or by ordinary
or registered post.
(2) A notice relating to tax which is sent by ordinary or
registered post shall be deemed to have been served on the person
(including a partnership) to whom it is addressed on the day
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
succeeding the day on which the notice would have been received
in the ordinary course of post if it is addressed —
(a) in the case of a company, partnership or body of persons
having a registered office in Malaysia —
(i) to that registered office;
(ii) to its last known address; or
(iii) to any person authorized by it to accept service of
process;
(b) in the case of a company, partnership or body of persons
not having a registered office in Malaysia —
(i) to any registered office of the company, partnership
or body (wherever that office may be situated);
(ii) to the principal place of business or other activity of
the company, partnership or body (wherever that
place may be situated); or
(iii) to any individual authorized (by or under the law of
any place where the company, partnership or body
is incorporated, registered or established) to accept
service of process; and
(c) in the case of an individual, to his last known address.
[11] Accordingly, following service of the Notice of Assessment, it is the
Plaintiff’s assertion that the tax as assessed became due and payable by
the Defendant, regardless of any appeal from the Defendant against the
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
assessment. On this point, the Plaintiff relied on the provisions of sections
103(2), 103(5) and 107C(10) of the Income Tax Act 1967.
[12] For brevity, the relevant provisions relied on by the Plaintiff read as
follows:
103. (1) …
(2) Where an assessment is made under section 90(3), 91,
92 or 96A, or where an assessment is increased under section
101(2), the tax payable under the assessment or increased
assessment shall, on the service of the notice of assessment
or composite assessment or increased assessment, as the
case may be, be due and payable on the person assessed at
the place specified in that notice whether or not that person
appeals against the assessment or increased assessment.
…
(5) Subject to subsection (7), where any tax due and
payable under subsection (2) has not been paid within thirty
days after the service of the notice, so much of the tax as is
unpaid upon the expiration of that period shall without any
further notice being served be increased by a sum equal to ten
per cent of the tax so unpaid, and that sum shall be
recoverable as if it were tax due and payable under this Act.
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
Estimate of tax payable and payment by instalments for companies
107C. (1) …
…
(10) Where the tax payable under an assessment for a year
of assessment exceeds the revised estimate under subsection
(7) or deemed revised estimate under subsection (8),
whichever is later, or if no such revised estimate is furnished
or there is no such deemed revised estimate, the estimate of
tax payable for that year of assessment, by an amount of more
than thirty per cent of the tax payable under the assessment,
then, without any further notice being served, the difference
between that amount and thirty per cent of the tax payable
under the assessment shall be increased by a sum equal to
ten per cent of the amount of that difference, and that sum
shall be recoverable as if it were tax due and payable under
this Act.
[13] Crucially, the Plaintiff alluded to section 106(1) of the Income Tax
Act 1967, which in no uncertain terms states that “Tax due and payable
may be recovered by the Government by civil proceedings as a debt due
to the Government.”.
[14] Further in section 106(3) of the same Act, it is expressly provided
that:
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(3) In any proceedings under this section the court shall not
entertain any plea that the amount of tax sought to be recovered is
excessive, incorrectly assessed, under appeal or incorrectly
increased under subsection 103(3), (5) or (7).
[15] The above, according to the Plaintiff, is the position of the law vis-à-
vis the rights accorded to the Government of Malaysia.
[16] This is not to say that the Defendant is left without any recourse. As
conceded by the Plaintiff, the remedy available to the Defendant is under
section 99 of the Income Tax Act 1967, where an appeal may be made to
the Special Commissioner of Income Tax. Section 99 plainly preserves
the right of appeal of “a person aggrieved by an assessment made in
respect of him”.
The Case for the Defendant
[17] In response to the Plaintiff’s submissions, the Defendant argued,
inter alia, that the amount taxable for Year of Assessment 2018, based on
Borang C that it had submitted was RM0.00.
[18] The Defendant further contended that it had filed a Notice of Appeal
pursuant to section 152 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (in Borang Q) on 16
October, 2020 and is awaiting response from the Plaintiff. In addition, the
Defendant submitted that it is able and willing to furnish evidence if
required.
[19] Therefore, the Defendant’s position is that the Plaintiff’s assessment
(in Borang J) is inaccurate and without basis and the Defendant should
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
be permitted to prove that their assessment is correct (and not be denied
that right).
The Law and the Legal Principles
[20] As the Plaintiff has invoked the summary procedure under Order 14
of the Rules of Court 2012, a question for determination is whether the
conventional rule which requires a defendant resisting an application for
summary judgment to raise “an issue or question in dispute which ought
to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial” as
provided in Order 14 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 has any application
pursuant to a claim made under the Income Tax Act 1967.
[21] In Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v Government of Malaysia [2023]
AMEJ 2078; [2023] 1 LNS 2063; [2023] MLJU 2283; [2024] 1 MLRA 69,
the Federal Court had considered the following three questions of law:
[18] …
(c) Question 3
Whether, by reason of Sections 103 and 106(3) of the Income Tax
Act 1967, this Court is wholly prevented from considering whether
or not there are triable issues and/or some other reason warranting
a trial (within the meaning of Order 14 Rule 1 and Order 14 Rule 3
of the Rules of Court 2012 ), before deciding whether or not to give
judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, despite the fundamental liberties,
rights and powers enshrined in, inter alia, Articles 5, 8 and 121 of
the Federal Constitution.
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
…
(e) Question 5
Whether Order 14 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012, which provides
that a Summary Judgment application may be dismissed if a
Defendant can show "some other reason" for a trial to be held,
applies in civil recovery proceedings in tax matters.
(f) Question 6
Whether in instances of manifest and obvious errors in calculation
of a tax assessment, a court is entitled by virtue of its inherent and
judicial powers to consider a Defendant's defence of merit to dismiss
or set aside an application for Summary Judgment by a Plaintiff and
order full trial on the matter.
[22] As noted by the Federal Court, “Questions 3, 5 and 6 all of which
deal with the workings of summary judgment in the context of section 106
ITA” (see para [19]).
[23] The workings of summary judgment in the context of section 106 of
the Income Tax Act 1967 were adeptly articulated by Nallini
Pathmanathan FCJ as follows:
[149] The ITA has a specific series of statutory provisions for the
collection and recovery of the tax assessed to be due by the DGIR.
These provisions are contained, as stated above, under sections
103 - 110 of Part VII of the ITA entitled 'Collection and Recovery of
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
Tax'. It is not in dispute that this jurisdiction, like many others,
operates on a 'Pay First, dispute later' design of tax imposition as
established by Parliament under the ITA.
[150] It is noteworthy that the questions posed by the Appellants
relate solely to Part VII on recovery and collection. These questions
focus on the rules of civil procedure relating to the recovery of debts
in general, rather than the recovery of tax imposed under the
specific provisions of the ITA read as a whole.
[151] There is a presumption made, both by the Inland Revenue and
the Appellants that the only means of enforcement available is under
Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. However, Order 14 envisages
the Court undertaking a final determination as to whether an amount
is payable or due. This means that the Court considers and
ascertains whether a debt exists.
[152] But under the ITA, sections 103 and 106 specify statutorily, for
purposes of collection and recovery only, that upon assessment, the
sum assessed is due and payable upon the lapse of a specified
period of time. It becomes a statutory debt or a debt created by
statute.
[153] Section 103(1) provides: "Except as provided in sub- section
(2) tax payable under an assessment for a year of assessment shall
be due and payable on the due date whether or not that person
appeals against the assessment."
[154] The section provides for two separate matters:
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(a) That by statute the sum becomes due and payable on the
due date;
(b) That notwithstanding the taxpayer's right of appeal, the
sum becomes due and payable.
[155] In other words, while the process of appeal is pending the tax
becomes due, putting into effect the 'Pay first, dispute later' system
that defers the dispute but requires immediate payment. This is an
essential aspect of expeditious and efficient collection of tax which
is required to enable the nation to function effectively. Therefore,
notwithstanding the taxpayer's right to challenge the tax assessed
through the SCIT and subsequently the hierarchy of the courts,
payment is not deferred. Any seeming 'inequity' is met by the
guaranteed right of repayment under the Act.
[156] The deferral of the challenge or dispute as to the tax assessed
is further borne out by section 103B which provides:
'The institution of any proceedings under any other written law
against the Government or the Director General shall not
relieve any person from liability for the payment of any tax,
debt or other sum for which he is or may be liable to pay under
this Part.'
[157] The Hansard in relation to section 103B states that the
Government aims to ensure fair treatment between those who pay
their taxes on time and those who do not. The latter group while
seeking to challenge the tax assessed, are nonetheless required to
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
make payment first while the challenge is deferred, because it would
be unfair to those who pay their taxes on time if the latter category
of taxpayers were accorded a longer time to meet their tax
responsibilities simply by reason of their challenge (see: Penyata
Rasmi Parlimen, Dewan Rakyat, (Parliamen Keempat Belas,
Penggal Ketiga, Mesyuarat Ketiga, 16 December 2020), Vol. 54, at
26).
[158] As stated earlier, the tax assessed is, by way of statute, a debt
due from the taxpayer to the Government. The section statutorily
deems the sum assessed to amount to a debt recoverable in civil
proceedings. The purpose, again is to facilitate recovery of the sum
assessed.
[159] And to facilitate recovery section 106(3) limits the type of
challenge that can be made at this juncture, i.e. temporarily. The
right to raise those challenges and have them adjudicated upon is
neither ousted or prohibited, as the ITA provides for such challenges
to be taken vide the prescribed mode of appeal under Part V.
[160] What this all means in relation to recovery is that the ITA does
not envisage a full-blown ventilation of all possible challenges to be
determined at this stage of the tax process. It serves to ensure
timely recovery and collection of tax due, while deferring the
challenge to a later date. And this is where the utilisation of Order
14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) gives rise to confusion.
[161] Order 14 provides a summary basis for the collection of a debt
in dispute. It provides a comprehensive mode of shortening the full
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
litigation procedure by allowing, in suitable cases, for matters to be
adjudicated upon fully, without the necessity for a full trial and
witnesses. If the defendant to the summary judgment application
however raises a 'triable' issue the matter then proceeds to trial.
Whether judgment is granted summarily or judgment is granted after
a full trial, the full merits and rights of the parties are litigated and
the judgment handed down, is final in nature.
[162] If a tax recovery 'debt' as statutorily provided for under section
106 is subjected to the procedure under Order 14 ROC 2012, then
the entire purpose and object of the ITA, which provides for a
deferral of the full dispute to a later date under the adjudicatory
process prescribed under the Act, is not met.
[163] Even where there is no 'triable issue' found, it must be
remembered that the character and effect of the judgment granted
under Order 14 is final. However, under sections 103 and 106 the
nature of the relief sought for purposes of recovery is plainly interim
in character.
[164] The use of the Order 14 procedure gives rise to a situation
where, if the recovery process is found to give rise to 'triable issues',
it will result in a full-blown trial which examines the veracity of the
statutory debt under section 106. Bearing in mind that the section
provides for this statutory debt to be due and owing for the purposes
of recovery only, and not with finality, the use of a summary process
which seeks to allow for a full determination of whether the sum is
due and payable, is not ideal given the purpose and object of the
ITA.
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[165] Once the statutory section 106 debt is subject to a full-blown
trial, there cannot be another or second attempt at litigation under
section 99(1) ITA as that would give rise to res judicata and/or issue
estoppel. Therefore the entire purport and effect of the ITA would be
thwarted by a full trial under the Order 14 civil procedure under the
Rules of Court 2012. This is in accord with the older case-law which
stipulates that such defences are to be remitted to the equivalent of
the then SCIT and not considered by the Courts. To that extent there
was appreciation of the fact that judgment under section 106 ITA
was for purposes of ensuring payment of taxes first while disputes
were adjudicated later.
[166] This then warrants the question whether Order 14 is indeed
the ideal mode to adopt in the course of recovery proceedings under
section 106 ITA. It would seem from a perusal and construction of
the Act in toto, that the procedure set out in section 106 ITA itself
provides sufficient basis for recovery to be initiated in the civil courts
by way of originating summons. The Court is then able to ascertain
whether:
(a) An assessment has in fact been made in the form
prescribed under the Act;
(b) Whether the tax assessed is due as the relevant time
accorded for payment has lapsed;
(c) Whether the DGIR has accorded an exemption or
provision for payment by instalments or reached some
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
other agreement with the taxpayer which would warrant
the Court refusing to grant judgment.
[167] This means that section 106 ITA is given its full effect for the
purpose of recovery while simultaneously allowing the taxpayer to
proceed with his challenge vide section 99(1) of the ITA.
[168] The ITA allows for full judicial intervention and adjudication
vide Part VI. Additionally, from a constitutional viewpoint, the right
of judicial review, as well as an entitlement to a stay premised on
the exercise of judicial discretion, remains.
[169] To reiterate, the enforcement provisions in section 103 and
106 are themselves premised on the exercise of judicial power, so
it cannot be said that judicial power is in any way ousted. There is
merely a temporary restriction of the taxpayer's rights of challenge,
which are deferred while allowing for payment first. The Courts'
powers remain unaffected. So when section 106(3) provides that the
Court shall not consider certain defences relating solely to the tax
assessed, it is the taxpayer's right to raise these issues at that
juncture that is deferred, NOT curtailed. The Court's powers remain
untouched as explained above.
[170] It is worth reiterating paragraph 38 of Capstone Pty Ltd (supra)
where Binns Ward J stated:
"Once it is accepted that the filing of a statement in terms of
section 91(1)(b) is nothing more than an enforcement
mechanism, as distinct from a means of determining liability,
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
there is no basis for distinguishing it from any of the other
recovery mechanisms...
...It seems to me that the learned judge went awry in Mokoena
by apparently regarding the filing of a statement in terms of s.
91(1)(b) as having the rights-determining character of a
judicially delivered judgment. It plainly does not..."
[171] In like manner the judgment obtained under section 106 using
the summary judgment procedure, does not have a rights-
determining or liability-determining character, as it merely allows for
recovery first for the purposes of enforcement or execution. It serves
to give effect to the 'Pay first, dispute later' scheme in the ITA.
[172] Even if a summary judgment procedure is adopted, the
curtailing of the defences available as provided for in section 106(3)
ITA and arguably, section 103(1) ITA and 103B ITA, means that the
issues there remain unavailable for adjudication by the Court. This
is because those matters would still comprise the subject matter of
any appeal under section 99(1) ITA. Alternatively judicial review in
exceptional cases is also available.
[24] Based on the above exposition relating to the workings of summary
judgment in the context of section 106 of the Income Tax Act 1967, the
Federal Court affirmatively held that the “issue or question which ought to
be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial” rule as
envisaged in Order 14 rule 3 has no application.
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
[25] At para [173], Her Ladyship clarified that:
… Pursuant to the 'Pay first, dispute later' scheme under the ITA, it
follows that the recovery of the sum assessed at this stage is not
final and the dispute will be heard by the SCIT and subsequently the
Court under the 'Pay first, dispute later' system.
[26] Her Ladyship went on to explicate the legal position as follows:
[174] As we have reasoned, the claim for judgment by the Inland
Revenue is premised on the characterisation of the sum assessed
to be due as tax, under section 106(1) as a statutory 'debt'. This is
for the purposes of recovery and execution only. The judgment
obtained under section 106 is not a rights-determining judgment of
finality. The taxpayer's right of challenge is not abrogated, as that
right is preserved under as well as judicial review.
[175] Therefore the 'some other reason' for a trial to be held under
Order 14 does not apply as section 99(1) ITA a basis on which to
enforce this statutory debt created by the taxing statute to enable
payment to be made first, pending any challenge or dispute as to
the sum assessed, which is effectively deferred under the statute. If
it is found under the Order 14 procedure that the matter should go
to trial it would render the method prescribed under the Act for
adjudication, nugatory. The Act should be construed such that the
various sections are harmonious and provide a coherent structure
for income tax collection.
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
[176] Therefore the use of other 'some other reason for trial' should
not be invoked. It is not tenable for a section 106 debt to be
determined finally at trial, if the taxing statute also prescribes a
specific manner of challenging the tax assessed, as is the case
under the ITA. We have explained above in the body of the judgment
that such a judgment does not enjoy the characteristics of a
judgment issued after a full exercise of the Court's dispute resolution
powers. It is a judgment handed down for the purposes of collection,
i.e. to enable recovery first, while the dispute is deferred. It does not
enjoy the rights-determining character of finality which is to be found
in a judgment delivered after full adjudication in a court of law.
[177] All challenges pertaining to those matters set out in section
106(3) or otherwise may be fully dealt with under the appeals portion
of the ITA in Part VI, Section 2 which allows the taxpayer to ventilate
all these issues. Further the remedy of judicial review in an
appropriate case is also available. All this ensures that the taxpayer
is accorded his 'fundamental liberties rights and powers in Article 5
and Article 121 '.
[178] In short, a judgment granted under section 106 is treated as a
civil judgment lawfully given in favour of the Inland Revenue for the
purposes of collection and recovery only.
[179] Enforcement may involve a writ of seizure and sale or
garnishment of any amount due, and if the sum assessed is found
to be erroneous after the merits of a dispute have been dealt with in
full under the section 99(1) challenge, the over-assessed portion will
be refunded to the taxpayer. With the latest amendments to the ITA,
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
such a refund will carry interest (see: section 111D ITA). To that
extent, the filing of civil proceedings in terms of section 106(1) is
nothing more than an enforcement mechanism and is distinct from
a means of determining liability.
[180] To this end, the DGIR and all authorised officers are
designated as public officers to undertake proceedings under the
section. This section provides support for the position that any
proceedings instituted should be under section 106.
[181] It should be borne in mind that the statute that allows for
recovery of tax is the ITA, and not the Rules of Court 2012, more
particularly Order 14. The latter provides a means of recovery of a
disputed debt and envisages the determination of liability in full,
either summarily or after a full trial if there is a 'triable' issue.
Consequentially, it allows for a final judgment after determining
liability between the parties.
[182] The section 106 ITA recovery mechanism under the ITA does
not require such a final judgment, as we have explained at length.
[183] Accordingly, it is the remedy prescribed by statute that must
prevail, not the procedure to recover a debt under the Rules of Court
2012. Therefore the statute should be accorded effect by allowing
for the recovery or enforcement process under section 106 ITA to
be followed.
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
[27] It is evident that the law heavily favours the Plaintiff and the reason
is due primarily to policy considerations that are beyond the powers of this
Court.
[28] The contentions raised by the Defendant in paragraphs [17] to [19]
above are of no assistance to them in the present application.
[29] Nonetheless, this Court would come in aid of the Defendant if it can
be shown that, for example, the Plaintiff had failed to serve the Notice of
Assessment on the Defendant in accordance with section 145 of the
Income Tax Act 1976.
[30] In this regard, one question which was of concern to this Court was
whether the defendant had been served with a Notice of Assessment?
[31] The answer is in the affirmative as this has been admitted by the
defendant.
[32] As noted, the Defendant is not without recourse. For the Defendant,
it should look to the Special Commissioner of Income Tax.
[33] On the point raised by the Defendant in paragraph [18] above that it
had filed an appeal in Borang Q on 16 October, 2020, the Plaintiff’s
records show that the appeal has been withdrawn by the Defendant on 21
May, 2021.
[34] As pertinently decided and explained by the Federal Court in Mohd
Najib Hj Abd Razak v Government of Malaysia, section 106(3) of the
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
Income Tax Act 1967 is constitutional and does not have the effect of
usurping judicial power.
[35] The Federal Court made clear that any defences, if raised, are to be
the subject matter of full ventilation before the Special Commissioner of
Income Tax and after that, the High Court on points of law.
[36] The Federal Court further notes that as a judgment such as the one
here does not finally dispose of or determine the rights and entitlements
of a taxpayer, the taxpayer is not prejudiced.
[37] Be that as it may, the taxpayer is required to make the payment, or
arrange for payment to be made in instalments or to reach an agreement
with the Director General of Inland Revenue on the settlement of the tax
due, pending a full adjudication of the matter.
[38] The application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 8 is allowed with costs
of RM10,000.
Dated: 8 November, 2023
sgd
[CHOONG YEOW CHOY]
Judicial Commissioner
High Court of Malaya
Shah Alam
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
Counsel:
Rohaizan Jumat with Nurul Aznelia Abu Bakar for the Plaintiff
(Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN) Malaysia)
Mohamad Izwan Abd Rahman for the Defendant
(Messrs. Faizan & Co.)
S/N cjXFPE8LxkS4rfhlxg97Ng
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 31,894 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-24C-15-02/2023 | PEMOHON SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD RESPONDEN EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTIONS (M) SDN BHD | 1st Issue: Whether there is delay in the filing of the Stay Application and if so, whether this amounts to an abuse of the court’s process - 2nd Issue: Whether there are clear and unequivocal errors in the AD? - 3rd Issue: Whether the Defendant’s financial position is such that it will be unable to repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff in the event the Plaintiff succeeds in the arbitration proceedings | 15/11/2023 | YA Dato' Hajah Aliza binti Sulaiman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=83c2d445-e265-4fde-8562-ae3d36a9a346&Inline=true |
1
IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: WA-24C-15-02/2023
BETWEEN
SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION
UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN. BHD.
(Company Registration No.: 59575-V) ... PLAINTIFF
AND
EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTIONS (M) SDN BHD
(Company Registration No.: 201201030507 / 1014994-T)
... DEFENDANT
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff pursuant to para 16(1)(b) of the
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 [Act 746]
(‘CIPAA’) CIPAA, O. 69A, r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘RC 2012’)
and/ or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under O. 92, r. 4 RC 2012
to stay the Adjudication Decision dated 18.8.2022 (‘AD’) by the learned
Adjudicator, Mr. Ivan Loo Yew Fook, and all execution proceedings,
winding up proceedings, request for direct payment under s 30 CIPAA
15/11/2023 08:14:43
WA-24C-15-02/2023 Kand. 61
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
or Clause 20.8 of the Particular Conditions of the Main Contract
between the Plaintiff and PNB Merdeka Ventures Sdn Bhd dated
28.3.2017 or suspension/ reduction in the rate of progress of the
subcontract works pursuant to s 29 CIPAA pending final determination
by way of arbitration (‘Stay Application’).
[2] After having considered the cause papers and submissions by the
parties, I had on 7.9.2023, allowed a conditional stay of the AD pending
final determination of the dispute between the parties by way of
arbitration. The Adjudicated Sum, which has been held by the
Defendant's solicitors since 3.5.2023, shall continue to be so held in
their stakeholders account until the disposal of the arbitration
proceedings. No order was made as to cost.
[3] The Defendant, being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, has since
appealed against the same and applied for an early hearing date at the
Court of Appeal. The full grounds for the decision are set out in the
succeeding part of this judgment.
The Cause Papers
[4] The cause papers for the Stay Application are as follows:
(a) the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons (‘O.S.’) dated 10.2.2023
(encl. 1);
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
(b) the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support (‘AIS’) affirmed by its Deputy
Project Director, Wan Nor Azman Bin Wan Salleh on 10.2.2023
(encls. 2 - 4);
(c) the Plaintiff’s Supplementary Affidavit affirmed by the same
deponent on 2.3.2023 (encls. 7 - 18);
(d) the Defendant’s Affidavit in Reply (‘AIR’) affirmed by its Director,
Nathan a/l Elumalay on 8.3.2023 (encl. 19);
(e) the Plaintiff’s AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 29.3.2023
(encls. 21 - 22);
(f) the Defendant’s Notice of Intention to use Affidavit dated
3.5.2023 (encl. 25);
(g) the Plaintiff’s Supplemental Affidavit (2) affirmed by the same
deponent on 10.5.2023 (encl. 31);
(h) the Defendant’s AIR (2) affirmed by the same deponent on
2.6.2023 (encl. 39);
(i) the Plaintiff’s Expert Affidavit affirmed by the Director of
PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Sdn Bhd (‘PwC’),
Lim Chee Teong (‘CT Lim’) on 3.7.2023 (encls. 41 - 43);
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
(j) the Plaintiff’s AIR (2) affirmed by its Project Manager,
Sunggyeom Kim on 3.7.2023 (encls. 44 - 46);
(k) the Defendant’s AIR (3) affirmed by the same deponent on
14.7.2023 (encl. 47); and
(l) the Plaintiff’s AIR (3) affirmed by Wan Nor Azman on 9.8.2023
(encl. 49).
Brief Facts
[5] The background facts of this case have been outlined in Eversendai
Constructions (M) Sdn Bhd v Samsung C&T Corporation UEM
Construction JV Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 2025, which is the judgment of
this Court in O.S. No. WA-24C-156-08/2022 in allowing the
Defendant’s application to restrain the Plaintiff from receiving the sum
under a Bank Guarantee until final disposal of all disputes between the
parties (‘Injunction Application’).
[6] The salient background facts will not be repeated here and suffice for
present purposes to state that –
(a) on 18.8.2022, the Adjudicator determined, among others, that
the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the sum of RM25,457,990.03
with simple interest at a rate of 6.4% per annum on the said sum
from 1.3.2022 until full payment;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
(b) the Defendant filed an application pursuant to s 28 CIPAA on
25.8.2022 (O.S. No. WA-24C-163-08/2022; 'Enforcement
Application') and the Plaintiff then filed its application under s
15 CIPAA on 8.9.2022 (O.S. No. WA-24C-174-09/2022; 'Setting
Aside Application');
(c) the Defendant issued a Notice of Arbitration on 11.11.2022;
(d) the Setting Aside Application and the Enforcement Application
were heard together, with the agreement of the parties, on
13.2.2023 and 9.3.2023. The hearing of the Injunction
Application took place on 7 and 14 April 2023. The decision for
all three applications was pronounced on 20.4.2023 whereby the
Setting Aside Application was dismissed, and the Enforcement
Application and the Injunction Application were allowed;
(e) the Plaintiff did not appeal against the decision of this Court for
the Setting Aside Application and the Enforcement Application.
The broad grounds of decision in relation to both Applications are
set out in Eversendai Constructions (supra at para 35); and
(f) the Stay Application was heard on 21.8.2023.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
The Stay Application
[7] The Plaintiff’s grounds in support of the Stay Application as stated in
the O.S. are as follows:
(a) there are clear and manifest errors in the AD; and
(b) in the event the adjudication sum is paid to the Defendant and
the Plaintiff succeeds in the Stay Application, it will be difficult to
recover the adjudication sum from the Defendant given that the
Defendant is facing financial difficulties.
[8] The Plaintiff argued that at the outset, the Plaintiff has met the
threshold requirement for a stay pursuant to para 16(1)(b) of CIPAA,
as this matter is pending final determination via arbitration which has
commenced. To support this position, counsel for the Plaintiff cited the
judgment in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2
MLJ 22 (FC) which held, among others at paras 82 and 84, that –
(a) s 16 CIPAA allows some degree of flexibility to stay an
adjudication decision where there are clear and unequivocal
errors, or to meet the justice of the individual case; and
(b) the correct approach under s 16 CIPAA is to evaluate each case
on its merits where the financial capacity of the party concerned
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
to repay the adjudicated sum could be a factor in determining the
outcome of the application.
Analysis and Decision of the Court
1st Issue: Whether there is delay in the filing of the Stay Application and
if so, whether this amounts to an abuse of the court’s process
[9] The Defendant complained that there is undue delay in the filing of the
Stay Application as the Plaintiff had filed the same three months after
the issuance of the Notice of Arbitration (reference was made to Rules
5.1 and 7.5 of the Asian International Arbitration Centre Arbitration
(‘AIAC’) Rules 2021) and one working day before the hearing of the
Setting Aside Application and the Enforcement Application.
[10] The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s conduct amounts to an abuse
of the court’s process as the Plaintiff wanted to ensure that the Stay
Application will not be disposed together with the Enforcement
Application and the Setting Aside Application, and to enable the
Plaintiff to obtain, upon dismissal of the Setting Aside Application, an
interim stay pending the disposal of the Stay Application.
[11] The Plaintiff denied the Defendant’s allegation of delay (see para 6,
encl. 21) on the grounds that –
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
(a) the Defendant had deliberately excluded the AD from the Notice
of Arbitration and hence, the Plaintiff had to include the AD in its
Response to the Notice of Arbitration which was submitted on
11.1.2023 (see exhibits “WNA-12” and “WNA-13”, encl. 4); and
(b) the Defendant had only submitted the Registration Request to
the AIAC to register the arbitration on 3.2.2023 (see exhibit
“WNA-14”, encl. 4).
[12] Having considered the parties’ averments and submissions on the
issue of delay, I was inclined to agree with the Plaintiff that any
allegations of mala fide intention on the part of the Plaintiff to delay
matters are unfounded.
[13] Moreover, on 14.9.2022, Lim Chong Fong J (now JCA) had granted an
ad interim stay of the AD in terms of prayer 1 in encl. 4 of the Setting
Aside Application until 27.9.2022 or such further order. After having
heard the parties on 27.9.2022, His Lordship then granted a conditional
stay of the AD in terms of the same prayer by ordering the Plaintiff to
pay the principal adjudicated sum amounting to RM25,457,990.03 into
an interest-bearing account held by Messrs. Zul Rafique & Partners
until the disposal of encl. 1 or further order within 14 days from the date
of the Order. The Plaintiff’s oral application for a stay against the
condition pending appeal was disallowed. The condition was
subsequently fulfilled within the stipulated time and the Plaintiff’s
appeal, which was filed on 17.10.2022, was withdrawn on 2.6.2023.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[14] In addition, the case authorities relied upon by the Defendant, namely,
Haji Wan Habib Syed Mahmud v Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Taib
Mahmud & Anor [1986] 2 MLJ 198 and Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt
Ahmad Fuaad & Ors [2021] MLJU 2293 can be distinguished on the
facts as both cases do not concern an application pursuant to s 16 of
the CIPAA and –
(a) in Haji Wan Habib Syed Mahmud, the Supreme Court affirmed
the decision of the High Court which found that the delay of two
months before the appellant sought relief was, in the
circumstances of the case, unreasonable and unexplained. The
relief sought was an interlocutory injunction, which the Court
said, being pre-eminently a discretionary remedy, is exceptional
in its nature and shall not be made available to those who sleep
on their rights. In the instant case, the Plaintiff has denied any
delay on its part in filing the Stay Application and has offered its
explanation as to why the Stay Application was filed on
10.2.2023. Furthermore, the passages from the judgment as
cited by the Defendant do not discuss abuse of process; and
(b) in Hisham bin Halim, the High Court held that there was a blatant
abuse of the court’s process as the applicant had come to the
civil court to injunct the Syariah Appeal Court from continuing
with the proceeding without making any application to the
Syariah Court for a stay of proceeding. The passage relied on by
the Defendant merely sets out an example of an abuse of
process which is trite i.e. “where a suit is duplicated or where a
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
party employs improper and perverse procedure to obtain an
advantage undeservedly” whereas in the instant application,
there is no duplicity or undeserved advantage emanating from
the same.
[15] Even assuming there is delay by the Defendant in filing the Stay
Application, that alone cannot justify a dismissal of the Stay Application
in limine as the CIPAA does not provide a timeline within which an
application to stay an adjudication decision must be filed. Pursuant to
O. 69A, r. 4 RC 2012, such an application may be made to the High
Court by way of an O.S. or a notice of application in the pending action
to set aside the adjudication decision, and the applicant must show that
an application under s 15 CIPAA has been made or the subject matter
of the adjudication decision is pending determination by arbitration or
the court.
2nd Issue: Whether there are clear and unequivocal errors in the AD?
[16] The Plaintiff alleged that there are 14 errors in the AD as follows:
(a) despite the Defendant’s own admission that the design changes
had taken place and varied the scope of the subcontract works,
the Adjudicator erroneously awarded the Defendant based on
the original sum or subcontract Price as if no variation had taken
place;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(b) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed the Plaintiff is not entitled to
the adjustment or reduction of the subcontract price despite the
substitution of heavy steel members with lighter ones which
reduced the tonnage and saved costs;
(c) the Adjudicator erroneously placed the burden on the Plaintiff to
provide evidence of the evaluation of the works;
(d) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Plaintiff’s claims for
an adjustment to the subcontract price due to variations and/ or
design changes have been waived pursuant to Article 2.3 of the
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 dated 5.11.2020 (‘SA No. 1’) and
therefore, waived by the Plaintiff;
(e) the Adjudicator erroneously found that Article 2.3.2 of SA No. 1
was not for the purpose of adjusting the subcontract price caused
by design changes despite the fact that the saving provision of
Article 2.3.2 proves that the issues of variation and/ or design
changes have yet to be waived;
(f) the Adjudicator erroneously found that it could not have been the
parties’ intention when they entered into SA No. 1 that the entire
Subcontract Agreement would be changed to a re-measurement
contract when the Plaintiff never took this position in the
adjudication;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
(g) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that value engineering does
not amount to subcontract variation because the Adjudicator had
misconstrued provisions of the Subcontract such as Clause 13.1
of the Particular Conditions of Subcontract;
(h) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that there is insufficient
evidence to assess and conclude that the requirement for a valid
subcontract variation has been complied with despite the fact the
Plaintiff had provided evidence of the same;
(i) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed the subcontract works to
have been substantially completed by the Defendant despite the
Defendant’s failure to notify the Plaintiff of the completion of the
works in accordance with Clause 10.1 of the General Conditions
of the Subcontract;
(j) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the subcontract works
to have been substantially completed by the Defendant despite
the fact that the Defendant’s claim was pursuant to Clause 14.3
of the General Conditions of the Subcontract i.e. for an interim
claim;
(k) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the subcontract works
to have been substantially completed by the Defendant despite
the Defendant has not claimed for the first half of the retention
monies pursuant to Clause 14.7 of the Particular Conditions of
the Subcontract;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(l) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Defendant had
completed the Roof Floor and Crown installation works and the
Plaintiff was not entitled to withhold the sum of RM1.3 million
when in fact the Plaintiff had issued numerous non-conformance
reports to the Defendant which shows that the subcontract works
had not been completed;
(m) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Plaintiff is not
entitled to claim or deduct liquidated damages against the
Defendant unless the Plaintiff had given notice of decision
pursuant to Clause 3.3 of the Subcontract; and
(n) the Adjudicator erroneously deemed that the Defendant is
entitled to a further extension of time to complete the subcontract
works without determining the extent of the extension of time to
which the Defendant would be entitled. Further, the Defendant
failed to comply with Clauses 8.4 and 20.2 of the Subcontract.
[17] The Defendant submitted that the purported errors are essentially a
repetition of the grounds raised by the Plaintiff in the Setting Aside
Application, and the “errors” in subparas 16(a), (b) and (g) above were
even withdrawn by the Plaintiff’s solicitors during the hearing of the
Setting Aside Application on 13.2.2023. With regards to the “error” in
subpara 16(h) above, the Adjudicator had decided in the Plaintiff’s
favour.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[18] I have scrutinised the alleged errors and I agree with the Defendant’s
contentions as aforesaid. As submitted by Mr. James Monteiro, the
scenario is akin to the earlier cases which were decided by this Court,
namely, JEKS Engineering Sdn Bhd v PALI PTP Sdn Bhd and another
case [2022] 9 MLJ 541, Zeta Letrik Sdn Bhd v Jaks Sdn Bhd and other
cases [2022] MLJU 2734 and Meridian Contracts Sdn Bhd v Bauer
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another summon [2020] MLJU 1405 where
the Court found that the applicants for a stay of the adjudication
decision had put forth the same grounds as in the applications under
15 CIPAA, which had been considered and determined to be
unmeritorious.
[19] In the circumstances, the 2nd Issue is answered in the negative.
3rd Issue: Whether the Defendant’s financial position is such that it will
be unable to repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff in the
event the Plaintiff succeeds in the arbitration proceedings
[20] The Plaintiff relied mainly on the decision of the Court of Appeal in ASM
Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals
[2023] 1 CLJ 1 (see in particular paras 53, 54, 59, 61 and 77) to support
its arguments, among others, that there is lack of clarity in the
Defendant’s true financial ability to pay back the Adjudicated Sum, if
required and this amounts to a special circumstance that justifies a stay
of the AD pending final determination of the dispute between the
parties pursuant to the arbitration process (see too, paras 22, 26 and
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
30 - 33 of the judgment in Pinnacle Supreme Sdn Bhd v DSG Projects
Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 852 which were quoted in the
Plaintiff’s Submission In Reply).
[21] The Defendant vehemently countered the Plaintiff’s arguments by
insisting that it is an ongoing business concern and not one under
financial distress for the reasons which were summarised as follows:
(a) there is no evidence that the Defendant is unable to repay any
debts;
(b) the Defendant is not under any winding-up or threatened
winding-up;
(c) the Defendant has been suffering losses because of breaches
by the Plaintiff;
(d) the substantial portion of the Defendant’s liabilities are owed to
Eversendai Corporation Berhad (‘ECB’; the Defendant’s holding
company) and its other subsidiaries, and its directors, who are all
supporting the Defendant;
(e) despite being owed substantial amounts of money, the
Defendant was able to finance the works and had completed the
project, except for a few drawings that are being submitted. The
Defendant pursued adjudication against the Plaintiff only after
substantially completing the works; and
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
(f) the Plaintiff’s expert, CT Lim, is not qualified and he did not deny
that the Defendant is a going concern.
[22] I have duly considered the affidavit evidence and the submissions of
the parties and I find that the Plaintiff has established the Defendant’s
inability to repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff, if required to do
so after the arbitration. My reasons are as follows:
(a) CT Lim’s Qualifications
The Defendant submitted that, based on CT Lim’s curriculum
vitae (‘CV’; see exhibit “LCT-1”, encl. 41), he is an accountant
and not a qualified or licensed auditor or liquidator. Thus, CT Lim
does not have the requisite expertise and qualifications to
comment or opine on auditing matters, liquidity, solvency and
capital adequacy. Furthermore, as compared to the Defendant’s
experts, Dawin Tang Keng Wai and Marilyn Ngu Siow Ping (see
the Expert Accountant Opinion On The Solvency Of Eversendai
Corporation Berhad (‘PKF Report’) in exhibit “NT-19”, encl. 39
at pp 283 - 286), CT Lim is not proverbially peritus, with skill or
knowledge on the matters of audit and liquidity. Hence, the
Defendant urged the Court to take caution when considering the
PwC Report and that its experts’ findings and views are to be
preferred over that of CT Lim.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
Firstly, the issue as to CT Lim’s qualifications as compared to the
Defendant’s experts was not mentioned at all in the Defendant’s
AIR (3) (encl. 47). Therefore, there was no opportunity for CT Lim
to respond to the statements which were made for the first time
in the Defendant’s Reply Submissions.
Secondly, CT Lim has affirmed that he is a chartered accountant
with more than 17 years of experience in performing statutory
audits, management accounting and financial reporting
functions, and providing independent valuation advice. Upon
perusal of his CV, I am unable to agree with the Defendant’s
contention as to CT Lim’s purported lack of expertise and
qualifications to carry out the task falling under the scope of
instructions, namely, to provide an independent assessment of
(i) the financial health and financial soundness of the Defendant;
and (ii) the arguments and conclusions raised in the PKF Report.
I am satisfied that CT Lim has the requisite peculiar skills and
knowledge in analysing the Defendant’s audited financial
statements and the PKF Report to arrive at his findings and
conclusions. In my opinion, CT Lim qualifies as an expert (see
Dato’ Mokhtar Bin Hashim & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1983] 2
MLJ 232) and there is no justification for me to reject his evidence
as being inadmissible or to give lesser weight to his report.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
(b) Ability to Repay the Adjudicated Sum
The Defendant relied on para 26 in the judgment by Lim Chong
Fong J (now JCA) in Kayangan Kemas Sdn Bhd v TMT Solutions
Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 1277 where His Lordship had explained
regarding project cash flow and corporate cash flow and said,
among others, that “… the continuing subsistence and survival
of the construction company as an ongoing concern to undertake
projects is dependent on corporate cash flow. …” to support the
submission that the Defendant remains a going concern and is
not a PN17 company with no evidence of inability to repay debts.
Based on the report prepared by CT Lim (‘PwC Report’), –
(i) the expert had adopted the Capital Adequacy Test to
indicate whether the Defendant has sufficient assets to
meet all its liabilities, and the Liquidity Test to indicate
whether the Defendant is able to pay its debts as and when
they fall due.
With regards to the Capital Adequacy Test, CT Lim found
that the Defendant’s net liability was deteriorating to a
deficit of RM66,126,000.00 at the end of financial year
2022 (‘FY22’) and this indicates that the Defendant does
not have sufficient assets to meet its liabilities. The
alarming decline from 2020 to 2022 where total liabilities
exceeded total assets is “… a very strong indicator of the
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
Defendant’s increasingly insufficient capacity to meet its
financial obligations.”.
As for the Liquidity Test, it “… reveals a significant
worsening in the Defendant’s financial position from a net
current liability of RM5,495,727 in FY18 to a net current
liability of RM56,096,360 in FY21, highlighting an acute
inability to fulfil short-term debt repayments.”.
CT Lim goes on to say that “Using the same tests applied
by PKF in assessing solvency, it is evident that the
Defendant would have consistently failed the Capital
Adequacy Test and the Liquidity Test in each of the
past four (4) financial years leading up to FY21”;
(ii) apart from the two Tests as above mentioned, CT Lim had
conducted further analysis on the Defendant’s profit and
loss statements and cash and bank balances for financial
year-end 31.12.2017 to 31.12.2021 and found that:
(A) the Defendant has consistently suffered net losses in
each of the four financial years up to FY21, with a net
loss of RM41,410,672.00 recorded in FY21;
(B) there is a pattern of consistent losses in escalating
amounts from FY18 to FY21, resulting in the
Defendant having to rely on intercompany financial
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
support. The Defendant owes its related companies
a net total of RM55,741,194.00 as at 31 December
2021, mainly from trade transactions and payments
on behalf which are unsecured, interest-free and
repayable on demand. Hence, these intercompany
liabilities gives the lenders the right to request
repayment of debt at any time without prior notice or
a specific repayment schedule;
(C) any surplus cash available to the Defendant by way
of receipt of the Adjudication Sum may potentially be
allocated towards repaying the intercompany
liabilities;
(D) the Defendant is heavily reliant on financial support
from its immediate holding company to meet its
obligations and carry on operations. Any failure on
the part of the holding company to provide the
necessary funds could have serious implications on
the Defendant's operations and its ability to fulfil its
legal and contractual commitments.
(E) from FY17 to FY21, the Defendant had an average
year-end cash balance of RM1,434,811.00 over the
past five years. By the end of FY21, the cash balance
held by the Defendant was RM210,563.00 which is
insignificant when compared against the Adjudication
Sum of RM25,457,990.03;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
(F) as an operating subsidiary, the Defendant does not
hold substantial cash balance at any one point in
time. Instead, any surplus cash balances held by the
Defendant are either used to pay down external
borrowings or intercompany liabilities based on
observations on the accounts from FY17 to FY21.
The PwC Report summarised that:
“6.3.1. Based on Section 6.1 to Section
6.2.10 of this PwC Report, it is evident
that the Defendant has been, and still
is, facing severe solvency challenges.
The Capital Adequacy Test reveals
that the Defendant has consistently
been in a net liability position over the
past five (5) financial years, indicating
an inability to meet its financial
obligations. Similarly, the Liquidity
Test demonstrates a significant
deterioration in the Defendant’s net
current liability position, further
highlighting its insufficient capacity to
fulfil short-term repayments.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
6.3.2. These solvency issues are
exacerbated by the continued
substantial losses incurred by the
Defendant and its reliance on
intercompany financial support,
leading to a substantial amount of
intercompany liabilities owed to
related parties. The fact that these
liabilities are repayable on demand
raises concerns about the allocation
of any available cash towards
repayment, potentially further
compromising the Defendant's
financial stability. In light of these
compelling facts, I believe that the
Defendant’s is at high risk of being
unable to repay the Adjudication Sum
in the event the Plaintiff prevails in the
Arbitration.”.
In the light of the above excerpts from the PwC Report, there is
uncertainty over the Defendant’s ability to carry on as a going
concern. In fact, in Kayangan Kemas, the court concluded that
“… since there is only possibility but no cogent evidence of actual
insolvency balanced with the need for corporate cash flow, I am
of the view that the just approach in the circumstances is to order
part payment of the adjudicated sum to TMTS with the balance
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
of the other part of the adjudicated sum held in escrow pending
the disposal of the Suit.”. In the instant suit, I was inclined to
make the order as I did because the Plaintiff has proven, on a
balance of probabilities, the precarious financial position of the
Defendant and it is not a certainty that the Adjudicated Sum will
be re-paid to the Plaintiff should the outcome of the arbitration be
in the Plaintiff’s favor such that a conditional stay is appropriate
in the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.
(c) The Defendant’s Financial Position Was Never An Issue?
Mr. James Monteiro had submitted for the Defendant that the
Plaintiff’s arguments on the Defendant’s finances are
afterthoughts because of the following reasons:
(i) The Defendant’s financial position was never previously a
concern as the Plaintiff had executed SA No. 1 in 2020,
which increased the subcontract price by RM36.293
million, despite full knowledge of the Defendant’s financial
position being largely the same as it is now. However, there
is no expert evidence to show that the Defendant’s
financial position is the same as at the time of the
Subcontract Agreement in 2016. In any event, the PwC
Report shows significant worsening of the Defendant’s
financial standing from 2018 to 2021.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
(ii) The Plaintiff is already holding ample monies or securities
from the Defendant in the form of the Adjudicated Sum,
retention sums in the amount of RM17,13,549.92 and
monies secured pursuant to a Bank Guarantee in the
amount of RM32,849,223.61. I agree with the Plaintiff that
this factor has nothing to do with the Defendant’s ability to
repay the Adjudicated Sum.
The fact is that the Adjudicated Sum is being held by the
Defendant’s solicitors and will be released to the
Defendant if the Stay Application is dismissed. Meanwhile,
the purpose of the retention sum is to ensure that the
Defendant attends to any defective works during the
Defects Notification Period. As for the Bank Guarantee,
there is an injunction as a result of the Injunction
Application and the matter is pending appeal (at the time
of writing this judgment, the Court of Appeal has affirmed
the decision of this Court on 24.10.2023).
(iii) The Plaintiff returned the Defendant’s Advance Payment
Bond in the sum of RM17,710,997.48 in early 2022 even
though there were advance/ on-account payments that had
not been recovered by the Plaintiff at the material time.
However, it is my considered view that this fact does not
prove the Defendant’s ability to repay the Adjudicated
Sum. The Advance Payment Bond was issued for the
purpose of guaranteeing the return of the sum which was
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
advanced to the Defendant. Once that has been recouped,
the Advance Payment Bond must be returned to the
Defendant (see para 36, encl. 21).
(iv) The Plaintiff had consistently under-certified payments,
caused late issuance of payment certificates, made late
payments and underpayment and sudden design changes
in the name of “value engineering”. However, this
contention does not assist the Defendant’s case in
establishing its ability to repay the Adjudicated Sum.
Moreover, there is no expert evidence to show that the
Defendant’s financial position is due to the Plaintiff’s failure
in paying the Adjudicated Sum.
(v) The Plaintiff or its affiliates had invited the Defendant or its
affiliates to tender for steelworks in the project and had
awarded the same to the Defendant; to tender for metal
works in the project; to tender for projects in Qatar, Taiwan
and Singapore; and to purchase steelworks for a Petronas
project in Kuala Lumpur, all worth hundreds of Malaysian
Ringgit (see paras 35 - 41 of the Defendant’s Written
Submissions for the listing). Again, this does not show that
the Defendant will be able to repay the Adjudicated Sum to
the Plaintiff. In any event, the Plaintiff explained that “…
the invitation to the Defendant to participate in the tender
exercise was part of the competitive process. … the
Defendant was invited to the tender exercise mostly
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
because the Defendant had already been present and
mobilised on site-a fact the Plaintiff believed at the time
could give the Defendant price advantage over other third
party contractors, as there would be little to no preliminary
and mobilisation costs. … the invitation to participate in the
tenders do not in any way reflect the Plaintiff’s confidence
in the Defendant's financial position at any moment.” (see
para 34, encl. 21).
(d) Alleged Attempt to Infer the Defendant’s Financial
Impecuniosity vis-à-vis ECB’s Financial Statements
The affirmations in the Defendant’s AIR (2) (encl. 39) are mainly
to rebut the Plaintiff’s allegation that there exists significant doubt
on the ECB Group’s and ECB’s ability to continue as going
concerns. In particular, it was averred, among others, that –
(i) the statement in ECB’s Financial Statements is a qualified
view formed by ECB’s independent auditor, Messrs. Baker
Tilly Monteiro Heng PLT (‘Baker Tilly’) without the benefit
of perusing documents on ECB’s support from the financial
institutions, ECB’s restructuring plans and borrowings and
ECB generating adequate cash flows for its operating
activities. The statement is also a common and generic
statement by independent auditors and not to be taken to
mean that ECB is insolvent or not a going concern;
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
(ii) in the PKF Report, it was concluded that ECB and its
individual companies are solvent and going concerns. ECB
has sufficient assets to repay its liabilities, along with those
of its subsidiaries including the Adjudicated Sum;
(iii) ECB is a going concern and not under liquidation or dire
distress, which is why it is not classified as PN17 by Bursa
Malaysia; and
(iv) ECB continues to receive funding and financial instruments
from banks. ECB and its individual companies have been
awarded large iconic projects worth approximately RM1.1
billion across India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Singapore and
United Arab Emirates, which would not be the case if the
companies are indeed in distress.
At the outset, it must be emphasised that the PKF Report centres
on the solvency of the ECB Group i.e. ECB and its 19
subsidiaries, one of which is the Defendant. The PKF Report did
not consider the Defendant’s financial status and the key
question on the Defendant’s ability to repay the Adjudicated Sum
to the Plaintiff. No rebuttal expert report to the PwC Report was
prepared and exhibited although there was ample opportunity for
the Defendant to do so. In other words, the PwC Report stands
unopposed by the Defendant.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
I am mindful that the court may not reject unopposed expert
evidence unless the evidence is obviously lacking in defensibility
(see paras 34 and 35 in the judgment of the Court of Appeal
Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] 9 CLJ 337). In this
case, the PwC Report is not obviously indefensible. Therefore,
the court not being an expert on financial matters in determining
the financial health and financial soundness of the Defendant for
purposes of the Stay Application, should defer to expert opinion
as found in the PwC Report.
The Plaintiff asserted that it has raised issues regarding the
Defendant’s finances from the start and whatever evidence on
ECB (see paras 3.10 - 3.30 and 7.1 - 7.7.1 of the PwC Report on
CT Lim’s commentary on the PKF Report) is additional evidence
to support the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant is not able
to repay the Adjudicated Sum. CT Lim had concluded in the PwC
Report that:
“3.31. From my analysis above, the claims put forth
by the Defendant and its expert, PKF, are first
and foremost irrelevant as they focus
exclusively on the Defendant's parent entity,
ECB, instead of on the actual Defendant itself,
ECMSB.
3.32. If the same assessments had been done on the
Defendant as the relevant party, ECMSB would
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
have clearly failed both the solvency tests put
forth by its own expert PKF, and the financial
evidence I have presented based on the
audited financial statements of the Defendant
demonstrate that there is significant risk that it
will not be able to repay the Adjudication Sum
to the Plaintiff should the Plaintiff prevail in the
Arbitration.
3.33. Even if one were to resort to relying on the
financial strength of the parent entity of
ECMSB, i.e. ECB, as a means to justify the
ability of ECMSB to repay the Adjudicated Sum
(which in any case is technically incorrect and
conceptually unsupportable), there would still
be a significant risk of the Adjudicated Sum not
being recoverable by SUJV, based on ECB's
own financial position.”.
In my view, the Plaintiff had rebutted the Defendant’s averments
as set out in subparas (i) - (iv) above whereby –
• in respect of subpara (i), in the Reports And Financial
Statements for the Financial Year Ended 31 December
2022 dated 26.4.2023 (‘2023 Report’), Baker Tilly had
stated as follows:
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
“During the financial year ended 31 December
2022, the Group and the Company incurred net
losses of RM366,861,000 and RM302,956,000
respectively, and as of that date, the Group's and
the Company's current liabilities exceeded their
current assets by RM168,333,000 and
RM532,206,000 respectively. As disclosed in
Note 28, the Group and the Company are in
discussion with multiple financial institutions on
restructuring plans for the Group's and the
Company's borrowings.
These conditions indicate material uncertainties
exist that may cast significant doubt on the
Group's and the Company's ability to continue as
going concerns.
The ability of the Group and the Company to
operate as going concerns is dependent on:
(i) The continuous support from the financial
institutions and the discussion on
restructuring plans for the Group's and the
Company's borrowings be successfully
concluded; and
(ii) The Group and the Company to achieve
sustainable and profitable operations or
through the disposal of non-core assets to
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
generate adequate cash flows for their
operating activities.”
The Defendant has not shown that it is able to meet the
matters in (i) and (ii) as quoted above.
Further, Baker Tilly did not expressly state that they did not
have the benefit of perusing documents in relation to the
contingencies and the documents exhibited in encl. 39 pre-
date the 2023 Report and should have been given or made
available to Baker Tilly.
As for the allegation that Baker Tilly’s statement is common
and generic, the PwC Report makes reference to the
International Standard on Auditing 570 which “… requires
the auditor to make adequate disclosures, under a
separate section with a heading that includes reference to
the fact that a material uncertainty related to going concern
exists, to alert users to this circumstance as it is a matter
deemed important to the users’ understanding of the
financial statements. It is important to note that a MUCG is
only issued when events or conditions create significant
doubt about a company’s ability to continue its operations
or meet its financial obligations, and/ or the company may
be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities
in the normal course of business.”. Hence, the statements
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
by Baker Tilly are not a “blanket” cautionary statement nor
are they a common occurrence;
• in respect of subparas (ii) and (iii), these were countered
by paras 3.31 - 3.33 of the PwC Report as quoted earlier
(see too, paras 7.1.1 - 7.7.1 of the PwC Report, especially
paras 7.5.4 and 7.5.5). In para 7.7.1 of the PwC Report, it
was opined that “Certain representations made by PKF in
the PKF Report such as commenting on the success of
ECB Group’s debt restructuring exercise and ECB
Group’s potential to raise funds from the capital markets
based on its status as a publicly listed company, are
speculative in nature given no substantial evidence was
provided to support the claims.”; and
• in respect of subpara (iv), the loans and financing secured
by other member companies of the ECB Group do not
reflect the financial soundness of the Defendant which is
a separate entity from the other members of the Group and
ECB, which are located outside Malaysia. The Defendant
did not exhibit any financial records of the other member
companies of the ECB Group which have secured the
facilities or the assets, and the collateral used to secure
them.
As for ECB being awarded projects across numerous
countries, all the documents on the projects as exhibited
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
were issued in 2022 except for one Subcontract
Agreement dated 2.3.2023. These project documents
should have been made available to Baker Tilly for the
purposes of the 2023 Report. In any case, these
documents do not prove that ECB and its Group’s finances
are healthy and do not mean that the Defendant is able to
repay the Adjudicated Sum to the Plaintiff.
(e) The Defendant and ECB Are Allegedly Financially Sound
The Defendant submitted that the following behaviour of the
markets, both domestically and abroad, towards itself and ECB
do not support the various allegations made by the Plaintiff and
its expert:
(i) ECB’s principal bankers have continued to work with, and
support, ECB and its individual companies on a day-to-day
basis which includes the issuance of performance bonds
on behalf of ECB and its individual companies as well as
the granting of loan facilities (sees paras 9 and 10 and
exhibits “NT-9” and “NT-10”, encl. 39 for the details).
However, the performance bonds have nothing to do with
the Defendant and the exact circumstances revolving
around the issuance of these bonds are unclear. With
regards to the loans and financing secured by other
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
member companies of the ECB Group, the Defendant did
not exhibit the financial records of these other member
companies and the collateral used to secure the loans and
financing. Anyway, this fact does not reflect the financial
soundness of the Defendant, which is separate entity.
(ii) ECB’s clients have seen no issue in providing bank
guarantees to ECB’s individual companies (see para 11
and exhibit “NT-11”, encl. 39). I am, however, inclined to
agree with the Plaintiff that the Bank Guarantee by BUCG
(M) Sdn Bhd to another ECB subsidiary, Eversendai
Engineering Sdn Bhd does not advance the Defendant’s
case in any way.
The Defendant additionally presented that ECB’s Interim
Financial Report for the Financial Year Ending 31 December
2023 – First Quarter Ended 31 March 2023 has shown a profit of
RM1.432 million with assets exceeding liabilities (see para 16
and exhibit “NT-14”, encl. 39). However, in para 7.3.1 of the
PwC Report, the expert opined that “… the translated profit of
RM1,432,000 is insignificant when compared to the reclassified
amount from the Syndicated Term Loan and Ijarah Facility to
current liabilities outstanding (short term obligations) of
RM707,06,000.”.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
(f) The Defendant Allegedly Financially Backed
According to the Defendant, ECB as its holding company, is at
all material times a going concern as confirmed in the PKF
Report and will support the Defendant. RM89,525,168.00 out of
the total liabilities in the sum of RM131,812,870.00 as stated in
the Defendant’s Financial Statements 2021 are sums owed to
related companies, an immediate holding company and a
director, all of whom will support the Defendant.
On this point, suffice to say that the PwC Report (see paras 3.33
and 6.2.4 - 6.2.10) casts doubt on the Defendant’s assertions on
“support” as it is unlikely the Defendant will obtain financial
assistance from ECB, and the substantial amounts owed to
related companies, a holding company and a director is in fact
indicative of the Defendant not being in a position to repay the
Adjudicated Sum.
[23] On a final note, the Defendant’s submissions pertaining to the
Plaintiff’s financial health with reference to the Plaintiff’s Financial
Statement 2022 which shows losses of RM84 million, and on the issue
of balance of convenience, are not relevant considerations for the Stay
Application.
[24] The importance of upholding the intent of the CIPAA has been
repeatedly emphasised in many cases on the CIPAA, two of which as
cited by Mr. James Monteiro are Sime Darby Energy Solution Sdn.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
Bhd. (formerly known as Sime Darby Offshore Engineering Sdn Bhd)
v RZH Setia Jaya Sdn. Bhd. [2022] 1 MLJ 458 and IRDK Venture Sdn
Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2020] MLJU 939. I
have also alluded to the intention and objective of the CIPAA in the
context of s 16 CIPAA in several judgments to date (see among others,
Syarikat TD Sdn Bhd v Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd and another case
[2019] MLJU 1754 at para 129 and MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v
Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd and another case [2023] MLJU 52 at
para 90).
[25] Nevertheless, in the final analysis of the present case, I am satisfied
that the justice of the case warrants a stay of the AD pending final
determination by way of arbitration as there is a real risk that the
Adjudicated Sum, if released to the Defendant, would not be able to be
re-paid to the Plaintiff in the event the Plaintiff finally succeeds in the
arbitration proceedings (see CRCC Malaysia Bhd v M101 Entity Sdn
Bhd and other cases [2021] MLJU 1305 at paras 55 and 57; Zeta Letrik
(supra) at paras 63 and 64; and RA Suria Sdn Bhd v Cedy Third
Contracting and Trading (M) Sdn Bhd and other cases [2023] MLJU
247 at para 37 for the discussion on the meaning of “justice of the
case”).
[26] In the premises, the 3rd Issue is answered in the affirmative.
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
Conclusion
[27] In view of largely the findings of the Court in respect of the the 3rd Issue
above, the Stay Application in encl. 1 was allowed with no order as to
costs.
[28] I was of the further view that, in the circumstances of the case, a
conditional stay is appropriate and hence, the Adjudicated Sum, which
is currently held by the Defendant’s solicitors, shall continue to be so
held in the stakeholder's account until the disposal of the arbitration
proceedings.
Dated: 31 October 2023
(ALIZA SULAIMAN)
Judge
Construction Court 2
High Court
Kuala Lumpur
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
Counsels/ Solicitors:
For the Plaintiff: Kuhendran Thanapalasingam (Daniel Lau Hsien
Yuong and Agesh Krishendra Jeyaratnam with him)
Messrs. Zul Rafique & Partners
Advocates & Solicitors
D3-3-8, Solaris Dutamas
No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1
50480 Kuala Lumpur
For the Defendant: James Monteiro (Vishal V Kumar and Ban Qiao Hui
with him)
Messrs. James Monteiro
Advocates & Solicitors
D4-6-1, Solaris Dutamas
No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1
50480 Kuala Lumpur
Cases, legislation and other sources referred to in the submissions by
learned counsels and in the Grounds of Judgment:
Cases:
ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals
[2023] 1 CLJ 1
Batu Kemas Industri Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2015] 7 CLJ 849
Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Vanden Avenne-Izegem PVBA [1978] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 113
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
CRCC Malaysia Bhd v M101 Entity Sdn Bhd and other cases [2021] MLJU
1305
Dato’ Mokhtar Bin Hashim & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1983] 2 MLJ 232
Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2015]
2 MLJ 293
EA Technique (M) Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Sdn
Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1851
Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd v ASM Development (KL) Sdn Bhd and another
summons [2020] MLJU 1146
Eversendai Constructions (M) Sdn Bhd v Samsung C&T Corporation UEM
Construction JV Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 2025
Haji Wan Habib Syed Mahmud v Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud &
Anor [1986] 2 MLJ 198
Henia Investments Inc v Beck Interiors Ltd [2015] EWHC 2433 (TCC)
Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuaad & Ors [2021] MLJU 2293
IRDK Venture Sdn Bhd v Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2020]
MLJU 939
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
Ireka Engineering and Construction Sdn. Bhd. v PWC Corp Sdn. Bhd. and
another appeal [2019] MLJU 35
JEKS Engineering Sdn Bhd v PALI PTP Sdn Bhd and another case [2022] 9
MLJ 541
Junaidi Bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [1993] 3 MLJ 217
Kayangan Kemas Sdn Bhd v TMT Solutions Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 1277
Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] 9 CLJ 337
Meridian Contracts Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another
summon [2020] MLJU 1405
MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd and another case
[2023] MLJU 52
Pinnacle Supreme Sdn Bhd v DSG Projects Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS
852
RA Suria Sdn Bhd v Cedy Third Contracting And Trading (M) Sdn Bhd [2023]
1 LNS 209; [2023] MLJU 247
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No. 3) 62 [2002] 1 WLR
1397
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
Sime Darby Energy Solution Sdn. Bhd. (formerly known as Sime Darby
Offshore Engineering Sdn Bhd) v RZH Setia Jaya Sdn. Bhd. [2022] 1 MLJ
458
Subang Skypark Sdn Bhd v Arcradius Sdn Bhd [2015] 11 MLJ 818
Sun Plaza Development Sdn Bhd v Hejongkang Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 2066
Syarikat TD Sdn Bhd v Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd and another case [2019]
MLJU 1754
Tecnicas Reunidas Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v Petrovietnam Engineering
Consultancy JSC (PVE) & Anor and other cases [2021] MLJU 2633
Terminal Perintis Sdn Bhd v Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd and
another case [2017] MLJU 242
View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22
Zeta Letrik Sdn Bhd v Jaks Sdn Bhd and other cases [2022] MLJU 2734
Legislation:
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss 15, 16, 28, 29
& 30
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
42
Rules of Court 2012, O. 69A r. 4 & O. 92 r. 4
Other sources referred to:
Julian Bailey, Construction Law Volume II, 2nd edition, Taylor and Francis,
2016
Stephen Furst & The Hon. Sir Vivian Ramsey, Keating on Construction
Contracts, 9th edition, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2015
S/N RdTCg2Xi3kFYq49NqmjRg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 56,142 | Tika 2.6.0 |
AB-42S-11-09/2022 | PERAYU SAHROL BIN SHAMSUDIN RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya | Criminal procedure - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant was found guilty on 3 charges of possession of dangerous drugs - Whether Appellant had possession and knowledge of drugs - Whether prosecution evidence believable in light of contradicting evidence by Appellant's sister who was called to give evidence as a prosecution witness - Whether the Appellant's IC was found in the bag containing the drugs - Whether the Appellant's sister was an interested witness Proper findings of fact on a maximum evaluation of prosecution case - Whether defence properly considered by trial court - Appeal against conviction dismissed - Appeal against sentence - First offender - Appellant sentence to 20 strokes of rotan in total - Reduced number of whippings imposed | 15/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b4368e0f-72f1-4232-99d7-322ac1fe1a19&Inline=true |
15/11/2023 11:03:15
AB-42S-11-09/2022 Kand. 41
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N D442tPFyMkKZ1zIqwf4aGQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Aa—¢2s—11—u9/2u22 Kand. 41
,5, 142023 11vz”- 15
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI TAIPING
DALAM NEGERI FERAK DARUL RIDZUAN MALAYSIA
RAVUAN JENAYAH NO: ABJZS-10-D9/2022 A As-42s-11-us/2022
[KES NO »Aa-szu-1oa—os/2020 5 A5620-121-owzozn
SAHROL BIN SHAIIISUDIN
mo. KIP.: 380311086465] . PERAVU
v
m
PENDAKWA RAVA ...REsPoNnEN
GROUNDS or JUDGMENT
15 m The Appauam was charged in ma Sessions com for 3 offences ul
passessmn mi dangevous drugs under 2 case numbers as lollows
- fludu glndnn
m A3420-1a:H1s/zoza
Bahawa uamu,pa.1a 29/2/zazo Jam lebm kuranq 01.30 Pagw, benampal .1. lepi
man war Kzmvung Sangkm. uek. Ham Kuvau Da\am Dasrah Lam! Mmang
aan sanama, dalam Negen Perak «even ada flalam mlhkan mu. m2 gram
:5 bahan kelman aan semuk wama palang yang mengamungl
Mannncelylmammnss O\eh yang dsrmklan kamu Iekah mehakukan salu
kesavahan a. hawah saksysn 12(2) ma Dadah Eenbahaya 1952 yang bolah
dihukum m bawah Saksyen 39A zzum yang sama
In Agfizn-521-In/2020
Bahawa kamu, pm 29/2/znza an Vebm kurang 01,31: Pagl, bafl2mna| a. law
,a:an ppm Knmmmg Sangkm, Imk, aam Kumu Dahm Dauah Laml Mavsng
den Sebma dzlam Megan Pevak |aIah ana dalam mmxan kamu 34 gm
Hemln Olen yang demlkxan kamu lehh mehkukan saw kesalshan m hawan
N Duzwrymxxztzlqwuaisu
ma Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy MIN; dun-mm VII mum puns!
15
saksyerl l2l2l Akla nadan Esrbahaya 1952 Yam: Doleh fllhukum dl aawan
Seksyerl 59A lIlAk\a yar-9 sama
Bahama Kamu. pada zwlzuzo ran. lehlh kumng 01 30 Pigl, herlzmpm dl Iepl
lalin went Kammmg sanded um, aard Kunln oalarn Daersh Luml Malang
dun Sslamn. dalarn Negarl Pemk lzlah ada dalarn mlllkan kamu U13 gram
nlernanrnneranrrne. olen yang demlklan kamu relan melakukan salu kesalahan
dl dawan sak5yen12(2)AkIa nedan Eemahaya msz yanp bulsfl dlmlknm dl
bawah sensyen 3?/1(HA><Iz we iama.‘
[2] sum eases were neard logelner anne sessions Court ln Taiplng as
lney involved me sarne wltnesses and same laa1s.l=or cunvenlenue, l will
reler lo me 3 charges as me flrst charge, seoond cnarge and Ihlrd charge,
raspeellvely. slanlng WM’! me cnarge in case No AE—62D—103—06/2020
Alter a lull lnal. me Appellant was lound gully on all charges by me
sessrdns com Judge lsc.ll and on 2 9.2022 he was eonvieled and
senleneed la 7 years’ rmpnsdnrnem end 10 elroxee Mme mlan ldrlne rrrel
charge and Syears‘ lrnpnesnrnenl and 5 slrakes ellna rolan larlns second
and third charges The imprlsanmenl «arms were lo edrnrnenee lronr lne
dale elarresl un 29 2 2020 and In he served eansdrrenlly
[3] Prior In lns neanng al Ihe appeal, are Appellant sedgnl lne cudrrs
leave to Ne lne Fel on of Appeal um pl Ilme e. aboul 2 weeks after me
deadline. The Court allowed me appllcallon slnoe me Denuly Public
Pmssculor (DPP) dld nal oblect lo lne applicalron.
[4] ladm appeals were neard logelher by one cam on 9.5 2023 on
1 9 2923, I amrrned the convicfians hm varled lne senlenees of me rdtan.
Thu 5 nrekes dl man oalzh ler lne suumd and mini enarges were
reduced lo 3 slrekas loraach charge The Appellant nas new appealed
agalnsl lhe wnple declslorl pl Ihls Conn. This Grounds pl Judgment
oonlaln my reasons lor dlsmissing poln appeal Nos. 10 and ll.
N euzwryunaunmsee
Mme a.n.l n-vlhnrwlll re used m mm ms nflnlrrallly sun. dun-mm wa mane wnxl
to
Zn
1;
%
are other uugsnl evidence to establish its ease in perticuiar direct
evidence soon as in the present case: Mahendren Arivetsn v PF [2020]
1 LNS 1213; man) ut..iu 1286 cam.
[21] The SCJ iurther stated that what was out to the prcseertion
witnesses without more cannot be accepted by the com as evidence per
se: senieiirt Iain Tumln v PP (201115 ML! 353. she oonciuded that the
evidence oi the prosecution witnesses in regard to the hnding oi the
oriendine drugs were eredioie evidence. which it unrebutted by the
deience wananted a conviction on the charges preierrett The main issue
tor oonsideretien was whether the prosecution had proved that the
Aopetient had possession eiihe black FVLA backpack (P14) which he held
with his right haridius1 beiere SP1 arrested him SP1 admitted that the
engine oi the car was still running but denied that PM was ever round in
the car. The SCJ iound that the Aopeiient had ectuei pussessioit oi P14
which contained the drugs. By virtue oi the iaet that the 3 plastic par.ke|s
in P14 were transparent and the ponies oouid cieeriy see the contents
suspected to be dnrgs, the SCJ iounti that the Appellant had the requisite
knawiedgs ot the opntents of the a transparent oiastie packets. The
Appeiiant atse admitted that P14 was the bag that the pohce seized that
night although he denied the bag and its contents were his.
[22] The SCJ aiso addressed the issue oi the or
prosecution witnesses in her grounds oiiudgrnerit The defence submitted
there were inatenai oontredtottons among the prosecution witnesses and
that they were bound by the testimonies of their own witnesses, to the
ex1enI that there a
ed two distinct interences and thereiore, the more
favourable inierenoe should be drawn by the mun ior the deiense. The
SCJ found that the discrepancies in the prosecution witnt§sas' evidenoe
SIN D442|PFyMkKz1xlnvmed3u “
-use s.n.i In-vihnrwiii re used M mm me sriiiniiy MIME dun-vinirl v.. nFit.ING Wflxi
ID
zo
%
were nor marenal conrrauiciions Ihat were fatal to me pvaseculiun case.
The discrepancies only weni io showihauhe prosecution witnesses were
noi mached Ia give evidence in mun They gave ewdenee based on meir
ve::ollac.1ion ai events: Llm euan Enq v PP [1933] 3 MLJ 769; choarr
Slang Guai v PP[1l'I69]2 ML! 53. some were able to give more cierails
man oihers. Moreover, the preseouhan witnesses r.a ihe policeman
Involved VI the arrest did nnl have any molive lo Ila: FF v shaabarr sin
Abdul Rarrrrrrm [1 ans] 2 MLJ 313 aesiues, the SCJ funnel manhere was
nothing mhereniiy rneredihle about the evidence man were glven by SP1
and SP4 In respect oi the llrldlng oi the drugs in P14: Moham-d Alias v
PF[1lll]1 LN: zno.
[23] The Appellant submllled that mere were serious oanlradicllons In
the prusecutiun ease regarding «mm where his menmy card no) was
lound/taken He claimed that ll’\ElE were 3 different versions in the
prosecution case ilsell and Ihelefurs, the Appellant must be acquitted and
discharged as me charges had nei heen proved, one versiun was it was
iourm in «he middle part 0! P14(SP1 and spa), the second version was
that SP1 asked ior the ic Mam rhe Appeiiani (SF'1)and me third vsrsiun
was [hat spz look it our «mm the Appellanfs wallet and handed it over io
SP1 (SP2). In the police report lodged by SPH, he stated it was found in
We bag together with ma drugs.
[24] The deienoe disputed the firsl version heoause It was illogical lnr
someone Io put his II) VI a bag ooniarnrng drugs and walled fur me police
to arrest him. The deienee subminau it was more iogical lorlhe Appellanl
to rnrow away PM upon seeing me poliee ream as I| was dark where his
car had stopped. Bul ihis coun none: in re-exsnunahon, SP1 ciariiied
'Ssmasa langkapsn drbual saya ieiah mam/nla kad pengsnaian darfpada
sw D«2iPryMhKzixn-mmansu “
Nuns s.n.i In-vihnrwlll be used m mm ms nflfllhnllly sun. dnunmnl wa mum wnxi
15
%
OKT darl dia keluarkan darfpada beg damper die’. TNS showed that me
Avbellarlt was not yel hahdcuwed when SP1 asked in! ms IC and the
dormer look 1 oul lrom his wallet.
[25]
9 12.2021. Hsr evldencs was hol vary lahglhy. she came lo me place
where the Appellant was arrested at Na. 24 PPRT, which was all lapl
rumah' around 3 as am. By the lime she amved mere, the Appellant was
l will naw address lhe evldenee 0! SP2 who (esllfied lh court on
already hanooulleo. she saw a lew polloemen there and she knew 2 ul
them whom she called “Pak va' ano ‘Marl’ she pleaded wlzh the police
no: lo arresl her brolher as she was gone to get marred soon
(presumably he was la be her guardian al me ceremony or that she lusl
wanted hlm lo be preeenl al her weddlrlg). In heroraasaxamlhallan, SP2
stated that she took out his wallet and gave the Appellant‘: III to the
policeman. She also look his ilver bangle out from hls pocket. The Court
also mined that she did not knew much about wha| happened that mght as
she had been sleeping prlor tn the angst SP2 stated that her bmther
came home In take 2 shower She said "Dia masuk ke Iumah iiu km Masa
nu says udur, SH)/N (idsk lahu..
[251 ln ma evldenoe ol lhe Appellant, he stated lhel SP1 asked lur his
IC The Appellant said he did not have his IC and than SP2 told them It
was with her. Therefore‘ SP2 tank am the IC {mm NS wallet and gave It
to SP1. Now, this Court ahservsd that SP2 was um an impnrlant wllnsss
because she was nol there when me Appellanl was fllst oetalhed by the
police she came laser and that too was aner she woke up lrom sleep;
aner gemng a phone call lrom her omer brother. The Court noted man in
her examlnatlon In chiet she was He! asked about her taking me
am u«2lPryMkKzlxh1m4an3u '3
-we Smnl n-vlhnrwm be used m vafli .. nflmnallly MIN: dun-mm VII nFluNG WM!
10
15
25
as
%
Appsiianrs IC oul horn his waflet II was puzzling why me p e wuuld iec
her handle ine Appellanfs Ic/millet it na had alveady been under anesi
[271 The SCJ in ner grounds M iudgmerit addressed inis issue by stating
as follows.
we» naiam kes wenian V sun. ei Mnhmashlrsi min 7 sec 295.
Mahkamah Agung indn mnh mamulusknn hnhawa nuhungari sama sda
ari|am mei dengan mangsa nlau derigari Tammuh udax akan sena mena
menoemarkari niin xeierangan saksi (ersebm isiapi sebaliknya kalararigari
snxsi meshlan dneim secara havrialwiali Mankamah Agung India mzmflllllklfl
semi yang Darlklll
'|H7ieIravu1:me i. Vmmd In be cnnxis1enln»dlme.|1IeVac\ cl being
a I=LI|we canml by nsen discredit ineii avlderiae. in einer WGIGS.
me ie\a|mrish\p is nm a iaclor In amen ine qediminy era wnnsss
and the mun; have in scnmrilss men evidence rneuauiousiy WM a
lime cam "
[23] Neverlhelessi inis cum lound inai when SP1 was giving evidence,
he was not cmssexamined about SP2 taking his walletoul drain the back
pocket and handing over me it: io SP1, In «act, SP1 was uniy asked that
SP2 was at me piaoe oi arrest and then me DPP re—examined mm as
moms (in page :2 ol the Notes 0! Evidence dated 24.11.2021)
“TFR' Semasa pemeriksaan dijaiankari kakak om’ ede hedir di siiu
dan Koperai setuiu?
SP1. Semasa pamanksaan dibuai, ada orang kampung yang
telefon keiuarga om. Kakak OKT yang ieian dalang ke
ienipai kajadlanf.
[291 Marewer. ins aniy cnaiiengs about ms is to SP1 was man i\ was
nal «nine in me bag. SP1 denied inie suggsslinri. Upon lunher scnniny or
{he cmss—m<amInal\on on this Issue, I bund [Hal counsel did no| 5|-19965!
a| all that the IC was surrendered by SP2 to SP1. I lound (hal SF2's
evidenoe must be scrulinised Galdully as she, admiltedly, was an
A
SIN e«2mum«.um.ae ‘
"Mme e.n.i ...n.mn be used m mm .. nflmnnflly sun. dun-mm VII .nune WM!
1m
in
15
an
mtalerstad wnness. sne pleaded wun me police not |o arrest her brother
as sne was genmg mamas! Tnere men he a good or Imporlanl reason
why sne said mat. Tne Cnun tonne met her ewuence about «akmg me
Appellanvs \c from N5 wane: was an aitarlhuught and ply unbehevable
as SP1 was nevererossexernuned abuullms wnen n was pm to sm mac
lhe Appensnrs sister was present at the scene, sun msagreea In «nis
suggestion. n was pm to SP4 that me Appeuenvs sister lock um the we
and gave n to SP1 and ne darned n. SP4 was adsmam lhal the \c was
taken out from F14.
[30] The Oourl refers In cne ease of Lima Slow Long v PP[1n1o]1 ML!
40 and PP v Than-aaran A/L Mumgan [21111] 3 ML] 323. FarI\cu\ar1y
in Llnw Slaw Lorry‘ was scaled‘
- u .s amen |n nccepl max suggesflon mu w a wnness Vs shown In be e
relalmn enne deceased ms evidence Vslahvled Tesumorvy amuse re:-Vauons
Vs nn xamlsd .r n Vs nthenwfse rehable n «ne sense ma| «ne wnnessee am
oumpe«en( wrmesses we wake at one scene 0! me ueeunenee and eenxe
have seen vmal had Happened. But n n n plvwd am "my an um -minly
dlslnluul-d wilnlslnl, . lhny ... Iilhur ...na..n. er me
complallunl M an In lny wny . . :1 to me nccuud, than men
hatlmuny lllllnmd and raqnires conobornflon Inn be semen upnn
[Emphasws added]
[31] n was very dsarlhal PW2 was nm an snuraly msnxeresxee wnness.
Tnerevene, her evidence must be treated wnn cannon and rsqmred
corroboration we be aclem upnn. x fuund lhat SP2‘: evmence am not hold
much Value The sc.rs nun-dirsc1\anIhatSF2 was an interested wnneea
did not resun in a tenure at the proseculvorv case because she had made
the correct findings 01 (act that possession had been proved despne
cnnmcflng evreenee gwen by sin, spa and en a certain extent SP2
N n«2|PFyMxKz1xInm4an3u ‘‘
we snn ...n.Mn es used m vafli n. nnmnnuly mums dun-mm wa nnum Wm
11]
Zn
zs
%
[:21 SP1 and SP4 gave oonllicling evidence ahuul ins IC whether iiwas
lakenlmm ihe bag or eisewhsrs. i found ihai SP4‘sevidenoein\I1is vegard
was nnl so crucial such ihai in would iesiiii in ihe aoiispse ihe prusecmiun
case. ii appeaieii ie nie imni me neies cl evidence ihsi SP4 gave
evidence based an the paiiee report ‘Edged by SP1 lhal was (OH in him
by SP1; In which il was stated the III was found In [he bag P14. And so,
he would not ‘budge’ (turn his stand
[:43] Esseniieuy, we point to note is mac n we evidence of SP1 ihai
he asked ierihe IC «mm the Appeuani who men took il ouuicin his wallet‘
aha ihai iheie was no reason wriy SP1 woiiid frame him, the svldenzze
slnad ihaiihe is was oiiiaineii bySP1.am1 not by SP2, lmm the Appeueni
himseii. Daspiie me discrepancy of we piece of eviaeni-,e between SP1
and SP4. iiiis coiiii lound ihai iiie black FVLA backpack (F14) aanieining
iris drugs was seized lrom ihe Appeiiani The coim agieea ihai with me
findings of the SCJ that the pmseculiun had pmvsd upon a maximum
einiiiieiien oiihe evidence iheiine Appellanl had adual pusssssirm DHIIG
bag and iis conienis and ihsi he knew what they mnienis were, i.e.
dangerous drugs
[34] In [he uflen-cllsd case ul Chan Pun Mon v PF [1956] MLJ 237
whale Thumsnn J. saia iiiai "possessian“ lnr ins purposes of criniiriai iew
imaives pnssessiun nsen — which seine aulhamies ierm "custody" or
"conimi" — and knewisdge M019 iiaiiiie at ihe mmg possessed. As to
possession iiseit he cued the loiiuwing deriiiiiipn in Stephen’; Digesf(9th
edn, p 304), in which ihe exclusive eienieri: ineniiuned by Tayiar J
appears:
‘A muveablelhmg is said (0 be mine possession eia person when he Is
se sMuz|ed wiiri iespeai ia ii inni us has ins powdvlo ueai wiih ii as vwnur
sin DM2|PFyMkKl1xlqviMafl3u ‘“
Nuns s.n.i n-vihnrwm as used M vafli he eniiniiiy MIN: dnunmnl n. nF\uNG WM!
s
in
in
15
an
15
in ms exciusxm 0? an umev DGISDHS, and when the simunismness sie
such mas he may be pvesumnd is imam In flu sis in mse of need:
[35] In the case oi shah lrwan run v. FF as Anochsr case [2013] 1
LNS :71‘ Balls Yuscf Hi Wahl JCA s|atedlhelnl|i1w|ng:
-hue Khal ins evidence of spa and 5m, bath at wnem ass pmsesisish
wimessea and both are nouns amceri. em me kaamsd JD was very I:2|veM
in dealing wim mess Mo wrtnuiiss en lllalrmsllmnnias as is me me M
me informal. AI pages 115- 115 OHHE sepesi seem in avnrsciaimw ins
svidsnce in mass Iwu pmsaculinn wnnasseai Her Ladysmp has em a
caution neon... aaaseune lheir evidence and sisied as mudws:
‘Bums?-A and smweie pence wilnesses and inenevidsnee wss
naflnhammly imemeanie Fnllawlnw PP v Menainea Au n 3521 1 1-
NS129,[(9€Z] MN 257 and appned in nninauimnan. Orig V an
[army 3 cu guy [may] 1 LNS1130;|2n‘iD]7 MLJ 175, ca, such
evidence snemd al his: insianss es accspled unless shaken in
Doss-examnnamn ur cnnvnditled by ather evidence -nsess wssa
conlvidlcdnnn In ms pmaseusisn use sa aiseusssd lbovn um
I did um llndlhn sanissdicuona w serious as In shuns nl sach
mhss sueh lhil ms psasecuuen was loll win: no "a1 |'burI
was no suuulstlml that man had burn my csissiesuas. by
snssa whmisasi ws no no! rind anylhmg mass with ms
Ippwldl and ms Cuflcluliun ssssnaa by Ihe ieamsd .u:"
[Emphasis added]
[36] There is one ouher Issue whiuh was raised by the Appeilani mat it
did not make sense (or him to just wait «hens in be anesied with a bag 0!
dmgs and his ic VI it when he could have easily (hruwn me bag away to
avoid anes1. The Court has considered this submissiun by the Appauani
as against the weight a! evidence adduced by «he pmsecunun and
delenoe In me case of isannpsihy all Rnngsaamy v PP [1993] 2 MLJ
577. the noun heid.
-ii needs |o be Vemambarsd «nan hawaviv weak s devense may be, via:
mam bulng ludgu ofholhllcl-n-1 Ilw shsssd sssxinamusn aside
IM dlhllcu on Ch: esaia lhll me pmaseuuos wmiesses su to bc
DI vud Ind nmlhl dflinbhwhen me iaw caeva IM onus nlulvlng
n DM2|PFyMkKl1xlqmAafl3u "
Nuns s.n.i IIIVVDIVWN be is... m mm s. nflmnsflly minis dun-mm VII snum WM!
ID
In uxplxnlilun liven .n Iccnued nelson. ana me cxvlanalnon il
glvnn. which in consimniwnn innmnu, IM com I: duty mninn ha
Dunsldlr vmelher ll inigm reasonably ha um, xlmuuqh nut
cmivlnctd of II: mm. on the issue 07 the cuur\‘s duly In mmidm me
i1elance.meage4>id dacislon in Man up {may MLJ m i! am: gand iaw
as ilwas men. This isvaiimu by the Suplema Court in Mflhamad Radm
nin Yaakoh V PF[1991]3 MU iav.
[Emphasis added]
[37] This Coun Vuund mm the SCJ um nut misdllecl herseii in law and W!
(am when she wnsidered me delence afisr applying ine aimvemenuoned
cases wmai are still good law. The case of PP v. Mohd Radxl ain Abu
Eakar [aims] 5 ML! 393 discussed ins meaning :2! prime rams case and
ii aaiencs n. called, ins ciassic case oi Mal v PPI1963] 1 MLJ 25: is |o
be apphed in that case. the Federal coun held:
“in this oonnm:1inn,caunseHar0ie appeiiani had reienea (0 us me case
.71 pp V Snimm & Dr: [1971] 2 MN 16 where5harmaJ naiainaninminiy
a! line deience dues mi reiim me pmisculiun «mm waving |he
umss|:u(inn‘s case beyond reasonania aaum w. an of in. V m um
winnmi . cflmlnal can dlcldud on in. buls oi in. mnh nflhe
prasaculh-an‘: can as Hg :1 en. mmy 9! in. dfllnu swam n vlal
inane must in iccnvdnncn wllh an. nrinelnln lilu down
ln mi vppnmi i mu m an om ilnp iumm boron convicting
Ihn lacuna by nu an: mnshierlllun as In why an dnkncv slum
though could not he belleved. did not Hill: a nuonabln dnum n in
pnmciniun use. Thus. mn llwugh n Judgu dun nm nccem or
bi lhn accin-H‘: lxplanniun, in. Icon:-d must not be
mnvlnui unui on court in n mm in! Infllclanl a mu um such
nxvlanallom am not can rinlnnnbll douhl in in» pros-cuiinn
am To x fy was it nnl an much (III woms um by «M
|udgI inn mhnnhe mu-i nppiic-non on». last to (M facts min.
an that inmm. in this case, we found than (M nlmud man judg-
imma pncllcnlly nu mun why in. amnu. nolwllhxundlng ils
hlslty anu unconvincing nalun, nun mm lo cal ullanlhll duulm
in ma pros-cinlnn can 01?!" Khan in xhll lay my in us «Me. {In
duty pllcnd by in. law on Ihn dnhncl m Jul nn icqnlml.”
[Emphasis added]
n DM2|PFyMkKz1zlqwNaI3u “‘
nan Sum IHIWDIY wn be HSQG m mm n. ninmin MVM5 dun-mm VII AFVLING mm
.n
IS
1.
an
[33] Tne Court also relerred to the case oi Ali Ian Bin Ahdullah v PP
[zany 2 MLJ an which stated that prooi beyond reasonanie doubt does
not mean proof beyond the shadow of doub| (see Mlllu v Minimr cl
Pensions M471 2 All ER :72). Evan umugr. me benefit of evsry
reascnabie doubt musi be given in me accused and cannot be wimheiu
Irom him. me cuurl must nm, on the mher hand, enlenain ii on grounds
which are ianciiui or VI me nalure oispecuiahun (see Public Fwsecutol
v Salmin a. On [1911] 2 MLJ16).
[39] In All mi sin Abdullln (supra), me appeiiaie coun heia:
‘[251 Ind .a. ...... .1... I u. wmmina 3 hue story of immunm.
xuch .. ... I111 .i.cu......n..-. ollht vrcum us. e.......i ....a....i lo
nasnnnblu duubi. the noun‘: acndnrtincn um. nxnlanation nmnu
by ... ancunfl pmun must bu baud upon nasal! and conunen
sen.-. and cannnl n. lllonlcal .. .....i.....i 11.. .. ....e. oi
nuallalslu mm In dupundum up... Ihl mmllty ulttvl .. ...=. and
on un . ....i...u.... mi: in. ..i.:...e. in Hair ...a missomble mnnner
...a rim .. lsolnlnn. In the pveserd case. ine learned Jc in hlsludwueni
had very meflculausiy otmsiflered me delslwe at me appeiiani The
learned J!) was sshsnea Ihal me apgeiiani had «aim in cast any
reasonable cum on ma prosecution‘: case and that Ills charglr WIIB
waved menu reamnahl: dnubl We are .n mnmiei. agreemelI|wllh ine
lumed JG WE are salisfied |hn| lhe ieamed JC had um misiflreclefl
..........n in any way In occasion an ecmr mine. an lhe law av ine iznls In
WEFYIM meiime inleflerenrxe We ..e unanlmnus [hat Ihe ieamsd .15 had
nut made any wrong inferences on me «am. pen». him. we iuunu nu
menis In this apneai We aeoeminniy dismissod ms appsai and avnnnea
lhe ounviclions and sanlences an mm Ina =..=.g...-
[Emphasis added]
[40] The SCJ did no: believe his expianaiion and «ha: in did not raise a
.easu..ai.ie doubt in her mind as to his gum. she iouna that the defence
was a bare deniai and an anennaugni. The sm had appiiea me cause:
pnncipiej i e a maximum evaiuaiiun nflhe pmsscuiion case and delance
case. and Donsidered Mn v PF (supra) and found that me defence am
I9
N D«2iPFyMnKz1xh1m4an3u
.4... Sum ....... M“ be .5... .. mm .. .n.i..u-y MVM5 dun-mm VI] munc pm...
in
1D
%
not raise a reasonable doupt on the prosecution case. Hence, the
prosecution has proved its case peyond a reasonable doubt. on the
whole‘ this court too did not believe the Appellants explanation and that
explanation did not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind as to hra puilt.
[41] The evidence were overwhelming agalnsl the Appellant and this
court agreed with the llndings and rationale at the sc.l whom had the
panent oi observing the derneanour oithe witnesses pelore hen Having
said that, the court did not see it lit to disturb the flrldlrlg ol guilt against
the Appellant. This court alllrmed the convicuoris recorded against the
Appellant as proper and sale in tight at the evidence against hirri. The
appeals EgalVI§|COVIVil71lD|'l were aooprdlngly dismissed.
Appeal ana sg gin Q
[42] on pehall oi the Appellant, it was submitted that the SCJ had used
the wrong considerations in applying the pnneiptes at senlenclng The
total sentence oi imprisonment was actually 7 years almmlgh there were
3 charges against the Appellant as they were made to run concurrently
Thls court noted that he would he whipped a total at 16 stmkss oi the
mtan ll the epnulctlons are upheld (reduced pylhta court item 20 stmkes).
[43] The DPP replied that the sentences were apt and the SCJ had
considered all lactprs and decided that public interest was the clveni ng
oonstderaliorl in the prsenl case as against the interest of the Appellant
The plea in mitigation was that the Appellant was a hrst ofiender, he was
caring tor his elderly mother and that ha had repented while in prison.
10
SN Du2lPFyMkKztxluvmaA3u
-use s.n.i In-vlhnrwlll be used is mm has nflnlhhllly MIME flnunvllnl wa nFlt.lNG Wflxl
15
m
%
THE APPEAL
[51 II is true lew me: an appenale own would be slow to dls1urb me
llrmrngs or me xriel mun unless mere had been errors at law or teen,
misdirection or nan-dlrectinn or rnsumerenl ruulplsl epprecrelren agalnsl
me welgru ptme evidence adduced. Ths lnel mun weulu have me benelu
of seelng and hearing are wilnesses and therefore of essesslng meir
credi ty Lai Kim Han a. on v. PP man 1 ML! an (FC); FuhI|c
Prosecutor v. wun Rauli Kusslrn [1970] 1 ms 121: (191012 MLJ 79.
[6] Hence, an eppellale coun has to scrullnlse me grounds o1 appeal
and delermms wneurermey are supporlsd py me evrderrpe ln me rewms
rrereur which wlH pe relerrsu to m srren lorm es RRJ1, RRJ2, RRJ3 and
RRJA The appeal against eerwrcuorr and seruence uanleureu a numper
of grounds es staked in me Pelilinn emppeel ln RRJ1. Haweuer, el me
hearing. counsel rer lhe Appellant pursued appruximalsly 5 lssues mac
ppuld be summarised es «alums
r. passesslon and ocmwl lol me drugs)
the Drosecullon was bound by Xhslesnrnorly or us own wurress
rrreerrsrslerrclee in the Appellant’: evlnenee
pcssesslorl olthe bag (P4)
serzure uflha car KBF 9139.
[7] R! the Pflma fade Stage for a charge of possesslon cl drugs, the
prosecution must prove the fulluwing ingredients
.. that lhe Appellam had actual pclssesslon cflhe dings:
that me Appellenl had krmwledge onne drugs: and
the drugs were at he lypes llsted lrl the Flrsl Schedule 01 me
DDA 1952.
SW u«2lPryMlrl<z<xh1m4an3u 3
-use smsl n-vlhnrwm es used m my .. mrmr-r mm: dun-mm VIZ muue pm
[44] In regard to me ‘one nransecnan rule“ prxncxme because the 3
charges salisfied me cntana 91 pmxArm|y 0! «me, praxnmny ov plans,
ccn\ImMy ar ecnun and conllnmly of purpose or das\gn as scared m
Bnchik Abdul Rahman v PF [2004] 2 cu 512, hence me SCJ imposed
5 concurrent terms The weamed Conn av Appeal Judge in that case he\d
mevouuwmg
A The exercise nhhe msmeuanmaenemme me date an x>ommencemsn|
cl me sentence 0! Vmvllsonmem Vs aspenaam on the vaas and
cwcumsmncas 0! each me. In a- Ifllnu whllhnv flu Iumu M
m lmprlionmunl mum In oonuculivl or cumm-nu .1 ....m... an.
42.. Conn mu 5. nu .4 by m. unl Iunsucliun nu. mu m. lmnlily
prInc|p|I.PulsunM|a me one uansaclmn rule whevelwaormme eflevmes
are oummixled mm mmeeorasingue vansacunn an semencesm respeu
oi lhese oneness shown he ooncunem rathevman wnseculwe (see R v
.5 Se/eemI195¢lCnm LR 4e2- R v. we/sn [1 gas! Cnm LR 245) Far mm
to In an. Iunsacuon tum - -ms mun bu pr-um. mm is m ..y,
pmxmny M um-. pr-mmily vi mm, uznlinuily nl lcliun um
cnmmuIlY ufvurpnu :1! design 1... Jlylrumln A Dr: VvPPH979l1
ms :1: [ma] 2 mu an; Amllu Ln! mm -1. Empemuz Ca|
m 957; cm» Cnoy V. pp 119551 1 ms vr. [1:55] MLI zany. Yhe mve.
mum, It not ibsoluh. As Yong Purvq How 54 and
m Kanavasunmarim v. PF'[IvE2I1 sm 31 at p on
Thu Engllxll com. um Mcogniud mm Ihu: ..e . men.
whim connculivl ..m...m m neeunry m -fiscaurafle the
2; W of =.amm.| condnu helnfi Punished: see a v.
F-ulknorllifll sa cups R sum V. Wheatle}/[RN15 crlnv
R (51 417 and}? v. sumrnm) 5 Cr APII R (5) we. run
awhllcablllly ul 2:. -xc-won vs ms in an-ma on m. mm M
an nu and m. c umlhncu ullill .m...e.. u 15 xvatad m
an broad and glnsvalmmzlnd ahhnugh may be mmmea «vague
n \s meuanny \n such Isms m mder mm me senlenoer may
muse an nvhmnfiale sentewe Vn each nsmcular case upon each
Den\cu\aralfemeral the Dafllcmav Mme lhe case ws heavd -.
[Emphasws added]
[45] In one onermceu case of Govlndnan cmnden Nan v PP [1993] 2
cu am m respecl ml taking into aooounl punnc mleresl wnsmeyeuen in
21
N n«2|PFyMxKz1zIuwuan3u
we Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
JD
zu
%
irie principles oi seniencing and usinnn Bin Juinnsen v PP [201 51 MLIU
1352 me coun oi Appeai sinned:
‘In me exercise er nis discretionary Duwer ine senieneinu mace rniisi apniy
nis mind In ine Vaclual malnx oi ine case In oiner wmdsi me sentence
Dassed mus! reieie Io me iacns aria ciicurneianmaieecn case -.
[45]
uisnure e senience Passed by a lower court unies s maniiwiy Wrong
in me sense ei being iiiegai or uneuiiabie Io ine proved Vials and
eimurnsianees: PP v Moiiamoe Nor 5. Or: [ ma 2 ML! zoo
in is nice iaw inai an appeiiaie eeun weniu be slow lu inienere or
[47] Having lJ0nS¥dSrBd an iaciors in We niiiigauen en eenieneei iriis
ceun viewed that uie son had conducted a balancing exercise on me
cumpefing inieiesi bemeen me pimiie and me Appeiianrs PF v Lee
Choon Fm [1976] 1 ms 102 Annougn me 3 charges min bring a
maximum oi 40 years, she imposed uoncurrsnt senieneee upon me
Appenani wriicn coma be consideied as being on me Iowerside given inai
he had been ieuna in possession iii 3 types ei dangerous drugs and the
case had gone on with iuii men and a ieiai ois piesecuiion wiinesses were
called to iesmy in mm
[45]
ceun rnduud iii. whipping
Nevenneiees, given iriai me Appeiiani was a nrsi crflender, the
posed uynie SCJ in rlsplcl oniie
second and mlrd onargu only. In nilecn irie minimum oi 3 strokes
01 Ch: mun ucii. The punisnrneni at 10 snakes or me man for me iirsi
cnaige is niainiained. The coun did nei inierieie wiin me irnpnsonrneni
ienne of 7 years, 5 years and Syears to he served coneunenily Trie com
nae aise mnsidsred ine principie in Pundxkwl Ray: v. Abdul Hauni
lsllak a. saw Lagi [2011] 9 cu 559 where Arie ceun ei Appeal rieie inai
22
sin D442|PFyMkKz1xlnmAaA3U
-nee s.ii.i ...ne.i M“ be used e mm we niwiruflly MIN; dun-mm via nFiuNG WM!
possessiurl nl a large ainuunl a! any lann of pmmmlea drugs must
cammensuvale with me sanlanca in be passed on ma peculiar law; oi
each case
5 cancluslun
[491 Premlsed on me above, the Com did not lma any %nor of last or
law such l|1alWDLl\d]IJS(WydlSlUlDlng|hel>0rNiC\I07l5 Vllhe 2 cases against
ma Appellanl. Hawsver, ma Court had iaaucea Ihe number of wmppings
by reducing the tale‘ number cf slmkes [ram 20 (0 V6
ID Appeal against cunvirliun dismissed. Appeal agalnal senlancs partly
allowed,
Dated 15 November 202:
“ W
/
NOOR RUWENA EINYI MD. NURDIN
Judicial Commissioner
Hlgn com 0! Malaya. nlping
Roms ta on
1; I-'arIhoAppcIlant:
Ml. Varpnl slngli AIL Meilomier Slngh (VBGK)
Varpal Q Assoclatn, Talplng
an
Fnr the Rnspondcnl:
DPP Mend. wally Bin Ismail
Pnllnm Tlmbalan Pulldakwa Raya Negeri Ferak. Taiping
as
2
SN D442|PF‘/MkKl1xlflwNil3U 3
-ma Sum lhlflhll will .. is... w my ..a DVWVVVIWY MIN; mm. VIA nFlLING W
In
1D
15
%
PRosEcu‘HON CASE
[3]
aomrdmg m ma pmeaeuuon werelhat me on 29 2.2020 al1.30am a team
The prosecution caHsd s witnesses to prove W5 case The «acts
of puhoe olfiuers namely FW1, FW4 and 2 others were making thew cnme
prevermon rounds at PPRT Kampung Sangkul, ljck In Batu Kurau on their
motorcyds when may saw me suspect (mm was later manunee as me
Appeflankj behaving suspmmusly by me ruadsids aflsr gettmg out at his
car WWI the engine stiH runmng SP1 saw the Appellant huldlng a black
backpad( SP1 was the first I0 reach the Appellant He tnnk cut his
authority card and menhfied Mmsefl as 8 poliueman tn the AppeHarIl. He
did not ly tn run away. A physical many search was conducted an me
Appeflant but wt was VIBgatlVB. As soon as the other policemen amved at
lhe spot where they were mm standmg, they surrounded me Apoeuem
and SP1 mspeclsd the b\ad< FILA backpaw whwch was seized (rum the
Appeflant (P4). From mm" me middha part of ma black FILA backpack,
SP1 Iound 3 transparent plastic packets ounlammg drugs suspected la be
harem and melhamphetamme He iflsofuund the AppeHant's idsntwty card,
a d\g|Ia|we1ghIng scale (P6), 5 mourned mass bottle fur drug eanaumpmn
(P5) and a lighter m me sams bag (F7). The Appeuam and mgemer wwth
ma items seized «mm hum were brougm back to me lbu Feiabat Pohs
Daerah Selama, Perak UPD Smama). Throughout the attest and ioumey
back to the \PD,SP1 had uustody oflhe drugs and other nerns seixed
[91 At me ma, 5?: lodged a police report as per Rsdang Panjang
Report 132-we/zo (marked as mm. The Appellant and the items seized
were handed ever to (he Investlgahcn Offiuer Vnsp Kamarm Ariffin Bin
Kamaruzaman qspa). spa weighed the drugs and recorded me gross
weight as 500 grams cl herom and 25 grams of methamvhetamine.
aw uuzwryukkztxiqmunsu ‘
‘Nata Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ms nrtmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm
15
%
Tespeclively. SP1 and SP5 marked the drugs and other items seized with
lheir awn maI‘kH’I§S SP1 completed and signed the Borang aengkar and
Eorarlg sersh Tenma Barang Kes. The Appellant disputed that he signed
lhe Borang Eangkar which was later marked in earn as P1. The Edi-ang
serah Teriiria Earang Kes was signed by SP5 and later markm in eaitrt
as P2
[in] The SCJ was satisiied mat the chain oi evidence in regard to the
exhibits had not been brvken where sl=i held on to the drugs irorri the
lime they were seixed until they were handed over to spa, SP5 kept them
under lack in his oinae until they were senl lo the chemistry Depanmerll
In lpoh. There the Chemist, Faznur»Axllah Elnli Mahmud (SP3) received‘
kepland analysed the drugs and prepared the Laporari Kimla aooerdingly
The Resil Klmia and Lapnran Kimia both had the same report number 2U—
FR-Av01B9Q and were marked as P15 and P13, respecllvaly Nlhclugh
SP3 was challenged Ihal the $<hibitS were not the same which she
received irorri sl=5, she was consistent in her answer and identified the
drugs positively. The drugs were iound lo eonlain 14.1: grams oi
Melamnhelamlrie, 3.4 grams ei Herein and io.2 grams oi
Menoaoetylniorhahines. The neh weight oiihe drugs lorrried the basis ier
lhe 3 amended charges againsl Ihe Appellant
[11] Upon a maximum evaluaiien ol me evidenoe helore ihe CCHAVL the
SCJ iound mat the Appellant had aclual physical possession or the drugs
in PM and knowledge oi the said drugs The ccurl was satisiied that the
prosecution had proved a prirna iaeie case against lhe Appellant on all 3
charges and called lor his deiense. The Appellant was explained the 3
cholcss and he chose to give sworn evidenoa. He was the sale witness
idr the deienee case and relied on the evidenoe at his sls|ar. spz
SIN D«2lPFyMhKzixlrivmaA3u 5
-we Sunni In-vlhnrwlll be used m mm as nflnlhallly MIME d...i.i. wa aFluNG WM!
THE DEFENCE CA§E
[12] The delence case can be summarised as 1u||l7ws'
r. on me night allne srresl. al l1,:lo pm me Auuellanl went I»:
s nls (nerld’s house ln Kampurlg Keriarlg. Hls menu was known
as Farnan:
at 1 so am l=arnan asked me Appellanl la lake ms car (KEF
91 39) and to go buy some load‘
me Appellanl told Faman ne wanted lo gu norna llrsl lo Oaks
so a shower;
IV. me Appellanl drove me car In his house and passed by a
warurlg ksdal makan by me slde oflne mad:
v. ns saw 2 policemen In urnlarrn an lns wan/ng kedal makan:
VL ne drove on urml ma luncllon la hls kampurlg and saw 3
15 molorcyolas behlnd mm but did run know who were me
momrcycllsls;
allar auosoo rnelres, he saw (hey were sllll mowing him arm
men ne knewlhey were policemen,
he SVDPDSU the car wlthnul being asked and one L/Kpl Hafiz
In came to the drivefs side bu! dld nnl ldenlfly himself as pohce,
IX ma Appellanl sand ne wlll cooperate with Ihem:
x spa came In me from passenger side, openeo me door and
sat beslde hlml
xi. SP1 arrwefl at the drivsfs side and lmmedralely handwfled
25 the APPfi||an\ without him knawlng the reasnn why he was
belflg arvesled,
Xli. ne was told (0 come oul of the car an slano beside the
drivefs side:
SIN D«2lPFyMkKz1xlrlmAaa3u ‘
-we s.n.l n-vlhnrwm .. o‘... M my .. nflnlnnflly mm: dun-mm VIZ .nuns WM!
:0
zn
%
xiiw, L/Kpr Hemz cnnducled a physical check on (he Appellamwmre
SP4 searched the passengev side;
xw. ehereener LIKp¥ Hera lmmd e mack FILA bag “a: alas lanlai
belakzng mas kusyen belakang";
UKp| Hehz gave (he black bag to sun
the Appeflanfs sister (SP2) amved at IP15 scene and asked
xv
xvi
why he was being arremsd
the AppsHanl replied he dud nnl know wh
his watch and a silver bang\e were taken and ms wallet
retrieved from the back pocket 0’ his pants‘
SP1 and SP4 mspemed Ihe cunlsnl M H18 Mack FILA bag on
me bonnet or lhe car wmhoul showing mm as content:
A pohoe car cams and look mm |o me um
xvhi.
xix
[131 It was also the delenoe eeee, Vn cmss—examina|inn onhe Appenenx,
mat when he smppsd the cal, there was e house nearby, wmeh he
revened to as Na. 24. He saw a woman known as Jone. a swsler er his
menu, Mm wee maying with her handphone 1!: «mm a! me huuse The
peuee told Jane |o gal min the house, The mierenoe that the aevenee
Mshed the court to draw was that he was lramed for the drugs lound H’!
me car and the peace did hm wan| any members nf «he public In wnneee
what may were doing there The Appellanl also dispuled the photographs
tendered by the police which showed me place where they condudsd the
mspecuun; me Appeflanl anege-1 ma| none enhe phoxogrepns showed
the acme! mace where he was arrested The Appenem sawd his esxer
earns ID know about his arvesl from mew brother. He Iold Ihe DDUVK that
Faman has since Iefl the vfllage to find wnrk elsewhere and did not know
where he was. He sawd Che Dar might belong lo Farhan‘s s\sIe( bu! he d\d
not knaw me name 0! Ferhens (ether.
7
sw u«2|PFyMkKz1xM1m4ea3u
-wee enn n-nhnrwm be used m vafli n. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm wa .nuNG wrm
In
15
35
%
[14] Afler hearing and wevghmg his aytdanaa, tna SCJ cancmded that
the delenoe waa a bare denial at me pmsaamaon case and am not rataa
any raaaanabxa doubt at an. The Appellant at the uavanca stage had
atmdamy given the names at characlers whom were not menttonaa at an
dunng the pmseculiun case. Therelore. me set tom that ma names :2!
Jcjle and Faman were an aflenhoughl and onty brought up Ellhe defence
stage tn pmve mat na am rmt know about the drugs and to dissociate him
«mm the drugs lound M me black FILA badqzack mat he was holdmg at
me Ume oi the anest. These can be aaan in ma Hne M queatiomng as
tanawa:
‘ us
on-
we
on-
vs.
on:
as
aw;
Selevasinfl
Ad!k says henanyz keoada saya 'iabab apa ahxng xana |angk3p’J'
Saw mkap saya Izaak lzhu,SayalmuAKuye<n[Znkm1.n flan Kane!-al
Hawulmanelah mlmarlksa hug gatas Ienehm at alas benelhahawtnn
belakzng kaleta tanpa snyn hhal apasapa yang ada dalam beg
maatmt
Kamu Mak nnat tanasungt
fidak tmat ta-gum can nwaka pun lmnk tumuk non dalnm 1799 Hu
$s\apas tan
setapas nu Kaparal Havrulmal dananu kevada say: aan memmva kad
panganatan snya. Lalu seya mecnnsnuanu kad panganatan aaya nsaa
9363 says Aflxk pemmpuan saya benlzhu yang kad pangsnalan say:
aaa peda aa dart adtk pnvampuan saya huka hag dnmpal saya din
beflkzn no pangnnatan saya kspada Knper-3| Hailulmm
T-Id! ksmu km beg nu Dukan mlhkkzmu Iapt pans kata kad
puagenamn kamu her-uda flalam ruann tangan beg um
llu saya Husk tahu. Apa yang pash Gan belulnyn tan panglnnhn 1-ya
tatan msavankan kepafla Kapa-at ttatmtynat atan amx perempunn aaya
sanmn mg bemama my waaman tumi Shamsudln Jlka belul ma
pervganalan uya hands dalam beg Iersebuh uaau muilalm kad
penganilan hiya dlleliklmn aatant bag Lavsahulunluk mewgumtan lag:
msteka ptmya kes
aw a«mymzt.am.aa
«ma Sam n-nhnrwm be as... m van; ms nrighvnflly sums dun-mm y.. mum pans!
.5
an
[15] Ilwas «he defence case loo that SP4 had some lssuss wun nlm ln
lne pas1 wnlon was alleged In be in mnnecliun wlm lne Appellanfs
purporled drugs-relaled a
a personal level, SP4 uld rlal nave any problems wiln nirn. He also agreed
5 However, me Appellant agreed cnal an
that neimer lne elner 3 palloemen had any reason lo lrame him
[16] The defence also tried lo Vales doubt on the proeeeulion ease by
laklng me line or quesllunlng that me drugs were leuna IIV ma car and
which was why me no oe selzed me car However, lne SCJ lmmd thal
SP6 nad explalned me car was selzad a law days aflerlhe arrest and nut
imrrledlalely as the drugs were lounu wilh me Aphellanl wna was holding
me bag and nut ln lne ear. The wilnees also lolo me coumhal me car was
sslzefl under lne Dangerous Drugs (Fcrlellure ol Propenyl An was
based on lnlennalmn reeslveu max ll naa been used ln drugs-relaned
amlvlnes ln the past; albell nol In connection wlm lne arves1 ol lne
Appellant. SP5 lesllfied that the carwas nm selxed by SP1 because lrom
nls lnvesllganon, l( had naming to do wiln me me l.S. lne drugs were not
lnund In me tar as alleged by me Appellant, SP1 tasli Isd lnal vvlanurul
ape yang dlpe/alarf. Ilka kereta /aun den" suspsk darl ksnela man balan
disirisjlka lidak ada barallg kes myumpai da/am kerelaf.
[17] finally, Ihe SCJ slalea ln lne gorunds 0! Judgment ner opservalion
as follows.
-[as] Selaln nu, xaya ma rnanuapall psmbalnarl yang dikemukakan nleh
Tenuduh pemeamman Ferbezun luga hnleh alllnal damn xelerangan
Yemduh bemuhurla lemval penemuarl baa sanaang hemp bslwama Hiram
.enarna ‘FlLA' [ekslbll Fl] Tenuduvl msrlgatakarl hag binding blrzip
berwarrla mum panama 'FI|A“ [Mulhll Palyang ulleukkan alaalanlamelakang
alas xleyen Delakarla sedannkarl peguamhela mengulakarl hag sarldarlg
lmakrlyfl alas lanlal Dada banaylarl Iempal duduk vsnurnpanu nsaapan el klrl
telvluat duduk Dfimarldu
n Du2lPFyMkKzlxlnmAaI3D
Nuns Smal In-rlhnrwlll be used M mm ms nflnlnallly ml. dun-vlnrrl wa .nuna Wflxl
zn
an
%
[90] Dalzm nal mi, dlpemallkzn psmbalaan yang dlhenkan elen Tammlm
adalall hslbaza-bun dan benllnndeen mengikul kemaarl Pemhelsan
secegilll membalenkarl Dlhak rllahkamah mambuai lmmen bahawa
seherlamya lenudun llanz pemtzelaall ks alas eenudunan darl k2: ying
dlkerlakarl kn alas bollau
EVALUATION AND FINDINGS or THE COURT
[18] The scws gmunds at ludgmsnl was qulle lengthy and Included
chunks olcne notes eleyidenee as well as subm ns afths pmsecuhan
and defence. From my perusal ollne sc.l's gmlmds unudgmam, ens had
lnomugnly analysed me evidence adduced by me pmseeullen and cmss—
axamlnallon onhe prnsecullml wllnsses in crderlo delennlne lne line all
delenee el me Appellanl belore calllng upon me Appellenl to defend
nlmsell agalrlst lne charges
[19] Then she analysed the evldence glven by the Appellant‘ whlch was
allegedly suppuflsd by the evldence of his sister, SP2. ln summary, (he
SCJ dld not believe me defence case as can be seen ln her arlalysls ln
pigfi 8410 116 of the grounds D? judgment (RRJ1). The SCJ had also
addressed lne lssues raised by (he delenee as I have summarised earller
In lnls Graunds euudgmenl. namely:
l possssslm end conlml (dune drugs)
pnssssslm el me bag (P4)
ui selzure nfthe car KEF 9139
me pmseculinn baund by lne leslllneny ol lls own wllrless
y. lncunsislencles in me Appellenrs evldanoe.
[20] The sad had addressed lne Issue 0! nunexlslenee el DNA
evldenoe on lne black FILA backpack and transparent plastlc packets
wnlcn ene slated was nol lelel (0 me prosecullcn case as may are melely
cormhoratlvs evldsnoe. The prosecullorl case does nm collapse ll lnere
SIN DO42|PFyMkKllxInvMafl3u ‘°
-we Smnl n-vlhnrwlll be used m mm ms nflmnnllly suns dnunvlnnl wa .nune wrul
| 3,026 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-21IP-1-10/2019 | null | Application to amend judgment; Order 42 of the Rules of Court, 2012; apply to amend the Judgment, invoking Order 20 rule 11 of the Rules and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules - amendment application allowed. | 14/11/2023 | YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=09fe334d-a1d0-45d4-8926-f51d4d817eb2&Inline=true | IN THE HIGH COURT OF IIIALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR
CIVIL sun NQ WA 21I /2019
BEYWEEN
CHEAH vs: CHEN
(|radIng under me name and style :1!
SUPERBRAIN TRAINING CENTRE)
Low ZE BING
[lradmg under me name and style oI
THE GROWING TREE ENRICHMENT CENTRE)
cuous vsom; KON
nmmng under me name and styie of
El MIND ART 5. CREATIVE ceumep
LENG CHEE VIAN
(lradmg under me name and style av
BRIGHT TRAINING CENTRE)
usuna DEVELOPMENY son am:
INSEGNANTE SDN BHD
AND
SAFEWAV SOLUYIONS SDN BHD
LIM WEI LEONE
N6 Al mxms
SAVEWAY MARKETING sou Bl-ID
ABDUL BIN ORIN
PLAINTIFFS
Fig: I nus
6.
1.
KEYIIA PENDAFYAR INSTITUTE FENDIDIKAN DAN GURU
(KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA)
KETUA PENGARM PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA
DEFENDANTS
,(yjz§MENT
[P\emM‘S Apvhcnhun m mm mgmanu
lnlroducfion
On 12 May 2023, after a mu trial of this acmm, I gave wdgrnenl for
all six Plamtms aga|ns|Ihe1“ and 2'“ Defendants, and on the same
day Issued me Grounds amudgmem vcnhac dec-suon. The Plamms
man drew up the Judgment‘ which was seaxed under the nrovnsvons
M Order 42 of mo Rules olCourt,2IlI21“lhe Rules‘)
The Planmfls now apply to amend me Jungmem, Invoking om: 1n
ml: 11 of mo Run-s and/or the inherent junsdlcllnn \:1 me com
under Order 92 rule 4 of ma Rules m dn sn (“me Amendment
Apphcamgn“). The Delandanls ounuse m
ms Judgmenl conlams my grounds fix snowing me Amendment
Apphcalmn
Order 20 nIlo11 -nd/or order 92 rulw 4 arm. Rulls
4
Order 20 rune 11 and Order 92 rule 4 co the Rmes respsclwsly
provide
».,. 2 HI )1
an |ha Vosmg see 0! my decisiun In aHuw me Amendmenl
Agpncauon
15. I lherelore allowed only prayer 1 onne Amendment Applncalmn (LS
Io amend the Judgment), bu! wnn no arfler as to costs
Dated me 14“ day al November 2023
Counul:
R Rwshl logemer mm Dalpl Smgh AIL Harm Singh
(Messls Ds//rt Smgh Partnership] «or 1“, 2"‘, 3"’, 4*‘ 5“ and 5“ P\avmfl
Koh Kean Kang together with Yong Stew Lee
(Messrs Yong SL & Koh) for 1‘, 2"‘ 314'" and 5'" Defendants
Lnglslallun:
Order 20 rule H, 42 and 92 rule 4 Rules 51 Cum, 2012
can -
Hack Hus Bank Bemad v sanan Em Mund [1951] 1 MLJ 143
Lembah Ssmarak sun am v G\ohal upnne Hotels and Resons Sdn arm
and o1heraDDea\s[2D18]MLJU 1309
Sang Lee Cu Sdn arm. 1; Drs V Munusamy all Karuppiah(sa|e prupnelor
of MNN CansuI|ancy Servmes. a inn) (201015 MLJ 235
».,.mm
-11. AmundmInIaI.ludgmervlanduII1Irs.[0 29 r m
C/unca! mslakes m meme"; or was, Dr mm ansmg lhnem
rmm any accnenla! sup ayomrssm may alany (me be correaed
by the Court by 5 noun: 0! Limzhcalron wrmou! an appeal .
‘ um-mupowus nltnn Court «a s2 ,4;
Fovlne Iumoval afdoubl yr rs hsmby declared Ina! rmlhrng m mess
Rules man be deemed to /rnul oraflsm ms mhemnlplrwels ulme
Court to make znyordera: maybe nwessary ta pvsverll rruustroe
or In nvmm an abuse 0/ the process olme com
5 In Hock Hun sank Bnrllad v. Saharl Bln Murld [19GI)I ML] 143,
Chang Mm Tat FJ said
‘new lire Court has no paws! under any applrmmm m m. same
mm. in me. vnryov MI and: . mgmn: mum ablamod arm n
has been amend ursrv urdnr am! n It drawn up amp: my me sir»
mls m o 22 Rule u onhe Supreme Court 195710 20 Rwy 11 mm
Ru/es all!-2 Nngn Cour! 19847; so farasls neceslaryra mrveclevmvsm
sxpmssmg the Anrenuonoltlre Cam Re smnm Ca 12 on :1 as
Kzluy s/Douma 115121210; 452. Hessran mime: 1191412 KB ~
5. In sung La Co. Sdn. and. L 015 v. Munuumy I/I Kuupplah
(sol: proprmor ofl MNN Consultancy Services, a mm) [2010] 5
MLJ 285, Zulkellu FCJ saxd.
‘A relaled »ssw wnmnlsrarsa-1m ml.» appoar is me quesmn alwmuhev
m. can .5 llmclus a/ficvo man u purpovls lo manly and amend the
SIB/ad om, la rsllurl m: was acmfly llwlvuuncsd
Page am 11
w. are or me W. m we /mm av. draw drlf-rune: and msavponcy
between me lemls or IM ssam Outer as oompared with ma actual
Omev pmnmmeed by M: /zamsd «:1 on 27 s 2006, yr was only fight
and none! that me Sealed Over be amended ac:-anflmgly pmsuunf in
order 20 me n ml ma Rm: mo
And shgluly Valzr
m /aw‘ ma cm can always amend In om: whmn am no! mflscl
mu wu amauypmnauma m such . svmnlnnn 1». Com! rs Ihsnlbn
mu fmvclus ammo [sea the ma af Hock rm am am v Sahan om
Mund (1931) Wu us]
7 These two cases make manundamly c\eaHha(,nc|MIl1s(zmd|ng man
a ,-mgmam regulafly oblamed has been drawn up‘ xl may sun be
amended in curred c|enca\ muscakes, or snors ansmg mam
acondenlal snps ur umwssions both by the Mfioers 04 me court and
me names, 01 where it does not conecuy slate or revnem what [he
mun acmauy decrded and intended
Approach and analysis
5. The only Issue lherefiare arvsmg to be considered and named ws
whemer the Amendment Appluz-man falls wvlhln the perimelers 01
Order 20 rule 11 and/or Order 92 mle 4 of me Rules That would
enwl Vooking at:
m Whal was decwdedl
1») What me Judgment recorded, and
muaru
(IH) What amendments the Plammrs Appncsuon seeks to makato
the Judgment
In paragraph 125 oflhe Grounds afludgmenl, I set oul the terms av
(he Judgment I made in favour mu six Plainhfls agamsl ms 1" and
2"“ Deflandams‘ as follows‘
M
M7
M
M
Thar ma Agmamarvlx arvttmd mlo bsrwevn the Plamlr/is mm In: rm
Dsfendarllbededaedvmdsb India‘
me! me ya and am Defendants are )0Vnl7Y and sevemllr Mame to me
P/arnlms Var me /omwmg mm undlrs an aim: conuansm was
1:: Plnrrmfl pw s1,5oo7o0
zvv mmm nu vs 75:; no
36 Pfiarrmll mums. no on
u pemanr RM 95, 750 00
5" Ptamml RM103, ma on
an Plnmhfl aw 95154: no
mu ms nu ma 2» Duhndunls nruomllyand uvurxl/y mu :0 such
a: mo Pvamms for gemw Hamagvs, to be mum,
Thar me 1: and zw Deicndanls anuomllyami wvsla//y Mable In each
tn! the Plavnlms rm the sum of Rusoomo on sum as mmptary
damages,
mat ma 1» and z« o.;.m.m mm:/y and sow:-II/y my. 1:: ma
ollhu pmmws lav mlurusl .1 mn rats or 5% par nnrlum from the are
an»: wmr/.s 24 m 2a1s;un:./m/rsamsn-cur.
Fausofll
M; m: m. w .-no 2-« Dvfendanu mmmam on an damage: :-
drsmvssed win: was, and
mu Thar me ya am am Dsfarrdants arejomily and sevemlly ham: m each
or me Plalnulh for east: DI RMJQOOODO sam Phrrmfl, majsa Io
manor-
10 The Judgment lhal was drawn up was in the Ionmvmg \eIms.
-v
nqmjun Lam Pmgnm Pmdndakan Pork-mbangm Mm. IO 41:
mm namomwamur (mm mowu; dnrvgurv Dlhndnn
Panama mm. Mak all an mm
Peqarman Lem wmz Class Super Mammy en mm Plaintif-
Ptamm /sscam mdmdul denyan Dafandan Povlarm mean max
sch no mo.
Dvhndan Panama dun Dulurmirv Kodua dwcrmtannn um»
mngemoanm war-vg pemiaflansn Puqnrlpun -Pnrprl/ran Luscn
Fmgvam Pendadrknn Pumwmbangan Mmda ya dzn Peqarulin —
Perjanjvan Lesen Wand mm Supvr Mummy kspada PIavmf—
Plsmltisuzrn borssmgan sspsm Denkm
3 1 wamm Panama gmnyak RMa1,5oo on,
3 2 wammoecm subanyfl‘ Mwsnsa av.
3 3 pmmr Karma rubanyak mma.7oo M,
a A Wamlrf Kcsmpat ssoanyak RM95, 7542 on
2 5 r-Iamm Kehma sebanyak Emu mu no,
3 5 PtamMKeenam nebanyak wvsmsa nu.
Gnnu mg. um dltnlsavknn,
nnsnrn
11
Garm rum ts/adan ssbarvysk Rwoaaaaua mswnikan koaada
setrap satu Plsmol‘-Prarnw den mencalzh wmaan svbanyak
RM1 500 we no swears kolektffi
Tunmtan hula: D¢IIr»dun~Do1¢nd.Irv we/M d/to/ak dangan K95.
K01 lmduluan my aflvtlpkirv ubarvylk Rumooa av dtawadluzn
mm semen um Pfamlr/»Plu:rmf ylrrg nwruxcnh mmleh
manm RM180D0000 secava kmem dmsyav om. Dc/undsn
mm 4157! Dshndan Kadua Impede PlarnhLPra4n(rY Iertzlduk
kepa-is abkalur, dun
ramn pm Rad-r 595 sllallun ntaa lwmah pongnaman
slblnynk RM2J55,55l7Dl7 dun 1-mm mm, mm 24 102019
so/-urrgga lankfi nanyi/vsarln s-wum..y;-
The Amendmem Apbllcahon seeks la make me fnllawlng
amendments lo |ha Judgmem (mm me Intended amendments
marked-up):
Peuarmarv Leann Program Pundrdlkarv Pcrlrumbangan was re a
imam PtamM—FlamllI (secs;-a mm; dengan Delerrdsrv
Pertamn mm mu an an mo‘
Pan-«mm. um Wand Clan Supar Memory aw swam
Pralntwlunlrfltscaru mama) my-n Dahndnn Panama mm.
ndak sah ab rrutlo.
Delendsn Psrtamu den Dclimtan Ksdua 1&3”
% seem bevsesama clan b...s...g... mvluk
glarvnaxu ‘gm/snflmlah mm kmaa Fla/ntlI«Fhmm
bomasnrlmn gm A_lJ_<1g Kontruk 19547
a
u..u».m
:1
22
2:
34
35
as
P/am!/I Forums sonsnyak RMAL500 aa.
P/am!/I Kodua asburvyak M495 7517 no
ma»-mcenga ‘mum mm: ma nu‘
mam Keorwal mbanyak I?M95,750 so.
Plamnf mm; sabanyak M4103 700 no‘
Flamm Keenan sehsrvyak RM95,15I7.0I7.
Defender: mguma dun Dofsndan Kodua mamum ascara
ommm dln l2lllIlE_m_y_;I m. r A. . sum mm
mm om mg: m unluk auaxzm-n.
lendarv am! dan Dsismian Kedua me u
bersecarna flan bemsmgyll unlulg memaag RM aoaauooo
Aflunag salu Puma/amaggl ggann mgr reraman fig
&W
secana
bersusana flan hevam rv untuk ; an lwdar
s nun x mamnmamanun wnl rain: 24 19 2019
Tunlulzm ba/an Bohodinaolondan ac/ma." firiamu dgrl
%/ahdmhk mg." km M
mmgn finunu dan Delemtarr Kedua bmamm M secam
bersesama am. bevnslgarv gmk mamoag kos Pramnmanm
& sebanyak PMJUMDW M
umu am Flarnn‘!—?l.a/MY V
ri
Pigelwfli
12
13
14.
9 ~«
-nan _ mu mu» :4
L
When set out and wawed 111 this manner. 1 find |halIhe|erms1n me
Judgmanl mm was mmauy drawn up um um Mly ur aDcura|a\y rallacl
me order: and ram made. and men me Amendmeru Applncauen
Intended |o recllfy mac.
A::eord1rIg1y. in my view, the Amendment Apphcahon falls squarely
wmmn me embm and penmeners alOmsr 20 me 11 arms Rules and
me nrohlsm i| imended |e eearess.
I also find mm none or me me law relxed an by me Defendants are
applicable as they were deemed an enllraly diflarenl prenuses For
example, Lumbun Sum: It Sdn Bhd v Global Upllnl Non. nd
R am Sdn Bhd Ind mum in): e [2013] MLJU 131:9 mvolvaa
a seenana when Ihe wage had de dad In memes me aevm-manna‘
apphcalrcns to sel asldalha ae1eu11 mdgmenl enlerad agannsl mam,
my [0 reverse men eeusmn when me msued her grounds of
judgmam In paragraphs [17] and[15]a11ha Judgment unne cuun,
veon wee Siam. JCA said
‘WI Vuundlmm her wr/Hm Ground: afmcrnm, that wnan m. Uudga
nvenud hm umu ova! dvusrun me mu m rec.» dl/wand e xnvrvd
decramn an (F1: substantive minus and Issues whrch are almady the
sIlb[sL1 erme Masai whrclv had been fiiedby My dsturvdam in me Court
mm»
15
16
t7
of/Mzpval, which can only be tleaded by the Caurl a/Appeal and not
pytrte same Mg/'l Cour! Juaoe
Wins! the wt Jung: has desarbsd as lnadver1ence“m her pan ts rial a
clerical rrtntalra which can in Iuzltflsd as envisaged by o 29 r tr 0/ rne
Hoc cornauuanrry in. am Jung. ansd Mum hts lordsmp attowad on
2: 147 2017, unoarma 5-Iw rim the ttcivndanlsfippltcnltunsla arrertd
Ms 0vt1sIt1a!ed 3 32017 -
For eompletenss, I also reyected the Detendants oontentton that
the Amendment Application should he dismtssed on the grounds of
delay. The oontentton is that the Grounds oi Judgment were
auatlaple the same day I pronounoed the deorston and yet the
Judgment had been drawn up two months later and the Amendment
Appllcalmrl filed about a month atterthet. in my view. the delay here
was not tnordtnata More compelling and crucial. tn my view. is that
delay tells a distant seeortd lo the more important fackzr that the
purpose and tntentton at the Amendment Appltcatton was to amend
the Judgment to accord wtth the decision made and the reltet
actually ordered‘ which the Judgment dtd not reilect.
l aocordtngly allowed the Amendment Applttsatton.
However, as the Piatntttts drd not draw up the Judgment awarding
the deetston made and the reltei actually ordered desptte rsoettnng
and having had ample opportunity to read the Grounds ouudgmentt
in my trte would not be iatr to award thent costs when their own
ac|iurls rtecessnated the Ptatntttrs Appltcatton Nor should the
Delendants get any costs as they had decided to oppose and were
me In at u
| 11,439 | Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-82D-2-01/2020 | null | Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 - sama ada tertuduh memiliki dadah berbahaya - sama ada kes prima facie dibuktikan | 14/11/2023 | Puan Farah binti Rosnan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=864d095a-1eda-465f-ad47-f8b310d1093d&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (3) DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA
NO. KES: BA-82D-1-01/2020
DIBICARAKAN BERSAMA DENGAN KES:
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (3) DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA
NO. KES: BA-82D-2-01/2020
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
MOHD IRWAN BIN MOHAMAD ILIAS
[NO. K/P: 850830-02-5225]
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PERTUDUHAN
[1] Tertuduh dalam kes ini telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan-pertuduhan seperti
berikut:
Bagi Kes No. BA-82D-1-01/2020:
“Pertuduhan Pertama:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine” (Berat Bersih:
25.58 gram). Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah
14/11/2023 15:35:17
BA-82D-2-01/2020 Kand. 18
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah
seksyen 39A (1) akta yang sama.
Hukuman:
Boleh dihukum dengan hukuman penjara tidak kurang dua tahun dan
tidak lebih lima tahun dan juga akan dikenakan hukuman sebat tidak
kurang tiga sebatan dan tidak lebih sembilan sebatan.
Pertuduhan Kedua:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “Ketamine” (Berat Bersih: 5.7 gram). Oleh itu kamu telah
melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12 (2) Akta Dadah
Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen Seksyen 12 (3)
akta yang sama.
Hukuman:
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh di hukum denda tidak lebih daripada satu
ratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak
lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.
Pertuduhan Ketiga:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “Methamphetamine” (Berat Bersih: 1.28 gram). Oleh itu
kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12 (2) Akta
Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen Seksyen
12 (3) akta yang sama.
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Hukuman:
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh di hukum denda tidak lebih daripada satu
ratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak
lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.”.
Bagi Kes No. BA-82D-2-01/2020:
“Pertuduhan:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu Racun
jenis “Etizolam” dan “Clozapine” (Berat Bersih: 76.75 gram). Oleh itu
kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 30(3) Akta
Racun 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 30(5) Akta yang
sama.
Hukuman
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh dihukum denda RM 10,000.00 atau 4 tahun
penjara atau kedua-duanya sekali.”
[2] Mahkamah ini semasa keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan pada 31.7.2023
telah melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh daripada kesemua pertuduhan-
pertuduhan bagi kes BA-82D-1-01/2020 dan BA-82D-2-01/2020. Pihak pendakwaan
tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut dah telah memfailkan rayuan kepada
Mahkamah Tinggi melalui Notis Rayuan bertarikh 9.8.2023.
KES PENDAKWAAN
[3] Bagi tujuan perbicaraan kes ini, pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil 9 orang
saksi untuk memberikan keterangan seperti berikut:
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[4] Fakta kes yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan adalah sepertimana
yang terkandung di dalam perenggan 3 Hujahan Bertulis pihak pendakwaan bertarikh
9.7.2023 [Kandungan 106].
PRIMA FACIE
[5] Adalah menjadi tugas pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan suatu kes prima
facie terhadap tertuduh sebagaimana dinyatakan di bawah Seksyen 180 Kanun
Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593]. Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah
Persekutuan di dalam kes Abdullah bin Atan v. PP and another appeal [2020] 9 CLJ
151; [2020] 6 MLJ 727 di mana mahkamah telah menyatakan mengenai prima facie
seperti berikut:
"As to what constitutes a 'prima facie' case, the judgment of Vincent Ng
J (as he was then) in Public Prosecutor v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4
CLJ 209; [1998] 6 MLJ 678 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong
was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we respectfully endorse
His Lordship's view at p 691 (MLJ); p 225 (CLJ):
What the constitutes a 'prima facie' case? 'Prima facie' means
on the face of it or at the first glance, perhaps the most
appropriate definition of a 'prima facie case' could be found in
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
the Oxford Companion of Law (p 987), which has it as: A case
which is sufficient for an answer. While prima facie evidence
is evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, but is not conclusive'. It would
follow that there should be credible evidence on each and
every ingredient of the offence. Credible evidence is evidence
which has been filtered and which was gone through the
process of evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be
acted upon, should be rejected.
At pg. 224, His Lordship said:
to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation, on a phma
facie basis, of each and every essential ingredient of the charge
as tested in cross examination, in other words, maximum
evaluation connotes quantitative rather than qualitative
evaluation of the evidence; with focus more on the evidential
burden in terms of evidence led, rather that the persuasive
burden in terms of qualitative degree of proof.”.
[6] Berdasarkan otoriti di atas, Mahkamah hendaklah membuat penilaian
maksimum yang menyeluruh terhadap kesemua keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh
pihak pendakwaan untuk setiap elemen yang terdapat dalam pertuduhan ke atas
tertuduh dalam menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwan telah berjaya membuktikan
suatu kes prima facie atau sebaliknya.
[7] Dalam kes ini tertuduh telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan-pertuduhan memiliki
dadah dan racun di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan juga di
bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952. Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
“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.”.
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[8] Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
“Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Act, no person shall import,
export, manufacture, compound, mix, dispense, sell, supply, administer,
possess or use any psychotropic substance otherwise than in
accordance with any regulations applicable thereto made under this Act.”.
[9] Dalam membuat penilaian maksimum ke atas kesemua keterangan yang
dikemukakan, Mahkamah perlu menentukan sama ada elemen-elemen bagi
kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan juga seksyen
30(3) Akta Racun 1952 telah dipenuhi. Mahkamah ini mendapati elemen-elemen bagi
kedua-dua kesalahan memiliki dadah atau racun adalah sama iaitu seperti berikut:
(i) sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan jagaan ke atas
dadah atau racun tersebut serta pengetahuan mengenai kewujudan
dadah tersebut; dan
(ii) sama ada dadah atau racun tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya atau racun
seperti yang disenaraikan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya dan juga Akta
Racun 1952.
Isu (i) - sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah
atau racun tersebut serta pengetahuan mengenai kewujudan dadah tersebut.
Elemen Kawalan Dan Pengetahuan
[10] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes PP
v. Denish A/L Madhavan [2009] 2 CLJ 209 yang menjelaskan mengenai prinsip
undang-undang berhubung dengan elemen milikan seperti berikut:
" 'Possession' for the purposes of criminal law involves possession itself-
which some authorities term 'custody' or 'control' - and knowledge of the
nature of thing possessed. As to possession itself he cited the following
definition in Stephen's Digest (9th Ed. P 304, in which the exclusive
element mentioned by Taylor J appears: A moveable thing is said to be
in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it
that he has the powers to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
persons, and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed
to intend to do so in case of need.
Once the elements needed to constitute possession are established,
including the element of exclusive power to deal, then what is
established is possession, not exclusive possession. So much of
exclusive possession".
[11] Untuk membuktikan elemen milikan, pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan
elemen kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun oleh tertuduh. Dalam
kes ini, dadah dan racun telah dijumpai oleh P2 di dalam bilik pejabat tertuduh.
Pendakwaan di dalam Fakta Kes yang dinyatakan dalam hujahan bertulisnya
diperenggan 3.6 mengatakan bahawa bilik tertuduh berkunci dan SP2 telah
membuka kunci dengan menggunakan kunci yang diberikan oleh SP2.
[12] SP2 ketika ditanya mengenai sama ada bilik pejabat tertuduh berkunci telah
mengatakan berikut:
“Q: Apabila naik ke atas apa yang ada di tingkat 14, apa yang berlaku?
A: Apabila sampai di tingkat 14 saya dipandu oleh OKT menuju ke
pejabatnya dan mendapati pejabat tersebut tertutup dan disyaki
berkunci. Saya mengarahkan OKT untuk membuka pejabat
tersebut. OKT dengan kunci yang ada padanya telah buka
pejabat. Saya dengan team saya telah masuk ke pejabat tersebut
untuk membuat pemeriksaan.”.
[13] Walaubagaimanapun, semasa Pemeriksaan Balas, SP2 telah mengatakan
seperti berikut:
“Q: Masa inspektor buat pemeriksaan di bawah ada jumpa kunci?
A: Tak perasan. Dah kat atas baru saya nampak kunci pada tangan
dia.
Q: Saya katakan sebenarnya pintu bilik itu tidak berkunci?
A: Pintu tertutup.
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Q: Inspektor tak pegang pintu, tak try pun buka pintu, jadi
inspektor tak boleh pastikan pintu tu berkunci atau tidak,
setuju?
A: Setuju.”
(penekanan ditambah)
[14] Berdasarkan keterangan SP2 sewaktu Pemeriksaan Balas, SP2 tidak pasti
sama ada pintu bilik tertuduh berkunci atau pun sebaliknya. Berdasarkan keterangan
SP1, SP4 dan SP9 juga tiada sebarang keterangan yang dapat membuktikan
bahawa pintu bilik tertuduh berkunci sebelum SP2 dan pasukan masuk ke dalam bilik
tersebut untuk tujuan pemeriksaan. Keterangan-keterangan juga menunjukkan tiada
sebarang kawalan dibuat di kawasan tangga, lif, lobi, koridor aras 14 dan di kawasan
bilik pejabat tertuduh sepanjang masa sehingga SP2 dan pasukannya tiba untuk
membuat pemeriksaan. Dalam ketiadaan sebarang keterangan yang membuktikan
bahawa bilik tertuduh berkunci dan terdapat kawalan pihak polis ke atas tempat
kejadian maka telah wujud keraguan yang munasabah mengenai elemen kawalan
oleh tertuduh memandangkan terdapat kemungkinan bilik pejabat tersebut telah
dikacau ganggu atau tercemar sebelum SP2 dan pasukan tiba.
[15] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan juga tiada sebarang tindakan oleh
tertuduh atau sebarang keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh
mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun yang dirampas oleh SP2.
Rantaian Keterangan Barang Kes
[17] Pada hemat mahkamah ini, memandangkan terdapat lompong yang besar
terhadap elemen kawalan sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 14 di atas,
sebenarnya rantaian keterangan barang kes bagi kes ini sebenarnya telah terputus
sejak peringkat awal lagi.
[17] Selain itu juga, dalam kes ini tiada penandaan spesifik telah dilakukan oleh
SP2. Pengiraan juga tidak dilakukan dengan sempurna memandangkan SP2 dalam
keterangannya mengatakan beliau telah buat kiraan secara rawak sahaja dan tiada
keterangan pengiraan barang kes secara menyeluruh. Keterangan mengenai
timbangan juga meragukan memandangkan SP2 sering mengubah keterangannya
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
yang mana tiada keterangan yang meyakinkan sama ada timbangan telah dibuat
serta masa dan tempat timbangan dibuat oleh SP2. Tanpa sebarang penandaan
yang sempurna oleh pegawai tangkapan dan rampasan iaitu B2 dan dengan
keterangan-keterangan yang tidak konsisten dan sering berubah-ubah oleh SP2,
telah wujud suatu keraguan mengenai butiran dan identiti barang kes bagi kes ini.
[18] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan ini, Mahkamah ini berpendapat rantaian
keterangan barang kes ini amat lemah sejak peringkat awal lagi yang mana terdapat
keraguan yang munasabah terhadap rantaian keterangan barang kes, butiran dan
identiti barang kes dalam kes ini.
Keterangan Saksi Pendakwaan
[19] Selepas mendengar dan meneliti keseluruhan keterangan saksi-saksi
pendakwaan, mahkamah ini mendapati saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah boleh
dipercayai dan keterangannya di terima pakai oleh mahkamah kecuali keterangan
SP2.
[20] Berdasarkan penelitian mahkamah, SP2 telah memberikan banyak
keterangan yang tidak konsisten dan bercanggah selain terlalu banyak soalan-soalan
yang dijawab dengan jawapan “tidak tahu” atau “tidak ingat”. Bagi kes ini, SP2 selaku
pegawai tangkapan dan pegawai rampasan adalah saksi utama untuk pendakwaan
membuktikan elemen-elemen pertuduhan. Malangnya, berikutan keterangan-
keterangan yang tidak konsisten, tidak meyakinkan dan meragukan dalam pelbagai
isu termasuklah isu-isu substantif seperti isu pengendalian barang kes, identiti dan
butiran barang kes serta rantaian keterangan barang kes maka adalah sukar untuk
mahkamah ini menerima pakai keterangan SP. Oleh itu, keterangan SP2 adalah
ditolak.
Isu (ii) - sama ada dadah atau racun tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya atau racun
seperti yang disenaraikan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya dan juga Akta Racun
1952.
[21] Memandangkan elemen pertama telah tidak dipenuhi mahkamah ini tidak
berhasrat dan berpendapat tiada keperluan untuk membincangkan mengenai elemen
kedua bagi pertuduhan-pertuduhan.
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
KEPUTUSAN
[22] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan lisan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan
keterangan dalam bentuk dokumentasi yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah ini
sepanjang perbicaraan berlangsung, terdapat terlalu banyak lompong-lompong yang
material yang membuatkan kes ini tidak dapat dipertahankan oleh pihak
pendakwaan. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini telah melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh
daripada semua pertuduhan bagi kedua-dua kes. Wang jaminan dikembalikan.
Bertarikh pada 31 Julai 2023.
t.t.
(NUR FAIZAH BINTI ABDUL SANI)
Majistret
Mahkamah Majistret 3 Shah Alam
KAUNSEL –
Bagi pihak pendakwaan:
Puan Saidah Fasihah Binti Che Yussof
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Kamar Pendakwaan Negeri Selangor
Tingkat 4, Podium Utara Bangunan Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah
41000 Shah Alam, Selangor
Bagi pihak tertuduh:
Encik Fithril Hakim
Peguambela & Peguamcara
D/A Tetuan Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil
No. 33-2, The Core, Jalan Teknologi 3/6B,
Kota Damansara, 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
S/N 7qsKxdRMY0GWoIWWI399xw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 17,087 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-82D-1-01/2020 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHD IRWAN BIN MOHAMAD ILIAS | Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 - sama ada tertuduh memiliki dadah berbahaya - sama ada kes prima facie dibuktikan | 14/11/2023 | Puan Farah binti Rosnan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=97de9a67-f397-48ad-9669-d504f7e3531e&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (3) DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA
NO. KES: BA-82D-1-01/2020
DIBICARAKAN BERSAMA DENGAN KES:
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (3) DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA
NO. KES: BA-82D-2-01/2020
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
MOHD IRWAN BIN MOHAMAD ILIAS
[NO. K/P: 850830-02-5225]
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PERTUDUHAN
[1] Tertuduh dalam kes ini telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan-pertuduhan seperti
berikut:
Bagi Kes No. BA-82D-1-01/2020:
“Pertuduhan Pertama:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine” (Berat Bersih:
25.58 gram). Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah
14/11/2023 15:26:44
BA-82D-1-01/2020 Kand. 121
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah
seksyen 39A (1) akta yang sama.
Hukuman:
Boleh dihukum dengan hukuman penjara tidak kurang dua tahun dan
tidak lebih lima tahun dan juga akan dikenakan hukuman sebat tidak
kurang tiga sebatan dan tidak lebih sembilan sebatan.
Pertuduhan Kedua:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “Ketamine” (Berat Bersih: 5.7 gram). Oleh itu kamu telah
melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12 (2) Akta Dadah
Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen Seksyen 12 (3)
akta yang sama.
Hukuman:
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh di hukum denda tidak lebih daripada satu
ratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak
lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.
Pertuduhan Ketiga:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “Methamphetamine” (Berat Bersih: 1.28 gram). Oleh itu
kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12 (2) Akta
Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen Seksyen
12 (3) akta yang sama.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Hukuman:
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh di hukum denda tidak lebih daripada satu
ratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak
lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.”.
Bagi Kes No. BA-82D-2-01/2020:
“Pertuduhan:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu Racun
jenis “Etizolam” dan “Clozapine” (Berat Bersih: 76.75 gram). Oleh itu
kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 30(3) Akta
Racun 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 30(5) Akta yang
sama.
Hukuman
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh dihukum denda RM 10,000.00 atau 4 tahun
penjara atau kedua-duanya sekali.”
[2] Mahkamah ini semasa keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan pada 31.7.2023
telah melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh daripada kesemua pertuduhan-
pertuduhan bagi kes BA-82D-1-01/2020 dan BA-82D-2-01/2020. Pihak pendakwaan
tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut dah telah memfailkan rayuan kepada
Mahkamah Tinggi melalui Notis Rayuan bertarikh 9.8.2023.
KES PENDAKWAAN
[3] Bagi tujuan perbicaraan kes ini, pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil 9 orang
saksi untuk memberikan keterangan seperti berikut:
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[4] Fakta kes yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan adalah sepertimana
yang terkandung di dalam perenggan 3 Hujahan Bertulis pihak pendakwaan bertarikh
9.7.2023 [Kandungan 106].
PRIMA FACIE
[5] Adalah menjadi tugas pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan suatu kes prima
facie terhadap tertuduh sebagaimana dinyatakan di bawah Seksyen 180 Kanun
Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593]. Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah
Persekutuan di dalam kes Abdullah bin Atan v. PP and another appeal [2020] 9 CLJ
151; [2020] 6 MLJ 727 di mana mahkamah telah menyatakan mengenai prima facie
seperti berikut:
"As to what constitutes a 'prima facie' case, the judgment of Vincent Ng
J (as he was then) in Public Prosecutor v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4
CLJ 209; [1998] 6 MLJ 678 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong
was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we respectfully endorse
His Lordship's view at p 691 (MLJ); p 225 (CLJ):
What the constitutes a 'prima facie' case? 'Prima facie' means
on the face of it or at the first glance, perhaps the most
appropriate definition of a 'prima facie case' could be found in
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
the Oxford Companion of Law (p 987), which has it as: A case
which is sufficient for an answer. While prima facie evidence
is evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, but is not conclusive'. It would
follow that there should be credible evidence on each and
every ingredient of the offence. Credible evidence is evidence
which has been filtered and which was gone through the
process of evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be
acted upon, should be rejected.
At pg. 224, His Lordship said:
to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation, on a phma
facie basis, of each and every essential ingredient of the charge
as tested in cross examination, in other words, maximum
evaluation connotes quantitative rather than qualitative
evaluation of the evidence; with focus more on the evidential
burden in terms of evidence led, rather that the persuasive
burden in terms of qualitative degree of proof.”.
[6] Berdasarkan otoriti di atas, Mahkamah hendaklah membuat penilaian
maksimum yang menyeluruh terhadap kesemua keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh
pihak pendakwaan untuk setiap elemen yang terdapat dalam pertuduhan ke atas
tertuduh dalam menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwan telah berjaya membuktikan
suatu kes prima facie atau sebaliknya.
[7] Dalam kes ini tertuduh telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan-pertuduhan memiliki
dadah dan racun di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan juga di
bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952. Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
“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.”.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[8] Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
“Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Act, no person shall import,
export, manufacture, compound, mix, dispense, sell, supply, administer,
possess or use any psychotropic substance otherwise than in
accordance with any regulations applicable thereto made under this Act.”.
[9] Dalam membuat penilaian maksimum ke atas kesemua keterangan yang
dikemukakan, Mahkamah perlu menentukan sama ada elemen-elemen bagi
kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan juga seksyen
30(3) Akta Racun 1952 telah dipenuhi. Mahkamah ini mendapati elemen-elemen bagi
kedua-dua kesalahan memiliki dadah atau racun adalah sama iaitu seperti berikut:
(i) sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan jagaan ke atas
dadah atau racun tersebut serta pengetahuan mengenai kewujudan
dadah tersebut; dan
(ii) sama ada dadah atau racun tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya atau racun
seperti yang disenaraikan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya dan juga Akta
Racun 1952.
Isu (i) - sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah
atau racun tersebut serta pengetahuan mengenai kewujudan dadah tersebut.
Elemen Kawalan Dan Pengetahuan
[10] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes PP
v. Denish A/L Madhavan [2009] 2 CLJ 209 yang menjelaskan mengenai prinsip
undang-undang berhubung dengan elemen milikan seperti berikut:
" 'Possession' for the purposes of criminal law involves possession itself-
which some authorities term 'custody' or 'control' - and knowledge of the
nature of thing possessed. As to possession itself he cited the following
definition in Stephen's Digest (9th Ed. P 304, in which the exclusive
element mentioned by Taylor J appears: A moveable thing is said to be
in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it
that he has the powers to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
persons, and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed
to intend to do so in case of need.
Once the elements needed to constitute possession are established,
including the element of exclusive power to deal, then what is
established is possession, not exclusive possession. So much of
exclusive possession".
[11] Untuk membuktikan elemen milikan, pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan
elemen kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun oleh tertuduh. Dalam
kes ini, dadah dan racun telah dijumpai oleh P2 di dalam bilik pejabat tertuduh.
Pendakwaan di dalam Fakta Kes yang dinyatakan dalam hujahan bertulisnya
diperenggan 3.6 mengatakan bahawa bilik tertuduh berkunci dan SP2 telah
membuka kunci dengan menggunakan kunci yang diberikan oleh SP2.
[12] SP2 ketika ditanya mengenai sama ada bilik pejabat tertuduh berkunci telah
mengatakan berikut:
“Q: Apabila naik ke atas apa yang ada di tingkat 14, apa yang berlaku?
A: Apabila sampai di tingkat 14 saya dipandu oleh OKT menuju ke
pejabatnya dan mendapati pejabat tersebut tertutup dan disyaki
berkunci. Saya mengarahkan OKT untuk membuka pejabat
tersebut. OKT dengan kunci yang ada padanya telah buka
pejabat. Saya dengan team saya telah masuk ke pejabat tersebut
untuk membuat pemeriksaan.”.
[13] Walaubagaimanapun, semasa Pemeriksaan Balas, SP2 telah mengatakan
seperti berikut:
“Q: Masa inspektor buat pemeriksaan di bawah ada jumpa kunci?
A: Tak perasan. Dah kat atas baru saya nampak kunci pada tangan
dia.
Q: Saya katakan sebenarnya pintu bilik itu tidak berkunci?
A: Pintu tertutup.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Q: Inspektor tak pegang pintu, tak try pun buka pintu, jadi
inspektor tak boleh pastikan pintu tu berkunci atau tidak,
setuju?
A: Setuju.”
(penekanan ditambah)
[14] Berdasarkan keterangan SP2 sewaktu Pemeriksaan Balas, SP2 tidak pasti
sama ada pintu bilik tertuduh berkunci atau pun sebaliknya. Berdasarkan keterangan
SP1, SP4 dan SP9 juga tiada sebarang keterangan yang dapat membuktikan
bahawa pintu bilik tertuduh berkunci sebelum SP2 dan pasukan masuk ke dalam bilik
tersebut untuk tujuan pemeriksaan. Keterangan-keterangan juga menunjukkan tiada
sebarang kawalan dibuat di kawasan tangga, lif, lobi, koridor aras 14 dan di kawasan
bilik pejabat tertuduh sepanjang masa sehingga SP2 dan pasukannya tiba untuk
membuat pemeriksaan. Dalam ketiadaan sebarang keterangan yang membuktikan
bahawa bilik tertuduh berkunci dan terdapat kawalan pihak polis ke atas tempat
kejadian maka telah wujud keraguan yang munasabah mengenai elemen kawalan
oleh tertuduh memandangkan terdapat kemungkinan bilik pejabat tersebut telah
dikacau ganggu atau tercemar sebelum SP2 dan pasukan tiba.
[15] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan juga tiada sebarang tindakan oleh
tertuduh atau sebarang keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh
mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun yang dirampas oleh SP2.
Rantaian Keterangan Barang Kes
[17] Pada hemat mahkamah ini, memandangkan terdapat lompong yang besar
terhadap elemen kawalan sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 14 di atas,
sebenarnya rantaian keterangan barang kes bagi kes ini sebenarnya telah terputus
sejak peringkat awal lagi.
[17] Selain itu juga, dalam kes ini tiada penandaan spesifik telah dilakukan oleh
SP2. Pengiraan juga tidak dilakukan dengan sempurna memandangkan SP2 dalam
keterangannya mengatakan beliau telah buat kiraan secara rawak sahaja dan tiada
keterangan pengiraan barang kes secara menyeluruh. Keterangan mengenai
timbangan juga meragukan memandangkan SP2 sering mengubah keterangannya
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
yang mana tiada keterangan yang meyakinkan sama ada timbangan telah dibuat
serta masa dan tempat timbangan dibuat oleh SP2. Tanpa sebarang penandaan
yang sempurna oleh pegawai tangkapan dan rampasan iaitu B2 dan dengan
keterangan-keterangan yang tidak konsisten dan sering berubah-ubah oleh SP2,
telah wujud suatu keraguan mengenai butiran dan identiti barang kes bagi kes ini.
[18] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan ini, Mahkamah ini berpendapat rantaian
keterangan barang kes ini amat lemah sejak peringkat awal lagi yang mana terdapat
keraguan yang munasabah terhadap rantaian keterangan barang kes, butiran dan
identiti barang kes dalam kes ini.
Keterangan Saksi Pendakwaan
[19] Selepas mendengar dan meneliti keseluruhan keterangan saksi-saksi
pendakwaan, mahkamah ini mendapati saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah boleh
dipercayai dan keterangannya di terima pakai oleh mahkamah kecuali keterangan
SP2.
[20] Berdasarkan penelitian mahkamah, SP2 telah memberikan banyak
keterangan yang tidak konsisten dan bercanggah selain terlalu banyak soalan-soalan
yang dijawab dengan jawapan “tidak tahu” atau “tidak ingat”. Bagi kes ini, SP2 selaku
pegawai tangkapan dan pegawai rampasan adalah saksi utama untuk pendakwaan
membuktikan elemen-elemen pertuduhan. Malangnya, berikutan keterangan-
keterangan yang tidak konsisten, tidak meyakinkan dan meragukan dalam pelbagai
isu termasuklah isu-isu substantif seperti isu pengendalian barang kes, identiti dan
butiran barang kes serta rantaian keterangan barang kes maka adalah sukar untuk
mahkamah ini menerima pakai keterangan SP. Oleh itu, keterangan SP2 adalah
ditolak.
Isu (ii) - sama ada dadah atau racun tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya atau racun
seperti yang disenaraikan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya dan juga Akta Racun
1952.
[21] Memandangkan elemen pertama telah tidak dipenuhi mahkamah ini tidak
berhasrat dan berpendapat tiada keperluan untuk membincangkan mengenai elemen
kedua bagi pertuduhan-pertuduhan.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
KEPUTUSAN
[22] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan lisan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan
keterangan dalam bentuk dokumentasi yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah ini
sepanjang perbicaraan berlangsung, terdapat terlalu banyak lompong-lompong yang
material yang membuatkan kes ini tidak dapat dipertahankan oleh pihak
pendakwaan. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini telah melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh
daripada semua pertuduhan bagi kedua-dua kes. Wang jaminan dikembalikan.
Bertarikh pada 31 Julai 2023.
t.t.
(NUR FAIZAH BINTI ABDUL SANI)
Majistret
Mahkamah Majistret 3 Shah Alam
KAUNSEL –
Bagi pihak pendakwaan:
Puan Saidah Fasihah Binti Che Yussof
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Kamar Pendakwaan Negeri Selangor
Tingkat 4, Podium Utara Bangunan Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah
41000 Shah Alam, Selangor
Bagi pihak tertuduh:
Encik Fithril Hakim
Peguambela & Peguamcara
D/A Tetuan Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil
No. 33-2, The Core, Jalan Teknologi 3/6B,
Kota Damansara, 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2023-12-14T11:06:50+0800
| 17,113 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-82D-1-01/2020 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHD IRWAN BIN MOHAMAD ILIAS | Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39A Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 - sama ada tertuduh memiliki dadah berbahaya - sama ada kes prima facie dibuktikan | 14/11/2023 | Puan Farah binti Rosnan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=97de9a67-f397-48ad-9669-d504f7e3531e&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (3) DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA
NO. KES: BA-82D-1-01/2020
DIBICARAKAN BERSAMA DENGAN KES:
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (3) DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA
NO. KES: BA-82D-2-01/2020
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
MOHD IRWAN BIN MOHAMAD ILIAS
[NO. K/P: 850830-02-5225]
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PERTUDUHAN
[1] Tertuduh dalam kes ini telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan-pertuduhan seperti
berikut:
Bagi Kes No. BA-82D-1-01/2020:
“Pertuduhan Pertama:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine” (Berat Bersih:
25.58 gram). Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah
14/11/2023 15:26:44
BA-82D-1-01/2020 Kand. 121
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah
seksyen 39A (1) akta yang sama.
Hukuman:
Boleh dihukum dengan hukuman penjara tidak kurang dua tahun dan
tidak lebih lima tahun dan juga akan dikenakan hukuman sebat tidak
kurang tiga sebatan dan tidak lebih sembilan sebatan.
Pertuduhan Kedua:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “Ketamine” (Berat Bersih: 5.7 gram). Oleh itu kamu telah
melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12 (2) Akta Dadah
Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen Seksyen 12 (3)
akta yang sama.
Hukuman:
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh di hukum denda tidak lebih daripada satu
ratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak
lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.
Pertuduhan Ketiga:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu dadah
berbahaya jenis “Methamphetamine” (Berat Bersih: 1.28 gram). Oleh itu
kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12 (2) Akta
Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen Seksyen
12 (3) akta yang sama.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Hukuman:
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh di hukum denda tidak lebih daripada satu
ratus ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak
lebih daripada lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali.”.
Bagi Kes No. BA-82D-2-01/2020:
“Pertuduhan:
Bahawa kamu pada 21/09/2019 jam lebih kurang 4.30 pagi, bertempat di
bilik Tingkat 14 Menara Kompleks Kejuruteraan Kampus Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Shah Alam, di dalam Daerah Petaling di dalam
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam kawalan kamu Racun
jenis “Etizolam” dan “Clozapine” (Berat Bersih: 76.75 gram). Oleh itu
kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 30(3) Akta
Racun 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 30(5) Akta yang
sama.
Hukuman
Jika disabit kesalahan boleh dihukum denda RM 10,000.00 atau 4 tahun
penjara atau kedua-duanya sekali.”
[2] Mahkamah ini semasa keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan pada 31.7.2023
telah melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh daripada kesemua pertuduhan-
pertuduhan bagi kes BA-82D-1-01/2020 dan BA-82D-2-01/2020. Pihak pendakwaan
tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut dah telah memfailkan rayuan kepada
Mahkamah Tinggi melalui Notis Rayuan bertarikh 9.8.2023.
KES PENDAKWAAN
[3] Bagi tujuan perbicaraan kes ini, pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil 9 orang
saksi untuk memberikan keterangan seperti berikut:
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[4] Fakta kes yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan adalah sepertimana
yang terkandung di dalam perenggan 3 Hujahan Bertulis pihak pendakwaan bertarikh
9.7.2023 [Kandungan 106].
PRIMA FACIE
[5] Adalah menjadi tugas pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan suatu kes prima
facie terhadap tertuduh sebagaimana dinyatakan di bawah Seksyen 180 Kanun
Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593]. Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah
Persekutuan di dalam kes Abdullah bin Atan v. PP and another appeal [2020] 9 CLJ
151; [2020] 6 MLJ 727 di mana mahkamah telah menyatakan mengenai prima facie
seperti berikut:
"As to what constitutes a 'prima facie' case, the judgment of Vincent Ng
J (as he was then) in Public Prosecutor v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4
CLJ 209; [1998] 6 MLJ 678 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong
was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we respectfully endorse
His Lordship's view at p 691 (MLJ); p 225 (CLJ):
What the constitutes a 'prima facie' case? 'Prima facie' means
on the face of it or at the first glance, perhaps the most
appropriate definition of a 'prima facie case' could be found in
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
the Oxford Companion of Law (p 987), which has it as: A case
which is sufficient for an answer. While prima facie evidence
is evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, but is not conclusive'. It would
follow that there should be credible evidence on each and
every ingredient of the offence. Credible evidence is evidence
which has been filtered and which was gone through the
process of evaluation. Any evidence which is not safe to be
acted upon, should be rejected.
At pg. 224, His Lordship said:
to me, maximum evaluation simply means evaluation, on a phma
facie basis, of each and every essential ingredient of the charge
as tested in cross examination, in other words, maximum
evaluation connotes quantitative rather than qualitative
evaluation of the evidence; with focus more on the evidential
burden in terms of evidence led, rather that the persuasive
burden in terms of qualitative degree of proof.”.
[6] Berdasarkan otoriti di atas, Mahkamah hendaklah membuat penilaian
maksimum yang menyeluruh terhadap kesemua keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh
pihak pendakwaan untuk setiap elemen yang terdapat dalam pertuduhan ke atas
tertuduh dalam menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwan telah berjaya membuktikan
suatu kes prima facie atau sebaliknya.
[7] Dalam kes ini tertuduh telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan-pertuduhan memiliki
dadah dan racun di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan juga di
bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952. Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
“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.”.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[8] Seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
“Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Act, no person shall import,
export, manufacture, compound, mix, dispense, sell, supply, administer,
possess or use any psychotropic substance otherwise than in
accordance with any regulations applicable thereto made under this Act.”.
[9] Dalam membuat penilaian maksimum ke atas kesemua keterangan yang
dikemukakan, Mahkamah perlu menentukan sama ada elemen-elemen bagi
kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan juga seksyen
30(3) Akta Racun 1952 telah dipenuhi. Mahkamah ini mendapati elemen-elemen bagi
kedua-dua kesalahan memiliki dadah atau racun adalah sama iaitu seperti berikut:
(i) sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan jagaan ke atas
dadah atau racun tersebut serta pengetahuan mengenai kewujudan
dadah tersebut; dan
(ii) sama ada dadah atau racun tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya atau racun
seperti yang disenaraikan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya dan juga Akta
Racun 1952.
Isu (i) - sama ada tertuduh mempunyai milikan, kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah
atau racun tersebut serta pengetahuan mengenai kewujudan dadah tersebut.
Elemen Kawalan Dan Pengetahuan
[10] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes PP
v. Denish A/L Madhavan [2009] 2 CLJ 209 yang menjelaskan mengenai prinsip
undang-undang berhubung dengan elemen milikan seperti berikut:
" 'Possession' for the purposes of criminal law involves possession itself-
which some authorities term 'custody' or 'control' - and knowledge of the
nature of thing possessed. As to possession itself he cited the following
definition in Stephen's Digest (9th Ed. P 304, in which the exclusive
element mentioned by Taylor J appears: A moveable thing is said to be
in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it
that he has the powers to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
persons, and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed
to intend to do so in case of need.
Once the elements needed to constitute possession are established,
including the element of exclusive power to deal, then what is
established is possession, not exclusive possession. So much of
exclusive possession".
[11] Untuk membuktikan elemen milikan, pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan
elemen kawalan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun oleh tertuduh. Dalam
kes ini, dadah dan racun telah dijumpai oleh P2 di dalam bilik pejabat tertuduh.
Pendakwaan di dalam Fakta Kes yang dinyatakan dalam hujahan bertulisnya
diperenggan 3.6 mengatakan bahawa bilik tertuduh berkunci dan SP2 telah
membuka kunci dengan menggunakan kunci yang diberikan oleh SP2.
[12] SP2 ketika ditanya mengenai sama ada bilik pejabat tertuduh berkunci telah
mengatakan berikut:
“Q: Apabila naik ke atas apa yang ada di tingkat 14, apa yang berlaku?
A: Apabila sampai di tingkat 14 saya dipandu oleh OKT menuju ke
pejabatnya dan mendapati pejabat tersebut tertutup dan disyaki
berkunci. Saya mengarahkan OKT untuk membuka pejabat
tersebut. OKT dengan kunci yang ada padanya telah buka
pejabat. Saya dengan team saya telah masuk ke pejabat tersebut
untuk membuat pemeriksaan.”.
[13] Walaubagaimanapun, semasa Pemeriksaan Balas, SP2 telah mengatakan
seperti berikut:
“Q: Masa inspektor buat pemeriksaan di bawah ada jumpa kunci?
A: Tak perasan. Dah kat atas baru saya nampak kunci pada tangan
dia.
Q: Saya katakan sebenarnya pintu bilik itu tidak berkunci?
A: Pintu tertutup.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Q: Inspektor tak pegang pintu, tak try pun buka pintu, jadi
inspektor tak boleh pastikan pintu tu berkunci atau tidak,
setuju?
A: Setuju.”
(penekanan ditambah)
[14] Berdasarkan keterangan SP2 sewaktu Pemeriksaan Balas, SP2 tidak pasti
sama ada pintu bilik tertuduh berkunci atau pun sebaliknya. Berdasarkan keterangan
SP1, SP4 dan SP9 juga tiada sebarang keterangan yang dapat membuktikan
bahawa pintu bilik tertuduh berkunci sebelum SP2 dan pasukan masuk ke dalam bilik
tersebut untuk tujuan pemeriksaan. Keterangan-keterangan juga menunjukkan tiada
sebarang kawalan dibuat di kawasan tangga, lif, lobi, koridor aras 14 dan di kawasan
bilik pejabat tertuduh sepanjang masa sehingga SP2 dan pasukannya tiba untuk
membuat pemeriksaan. Dalam ketiadaan sebarang keterangan yang membuktikan
bahawa bilik tertuduh berkunci dan terdapat kawalan pihak polis ke atas tempat
kejadian maka telah wujud keraguan yang munasabah mengenai elemen kawalan
oleh tertuduh memandangkan terdapat kemungkinan bilik pejabat tersebut telah
dikacau ganggu atau tercemar sebelum SP2 dan pasukan tiba.
[15] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan juga tiada sebarang tindakan oleh
tertuduh atau sebarang keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan bahawa tertuduh
mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun yang dirampas oleh SP2.
Rantaian Keterangan Barang Kes
[17] Pada hemat mahkamah ini, memandangkan terdapat lompong yang besar
terhadap elemen kawalan sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 14 di atas,
sebenarnya rantaian keterangan barang kes bagi kes ini sebenarnya telah terputus
sejak peringkat awal lagi.
[17] Selain itu juga, dalam kes ini tiada penandaan spesifik telah dilakukan oleh
SP2. Pengiraan juga tidak dilakukan dengan sempurna memandangkan SP2 dalam
keterangannya mengatakan beliau telah buat kiraan secara rawak sahaja dan tiada
keterangan pengiraan barang kes secara menyeluruh. Keterangan mengenai
timbangan juga meragukan memandangkan SP2 sering mengubah keterangannya
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
yang mana tiada keterangan yang meyakinkan sama ada timbangan telah dibuat
serta masa dan tempat timbangan dibuat oleh SP2. Tanpa sebarang penandaan
yang sempurna oleh pegawai tangkapan dan rampasan iaitu B2 dan dengan
keterangan-keterangan yang tidak konsisten dan sering berubah-ubah oleh SP2,
telah wujud suatu keraguan mengenai butiran dan identiti barang kes bagi kes ini.
[18] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan ini, Mahkamah ini berpendapat rantaian
keterangan barang kes ini amat lemah sejak peringkat awal lagi yang mana terdapat
keraguan yang munasabah terhadap rantaian keterangan barang kes, butiran dan
identiti barang kes dalam kes ini.
Keterangan Saksi Pendakwaan
[19] Selepas mendengar dan meneliti keseluruhan keterangan saksi-saksi
pendakwaan, mahkamah ini mendapati saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah boleh
dipercayai dan keterangannya di terima pakai oleh mahkamah kecuali keterangan
SP2.
[20] Berdasarkan penelitian mahkamah, SP2 telah memberikan banyak
keterangan yang tidak konsisten dan bercanggah selain terlalu banyak soalan-soalan
yang dijawab dengan jawapan “tidak tahu” atau “tidak ingat”. Bagi kes ini, SP2 selaku
pegawai tangkapan dan pegawai rampasan adalah saksi utama untuk pendakwaan
membuktikan elemen-elemen pertuduhan. Malangnya, berikutan keterangan-
keterangan yang tidak konsisten, tidak meyakinkan dan meragukan dalam pelbagai
isu termasuklah isu-isu substantif seperti isu pengendalian barang kes, identiti dan
butiran barang kes serta rantaian keterangan barang kes maka adalah sukar untuk
mahkamah ini menerima pakai keterangan SP. Oleh itu, keterangan SP2 adalah
ditolak.
Isu (ii) - sama ada dadah atau racun tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya atau racun
seperti yang disenaraikan di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya dan juga Akta Racun
1952.
[21] Memandangkan elemen pertama telah tidak dipenuhi mahkamah ini tidak
berhasrat dan berpendapat tiada keperluan untuk membincangkan mengenai elemen
kedua bagi pertuduhan-pertuduhan.
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
KEPUTUSAN
[22] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan lisan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan
keterangan dalam bentuk dokumentasi yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah ini
sepanjang perbicaraan berlangsung, terdapat terlalu banyak lompong-lompong yang
material yang membuatkan kes ini tidak dapat dipertahankan oleh pihak
pendakwaan. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini telah melepaskan dan membebaskan tertuduh
daripada semua pertuduhan bagi kedua-dua kes. Wang jaminan dikembalikan.
Bertarikh pada 31 Julai 2023.
t.t.
(NUR FAIZAH BINTI ABDUL SANI)
Majistret
Mahkamah Majistret 3 Shah Alam
KAUNSEL –
Bagi pihak pendakwaan:
Puan Saidah Fasihah Binti Che Yussof
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Kamar Pendakwaan Negeri Selangor
Tingkat 4, Podium Utara Bangunan Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah
41000 Shah Alam, Selangor
Bagi pihak tertuduh:
Encik Fithril Hakim
Peguambela & Peguamcara
D/A Tetuan Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil
No. 33-2, The Core, Jalan Teknologi 3/6B,
Kota Damansara, 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
S/N Z5rel5fzrUiWadUE9NTHg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2023-12-14T11:06:50+0800
| 17,113 | Tika 2.6.0 |
N-01(NCvC)(W)-283-05/2021 | PERAYU BITARA ANGKASA SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) Cheok Lam Chuan 2. ) Charles Oh Hock Lian 3. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SEMBILAN 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI SEMBILAN | Land law – Fraud - Indefeasibility of Title under Section 340 of National Land Code (‘NLC’) – Determination on subsequent and immediate purchaser – Bona fide purchaser for value without notice under Section 340(3) of NLC – Whether the Land Office/Land Registry is negligence in the discharge of their statutory duties – Whether the Land Office/Land Registry can rely on the defence of good faith under Section 22 of NLC. | 14/11/2023 | YA Dato' Lim Chong FongKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahYA Dato' Lim Chong Fong | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8a28d23d-7b6e-48db-ba7f-39a5caa6a0e6&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - FINAL AP BITARA ANGKASA v CHEOK LAM CHUAN
1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA IN PUTRAJAYA
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF PUTRAJAYA
CIVIL APPEAL NO: N-01(NCVC)(W)-283-05/2021
BETWEEN
BITARA ANGKASA SDN BHD … APPELLANT
(COMPANY NO.: 1215323-P)
AND
1. CHEOK LAM CHUAN
(NRIC NO.: 540501-05-5403)
2. CHARLES OH HOCK LIAN
(NRIC NO.: 430117-08-5029)
3. PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SEMBILAN
4. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN
NEGERI SEMBILAN … RESPONDENTS
In the High Court of Malaya at Seremban
Civil Suit No.: NA-21NCVC-9-11/2018
Between
Cheok Lam Chuan …Plaintiff
(NRIC No.: 540501-05-5403)
14/11/2023 08:37:29
N-01(NCvC)(W)-283-05/2021 Kand. 66
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
And
1. Charles Oh Hock Lian
(NRIC No.: 430117-08-5029)
2. Leong Mei Hing, Richard
(NRIC No.: 560611-10-5967/
Practicing Certificate No.: BC/L/217)
3. Bitara Angkasa Sdn Bhd
(Company No.: 1215323-P)
4. Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Sembilan
5. Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian
Negeri Sembilan …Defendants
CORAM:
LEE SWEE SENG, JCA.
HASHIM BIN HAMZAH, JCA.
LIM CHONG FONG, JCA.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a land scam case appeal.
[2] For convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred
as follows:
I. Appellant: Bitara Angkasa;
II. First Respondent: LC Cheok;
III. Second Respondent: Charles Oh; and
IV. Third & Fourth Respondents collectively: Land Registry
BACKGROUND
[3] The land concerned is presently held under GRN 159181, Lot
14184, Pekat Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan (formerly
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
HS(D) 21645, PT 2730, Pekan Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri
Sembilan Lot no. 1493 and Folio no.45 (“Land”).
[4] Originally, the Land was part of a larger plot of land held under
Geran 17067, Lot 1493 which was then sub-divided into four pieces of
land held under separate titles on 31st December 1999.
[5] Pursuant to a declaration of trust made on 24th May 1982, the
original registered proprietor of the Land was in the name of LC Cheok
and Cheok Yit Tuck (who passed away on 2nd June 2009) as joint trustees.
The title to the Land was held originally by Cheok Yit Tuck who later
handed it to a solicitor, Seah Choon Chye for safekeeping.
[6] That notwithstanding, the ownership of the Land was on 15th
February 2001 transferred to solely LC Cheok in his personal capacity.
[7] By a sale and purchase agreement dated 11th May 2011 (“SPA”),
the Land was sold by LC Cheok to Charles Oh.
[8] On 18th May 2016, LC Cheok’s authorized representative, Cheok
Tuan Joo surrendered the old issue document of title of the Land to the
Port Dickson land office in exchange for the new computerised issue
document of title of the Land.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[9] Pursuant to the SPA, the Land was on 13th September 2016
transferred from LC Cheok to Charles Oh and registered accordingly.
[10] By another sale and purchase agreement dated 13th February 2017
(“2nd SPA”), the land was sold by Charles Oh to Bitara Angkasa.
[11] Pursuant to the 2nd SPA, the Land was on 26th September 2017
transferred from Charles Oh to Bitara Angkasa and registered
accordingly.
[12] Upon the discovery of the sale of the Land to Bitara Angkasa, LC
Cheok on 24th May 2018 lodged a private caveat on the Land.
[13] Additionally, the Land Registry also on 28th May 2018 lodged a
registrar’s caveat on the Land.
[14] Subsequently on 14th November 2018, LC Cheok commenced
Seremban High Court Suit no. NA-21NCVC-9-11/2018 (“Suit”) to seek
recovery of the Land. The reliefs sought in the Suit are as follows in the
statement of claim:
46. Oleh demikian, Plaintif menuntut terhadap Defendan-defendan
pengisytiharan-pengisytiharan perintah-perintah, arahan-arahan dan
relief-relief seperti berikut:
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
(a) Suatu pengisytiharan bahawa Plaintif adalah pemilik berdaftar
yang sah terhadap tanah yang dipegang di bawah Geran 159181,
Lot 14184, Pekan Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson Negeri Sembilan;
(b) Suatu pengisytiharan bahawa pindahmilikan Geran 159181, Lot
14184, Pekan Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan ke
atas nama Defendan ke-3 melalui No. Perserahan 23690/2017
pada 26 September 2017 adalah batal dan tidak sah;
(c) Suatu perintah bahawa pindahmilikan Geran 159181, Lot 14184,
Pekan Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan ke atas
nama Defendan ke-3 melalui No. Perserahan: 23690/2017
sebagai pemilik berdaftar dimansuhkan atau dibatalkan dengan
serta merta oleh Defendan ke-4 dan/atau Defendan ke-5, iaitu
Pendaftar Hakmilik, Negeri Sembilan, dan/atau Pengarah Tanah
dan Galian Negeri Sembilan;
(d) Bahawa Defendan ke-4 dan/atau Defendan ke-5 hendaklah
dengan serta-merta memberi kesan kepada pengisytiharan-
pengisytiharan dan perintah-perintah yang dikurniakan oleh
Mahkamah yang mulia ini menurut Seksyen 417 Kanun Tanah
Negara;
(e) Gantirugi untuk frod ditaksirkan di hadapan Timbalan Pendaftar
dan/atau Penolong Kanan Pendaftar dan dibayar oleh Defendan
Pertama dab/atau Defendan ke-2 dan/atau Defendan ke-3
kepada Plaintif;
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(f) Gantirugi teruk ditaksirkan di hadapan Timbalan Pendaftar
dan/atau Penolong Kanan Pendaftar dan dibayar oleh Defendan
Pertama dan/atau Defendan ke-2 dan/atau Defendan ke-3
kepada Plaintif;
(g) Secara alternatif, terhadap Defendan Pertama, Defendan ke-2
dan Defendan ke-3;-
Gantirugi am untuk konspirasi frod ditaksirkan di hadapan Timbalan
Pendaftar dan/atau Penolong Kanan Pendaftar;
(h) Secara alternative, bahawa Defendan ke-4 dan/atau Defendan
ke-5 menanggungrugi (indemnify) segala kerugian yang dialami
oleh Plaintif sehubungan hartanah yang dipegang bawah Geran
159181, Lot 14184, Pekan Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri
Sembilan;
(i) Faedah;
(j) Kos; dan
(k) Relif-relif lanjut atau lain sepertimana yang dianggap wajar dan
sesuai oleh Mahkamah yang mulia.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
IN THE HIGH COURT
[15] LC Cheok principally contended that the transfer of the Land to
Charles Oh by an imposter of LC Cheok was fraudulent and must hence
be set aside. Moreover, he contended that the subsequent transfer of the
Land to Bitara Angkasa was defeasible because Bitara Angkasa was not
a bona fide purchaser. In this regard, the imposter conspired with a
lawyer, Richard Leong Mei Hing and Charles Oh to defraud LC Cheok of
his title to the Land. Additionally, Charles Oh and Bitara Angkasa also
conspired with one another to defraud LC Cheok. Those notwithstanding,
the Land Registry was also negligent in permitting the issuance of the title
to the Land to the imposter.
[16] Charles Oh did not defend the Suit and judgment in default was
accordingly entered against him.
[17] Bitara Angkasa in defence contended that it was a bona fide
subsequent purchaser of the Land for valuable consideration. That
notwithstanding, Bitara Angkasa sought contribution and indemnity from
Charles Oh and the Land Registry in the event it was found liable to LC
Cheok.
[18] The Land Registry took the position that it was puzzled as to how
the impugned transfers and registrations occurred. Nonetheless, the Land
Registry sought immunity pursuant to s. 22 of the National Land Code
(“NLC”). Furthermore, the Land Registry contended that it is not liable in
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
any way to Bitara Angkasa because of contributory negligence and/or did
not suffer actual loss following the case of Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri
Selangor v. Caesius Development Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another
Appeal [2020] 3 CLJ 327 CA. In addition, Bitara Angkasa was a party or
privy to the fraud in the impugned transfer and registration; thus,
disentitled to immunity in any event following the case of Heveaplast
Marketing Sdn Bhd v. See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye & 3 Others
and other appeals [2016] MLJU 835.
[19] The learned High Court judge firstly found that the solicitor, Richard
Leong Mei Hing is innocent because he was not involved whatsoever in
the transfer of the Land. The Land was transferred by his imposter who
conspired with the imposter of LC Cheak to Charles Oh.
[20] Next and following the case of Kamarulzaman Omar v. Yakub
Husin [2014] 1 CLJ 987 FC, the learned High Court judge secondly found
that Charles Oh committed fraud as claimed by LC Cheok because he
failed to defend himself in the Suit. He held as follows:
“24. By the same token, the failure by Charles Oh in the present case to defend
the plaintiff’s contention of fraud against him meant that the allegation of fraud
against him was taken to have been proven.”
[21] In consequence, the learned High Court judge thirdly found that
Bitara Angkasa is an immediate purchaser that did not enjoy the
protection of s.340 (3) of the NLC following He-Con Sdn Bhd v. Bulyah
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
Ishak & Anor and Another Appeal [2020] 7 CLJ 271 FC. He held as
follows:
“29. Thus the short – but complete- answer was that, because Bitara Angkasa
had dealt directly with the rogue Charles Oh, the title that Bitara Angkasa
acquired was defeasible pursuant to section 340(2) of the National Land Code.
Whether or not it was a bona fide purchaser who had provided valuable
consideration did not change the conclusion that its title was defeasible.”
[22] That notwithstanding, the learned High Court judge fourthly further
found that the Bitara Angkasa was not a bona fide purchaser in that Bitara
Angkasa failed to demonstrate that it was not complicit in the fraud. He
held as follows:
“40. Upon carefully assessing the evidence in this case, I was of the view that
Bitara Angkasa had not successfully discharged its evidential burden to
establish that it was not complicit in the fraud. The following were the matters
that I had taken into account in coming to this finding of fact;
(a) Even though DW2 testified thet Mr Looh had invested RM1.1 million
into Bitara Angkasa, there was no independent corroboration of this fact.
No documentary evidence was adduced to prove this assertion, and Mr
Looh was not called to testify;
(b) Mr Looh had lodged a private caveat over the land on 13 November
2017. The information set out in the caveat lodgement form did not
accord with the position that his interest over the land was by way of
security only, but instead stated the fact that he had purchased the land
in question and had lodged the caveat in order to protect his interests
pending completion of his acquisition;
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(c) Furthermore, under cross-examination DW2 admitted to having
received RM77,000 as deposit from Mr Looh pursuant to the terms of
the sale and purchase agreement. This was at odds with his own
testimony that the sale and purchase agreement was only intended
as security for Mr Looh’s investment of RM1.1 million in Bitara
Angkasa. Why would there be a need for Mr Looh to pay the RM77,999
if the sale and purchase agreement was only intended to operate as
security for his investment?;
(d) If the story of Mr Looh purported investment in Bitara Angkasa was
untrue, then the fact that it had sought to sell the land so shortly after
having acquired it raised questions regarding the complicity of Bitara
Angkasa in the scheme to defraud the plaintiff;
(e) DW2 testified at trail:
“I as the Director of the 3rd Defendant had via the arrangement
made by Kelvin Keng visited the said land on or about end of
October 2016.”
This was patently untrue, because by his own testimony he had
only acquired Bitara Angkasa on 16 January 2017;
(f) DW2 testified that he had paid RM240,000 as deposit to Charles Oh
via his solicitors even before signing the sale and purchase agreement.
This was a highly unusual on two counts: first RM240,000 constituted
20% of the total purchase price and would have been out of the norm as
far as deposits were concerned. Secondly, it appeared that he was
willing to trust Charles Oh with the deposit payment even in the absence
of any written agreement when DW2 had himself acknowledge that he
had never met Charles Oh;
(g) The first recital to the 9 November 2019 sale and purchase
agreement (the third SPA) described the property to be sold as a “unit of
one and a half (1 ½) storey factory”, which was incorrect, as the property
was vacant land. It was difficult to imagine that parties to genuine
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
transaction would have let such a fundamental error slip into the
acquisition documentation, bearing in mind that the purchase price was
not an insignificant sum. Of course, had the sale been completed, then
it may have very well put the property out of reach for legal redress by
the plaintiff, unless he could positively establish the complicity of Bitara
Angkasa in the fraud. This may very well explain the haste in which
Bitara Angkasa sought to sell the land; and
(h) There were discrepancies in the manner in which the Form 14A had
been executed and attested that was never satisfactorily explained by
DW2 or by the solicitors acting for Bitara Angkasa.
Firstly, the seal of Bitara Angkasa was purported to have been
affixed on the Form 14A on 6 June 2017. There were two
signatures accompanying the seal: on of Lee Lun Teong (DW2)
and the other a signature of Soong Mei Ling. However, Soong
Mei Ling was not even a director of Bitara Angkasa at the material
time. At some point after the seal was affixed, a third signature
was added.
At trial, the solicitor who had attested to signature of Charles Oh,
Ms Normila Hussain (DW4), admitted that when she received the
Form 14A, it had already been executed by the parties, which
meant that she could not have attested to the fact that Charles
Oh had executed the document before her.”
[23] Fifthly, the learned High Court judge therefore found that since
Bitara Angkasa’s claim against LC Cheok and the Land Registry were
predicated on satisfying the court that it was not tainted with fraud; hence
Bitara Angkasa’s claim for contribution and indemnity against the land
Registry failed too.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
[24] As the result, the learned High Court judge on 30th April 2021
decided and ordered (“Decision”) as follows:
MAKA ADALAH DENGAN INI DIHAKIMI DAN DIPERINTAHKAN BAHAWA
(a) Diisytiharkan bahawa Plantif ialah pemilik berdaftar yang sah terhadap
hartanah yang dipegang bawah Geran 159181, Lot 14184, Pekan Lukut,
Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan;
(b) Diisytiharkan bahawa pindahmilik hartanah bawah Geran 159181, Lot
14184, Pekan Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan ke atas nama
Bitara Angkawa Sdn Bhd iaitu Defendan Ke-3 melalui Nombor Perserahan:
23690/2017 pada 26 September 2017 adalah batal dan tidak sah;
(c) Diperintahkan dan diarahkan bahawa pindahmilikan Geran 159181, Lot
14184, Pekan Lukut, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan ke atas Defendan
Ke-3 melalui Nombor Perserahan: 23690/2017 sebagai pemilik berdaftar
hendaklah dimusnahkan atau dibatalkan dengan serta merta oleh Defendan
Ke-4 dan/atau Defendan Ke-5, iaitu Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Sembilan
dan/atau Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Sembilan;
(d) Bahawa Defendan Ke-4 dan/atau Ke-5 hendaklah dengan serta merta
memberi kesan kepada pengisytiharan-pengisytiharan dan perintah-perintah
yang tersebut di atas bawah seksyen 417 Kanun Tanah Negara;
(e) Gantirugi untuk frod, gantirugi teruk dan gantirugi am terhadap
Defendan Pertama hendaklah ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah di hadapan hakim;
(f) Faedah untuk pre judgment adalah kadar 5% setahun dari 15 Februari
2001 sehingga tarikh penghakiman;
(g) Faedah untuk post judgment adalah kadar 5% setahun dari 1 Mei 2001
sehingga penyelesaian penuh;
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
(h) Tuntutan terhadap Defendan Kedua, Keempat dan Kelima adalah
ditolak;
(i) Plaintif hendaklah membayar kos sebanyak RM50,000 kepada
Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Pertama hendaklah menanggungrugi
(indemnify) kos tersebut;
(j) Defendan Pertama hendaklah membayar sebanyak RM50,000 kepada
Plaintif;
(k) Defendan Ketiga hendaklah membayar sebanyak RM50,000 kepada
Plaintif;
(l) Tiada perintah terhadap kos terhadap Defendan Keempat dan Defendan
Kelima
DAN SETELAH JUGA DIHAKIMI BAHAWA tuntutan Defendan Ketiga
terhadap Defendan Pertama, Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima untuk
suatu sumbangan dan indemniti adalah ditolak.
[25] Bitara Angkasa was dissatisfied with the decision and order of the
High Court and lodged its appeal on 17th May 2021.
FINDINGS OF THIS COURT
[26] This is an after-trial appeal; hence our function is merely review
based on the record. We are guided by dicta of Steve Shim (CJ (Sabah &
Sarawak)) in Gan Yook Chin & Anor and Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4
CLJ 309 FC on appellate intervention:
“The Court of Appeal had clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate
intervention ie, to determine whether or not the trial court had arrived at its
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
decision or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the
established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly entitled to
examine the process of the evaluation of the evidence by the trial court. Clearly,
the phrase "insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence" merely related to such
a process.”
See also Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors [2020] 6
MLRA 193.
[27] Simply put, we have to be satisfied that the learned High Court judge
has been plainly wrong in the making of the Decision; otherwise the
Decision stands.
[28] All the parties except Charles Oh were before us. Bitara Angkasa
has advanced 16 grounds of appeal in its memorandum of appeal of which
we have, for convenience, summarized into 3 broad categories and are
accordingly dealt seriatim.
(1) Is Bitara Angkasa an immediate or a subsequent purchaser?
[29] The learned High Court judge found that Bitara Angkasa is an
immediate purchaser of the Land by reason that Charles Oh has been
involved in the fraud as claimed by LC Cheok because judgment in default
has been entered against him; see paragraph [21] above.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[30] According to Bitara Angkasa, it is instead a subsequent purchaser
of the Land and thus entitled to rely on s. 340(1) and (3) NLC. In other
words, Bitara Angkasa enjoyed deferred indefeasibility of title to the Land.
[31] It is therefore apt to reproduce the governing statutory provision
codified in s. 340 NLC which reads:
(1) The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as
proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, charge or easement is for
the time being registered, shall, subject to the following provisions of this
section, be indefeasible.
(2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible—
(a) in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or
body, or any agent of the person or body, was a party or privy; or
(b) where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an
insufficient or void instrument; or
(c) where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or
body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by
any written law.
(3) Where the title or interest of any person or body is defeasible by reason of
any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2)—
(a) it shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body to
whom it may subsequently be transferred; and
(b) any interest subsequently granted thereout shall be liable to be set
aside in the hands of any person or body in whom it is for the time being
vested:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect any title or interest acquired
by any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, or by any person
or body claiming through or under such a purchaser.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or prevent—
(a) the exercise in respect of any land or interest of any power of
forfeiture or sale conferred by this Act or any other written law for the
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
time being in force, or any power of avoidance conferred by any such
law; or
(b) the determination of any title or interest by operation of law.
[32] The interpretation of s. 340 NLC on indefeasibility of title vis a vis an
immediate purchaser and subsequent purchaser is a question of law
which has been conclusively settled in Tan Yin Hong v. Tan Sian San &
Ors [2010] 2 CLJ 269 FC (overruling Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v.
Boonsom Boonyanit [2001] 2 CLJ 133 FC) where Arifin Zakaria CJ
(Malaya) (later CJ) held as follows with emphasis added by us:
“[42] At this juncture it may be appropriate for us to consider what was in fact the
decision in Adorna Properties and the underlying reasons for the decision. In that case
two questions were posed to the Federal Court arising from the decision of the Court
of Appeal in Boonsoom Boonyanit v. Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd [1997] 3 CLJ 17.
What concern us is the second question which reads: "Whether the appellant, a bona
fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, acquired an indefeasible title
to the land by virtue of s. 340(3) of the NLC." The court answered the question in the
positive.
[43] The reasons underlying this decision appeared in the judgment of the court
rendered by the Eusoff Chin CJ. He said that the court is not to look at what is the
Torrens system as practised in other jurisdictions but to interpret s. 340 as it stands,
"... and to find the real intention of Parliament when enacting it... and the intention of
Parliament must be deduced from the language used."
[44] We agree with the court that the issue before the court, and likewise before
us, is one of proper interpretation to be accorded to s. 340(1), (2) and (3) of NLC.
The court then went on to say that s. 340(1) of the NLC confers an immediate
indefeasible title or interest in land upon registration, subject to the exceptions
set out in s. 340(2) and (3). Thus far, we think the court was right. The difficulties
arose in the interpretation of sub-s.(2) and sub-s. (3). This is what it said at p. 342:
Subsection (2) states that the title of any such person, ie any registered
proprietor or co-proprietor for the time being is defeasible if one of the three
circumstances in sub-s. (2)(a), (b) or (c) occurs. We are concerned here with
sub-s. (2)(b) where the registration had been obtained by forgery.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Subsection (3) says that where that title is defeasible under any of the three
circumstances enumerated under sub-s. (2), the title of the registered
proprietor to whom the land was subsequently transferred under the forged
document, is liable to be set aside. Similarly, sub-s. (3)(b) says, any interest
under any lease, charge or easement subsequently "granted thereout", ie, out
of the forged document may be set aside.
At p 343 it said:
The proviso to sub-s. (3) of s. 340 of the NLC deals with only one class or
category of registered proprietors for the time being. It excludes from the main
provision of sub-s. (3) this category of registered proprietors so that these
proprietors are not caught by the main provision of this subsection. Who are
those proprietors? The proviso says that any purchaser in good faith and for
valuable consideration or any person or body claiming through or under him
are excluded from the application of the substantive provision of sub-s.(3). For
this category of registered proprietors, they obtained immediate indefeasibility
notwithstanding that they acquired their titles under a forged document.
[45] In that case, it was stated that the court was concerned with sub-s. (2)(b) where
the registration had been obtained by forgery. This is correct because the appellant
obtained its title through or under a forged instrument of transfer. That was the finding
of the Court of Appeal and affirmed by the Federal Court.
[46] The Court of Appeal took the view that "s. 340 of the code makes defeasible
the title of a registered proprietor tainted by one or more of the vitiating elements
set out in its second subsection but creates an exception in favour of a bona
fide purchaser who takes his title from such a registered proprietor." By this
bifurcation, the Court of Appeal concluded that Parliament had intended to
confer deferred and not immediate indefeasibility. The Court of Appeal stated with
approval the view of Dr. Visu Sinnadurai in his book entitled "Sale and Purchase of
Real Property in Malaysia" which reads:
In Malaysia, it is submitted that under s. 340 of the National Land Code,
deferred indefeasibility applies. The registered proprietor who had acquired his
title by registration of a void or voidable instrument does not acquire an
indefeasible title under s. 340(2)(b). The indefeasibility is postponed until the
time when a subsequent purchaser acquires the title in good faith and for
valuable consideration. In other words, a registered proprietor, the vendor,
under a sale and purchase agreement, even though he himself does not
possess an indefeasible title, may give an indefeasible title to a bona
fide purchaser.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
[47] What the Federal Court differed from the Court of Appeal was on the effect
to be given to sub-s.(3).
[48] Having said that the appellant in Adorna Properties had acquired its title to
the land through or under a forged instrument and it therefore came under the
category of title in sub-s. (2)(b), the court then went on to hold that such a title
is insulated from impeachment by the proviso to sub-s. (3).
[49] The question is, does the proviso following immediately after sub-s. (3),
apply to the other provisions of s. 340, in particular to sub-s. 2(b). This can only
be deduced from the proviso itself. NS Bindra's, Interpretation of Statutes, 9th edn,
at p. 110 states that: "A proviso is something engrafted on a preceding enactment. The
proviso follows the enacting part of a section and is in a way independent of it.
Normally, it does not enlarge the section, and in most cases, it cuts down or makes an
exception from the ambit of the main provision." A proviso to a subsection would not
apply to another subsection (M/s Gajo Ram v. State of Bihar AIR [1956] Pat 113). A
proviso carves out an exception to the provision immediately preceding the proviso
and to no other (Ram Narain Sons Ltd v. Ass Commr of Sales - tax AIR [1955] SC
765).
[50] As we see it, sub-s. (3) merely provides that any title or interest of any person
or body which is defeasible by reason of any the circumstances specified in sub-
s.(2) shall continue to be liable to be set aside in the hands of subsequent holder
of such title or interest. This subsection, however, is subject to the proviso
which reads:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect any title or interest
acquired by any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration,
or by any person or body claiming through or under such a purchaser.
[51] We are of the view that the proviso is directed towards the provision of sub-
s.(3) alone and not to the earlier subsection. This in our view is supported by the
use of the words "in this subsection" in the proviso. Therefore, its application
could not be projected into the sphere or ambit of any other provisions of s. 340.
[52] Furthermore, eventhough sub-s. (3)(a) and (b) refer to the circumstances
specified in sub-s. (2) they are restricted to sub-sequent transfer or to interest
in the land subsequently granted thereout. So it could not apply to the immediate
transferee of any title or interest in any land. Therefore, a person or body in the
position of Adorna Properties could not take advantage of the proviso to the sub-s. (3)
to avoid its title or interest from being impeached. It is our view that the proviso which
expressly stated to be applicable solely to sub-s.(3) ought not to be extended as was
done by the Court in Adorna Properties, to apply to sub-s. (2)(b). By so doing the court
had clearly gone against the clear intention of Parliament. This error needs to be
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
remedied forthwith in the interest of all registered proprietors. It is, therefore, highly
regrettable that it had taken some time, before this contentious issue is put to rest.
[53] For the above reasons, with respect, we hold that the Federal Court
in Adorna Properties had misconstrued s. 340(1), (2) and (3) of the NLC and
came to the erroneous conclusion that the proviso appearing in sub-s. (3)
equally applies to sub-s. (2). By so doing the Federal Court gave recognition to
the concept of immediate indefeasibility under the NLC which we think is
contrary to the provision of s. 340 of the NLC.”
[33] We are however mindful that the learned High Court judge found
Bitara Angkasa an immediate purchaser of the Land based on the
following dicta of Abang Iskandar FCJ (now PCA) in He-Con Sdn Bhd v.
Bulyah Ishak & Anor and Another Appeal (supra) with emphasis added
by us:
“[102] The immediacy of the purchase relates to the vitiating vendor, not
how far removed it is in the tally among the purchasers. To be a
subsequent purchaser, it must have purchased the interest in the
property that is being used as a security from a purchaser who is one that
is bona fide for value. Any direct dealing with a rogue will necessarily
vitiate the transaction rendering it defeasible, although it is duly
registered.
[103] Learned Justice Jeffrey Tan FCJ in the case of CIMB Bank Bhd v.
AmBank (M) & Ors [2017] 9 CLJ 145 at 183; [2017] 5 MLJ 142 at 179 ("CIMB
Bank case") had occasion to cite the case of Wright v. Lawrence (2007) 278
DLR (4th) 698 as supporting, if not propounding, that legal proposition. We
reproduce below, his answer, in his dissenting judgment to the question posed
before the apex court, like so:
[90] I would answer the leave question as follows: a chargee is a purchaser
within the meaning of the proviso. But the interest of a charge is defeasible, if
the chargee were not a subsequent purchaser in good faith and for valuable
consideration. Whether a purchaser is an immediate or subsequent purchaser
is not determined by a tally of the number of transactions. Transactions could
be contrived by fraudsters and accomplices (see Deferred and Immediate
Indefeasibility: Bijural Ambiguity in Registered Land Title Systems by Pamela
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
O'Connor, Edin LR Vol 13 pp 194-223). A purchaser is a subsequent purchaser
only if his title or interest were derived from an immediate purchaser (his
vendor) in good faith and for valuable consideration. For the title or interest of
the subsequent purchaser to be indefeasible, both immediate and subsequent
purchasers must be purchasers in good faith and for valuable
consideration (see Wright v. Lawrence (2007) 278 DLR (4th) 698 at para [39]
per Gillese JA, delivering the judgment of the court).”
[34] It must nonetheless be noted the case of He-Con Sdn Bhd v.
Bulyah Ishak & Anor and Another Appeal (supra) was decided relying
on the dissenting judgment of Jeffery Tan FCJ in CIMB Bank Bhd v.
AmBank (M) & Ors [2017] 9 CLJ 145 FC. In the majority judgment, Md
Raus Sharif CJ held as follows with emphasis added by us:
“[31] This concept of indefeasibility was further explained by this court in the
case of Kamarulzaman Omar & Ors v. Yakub Husin & Ors [2014] 1 CLJ 987;
[2014] 2 MLRA 432; [2014] 2 MLJ 768 where Jeffrey Tan FCJ said:
[41] Before we adjourn, we would summarise the foregoing and pass on
the following, as a guide to the trial courts. Whenever a registered title
or interest is sought to be set aside under s. 340, first ascertain whether
the title or interest under challenge is registered in the name of an
immediate purchaser or a subsequent purchaser. If the title or interest is
registered in the name of an immediate purchaser, the bona fide of the
immediate purchaser will not offer a shield of indefeasibility. The title or
interest of an immediate purchaser is still liable to be set aside if any of
the vitiating elements as set out in s. 340(2) had been made out. If the
title or interest is registered in the name of a subsequent purchaser, then
the vitiating elements in s. 340(2) would not affect the title or interest of
a bona fide subsequent purchaser. The title or interest of a subsequent
purchaser is only liable to be set aside if the subsequent purchaser is
not a bona fide subsequent purchaser. The title or interest acquired by
a subsequent purchaser in good faith for a valuable consideration, or by
any person or body claiming through or under such a subsequent
purchaser, is indefeasible.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
[32] This was exactly what the courts below did in the present case. But they
came to different conclusions. The High Court found AmBank as an immediate
purchaser while the Court of Appeal found AmBank as the subsequent
purchaser. Basically, the Court of Appeal agreed with learned counsel from
AmBank that the trial judge in deciding that AmBank was an immediate
purchaser had failed to appreciate the following:
(a) AmBank had derived interest as chargee of the property from Wong
and not CIMB;
(b) CIMB's charge was discharged before Wong was registered as the
proprietor of the property; and
(c) the financing of the property involved a two-stage transaction.
[33] Thereafter, the Court of Appeal went on to hold:
[26] We found merits in the aforesaid contention and our reasons were
these. As pointed out by learned counsel, the sequence of presentation
of the dealing on 25 November 2009 was as follows:
(a) The lodgment of the Discharge of CIMB's Charge via Form
16N;
(b) Then the lodgment of the memorandum of transfer from
Chings to Wong; and
(c) Finally the lodgment and registration of AmBank's Charge.
[27] Though the above dealings were on the same day and were
done simultaneously, it cannot be disputed nor can we ignore the
fact that the lodgment of the AmBank's Charge could not have been
created until the first two steps had been executed. That being the
case, the only way AmBank obtained their interest was from Wong
and not CIMB. CIMB's interest in the property had been
extinguished by the forged discharge resulting in Wong becoming
the immediate purchaser. AmBank then derived their interest in the
property from the charge executed by Wong. Under such
circumstances, there cannot be any relationship between CIMB and
AmBank, and hence the learned Judge, with respect, erred when he
said "it is clear that the relationship between the Plaintiff (CIMB)
and the 1st Defendant (AmBank) was that of an immediate
purchaser and not a subsequent purchaser...". When AmBank
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
became the chargee from Wong's memorandum of charge,
AmBank became the subsequent purchaser.
[28] Further, we said that the fact that Wong's interest being an
immediate purchaser was defeasible by CIMB did not, in our view,
affect the indefeasibility of AmBank's interest. Our view is
supported by the two decisions of the Apex Court,
namely Kamarulzaman Omar & Ors v. Yakub Husin & Ors [2014] 1 CLJ
987; [2014] 2 MLRA 432; [2014] 2 MLJ 768 and Tan Ying Hong v. Tan
Sian San & Ors [2010] 2 CLJ 269; [2010] 1 MLRA 1; [2010] 2 MLJ 1.
[34] We are in total agreement with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal.
AmBank must be a subsequent purchaser. As discussed earlier, AmBank,
being a chargee was a holder of subsequent interest in the property and
thus, was protected by the proviso of s. 340(3) of the NLC.”
[35] As always, every case is fact sensitive including on applying the law
to them.
[36] In Tan Yin Hong v. Tan Sian San & Ors (supra), Zaki Tun Azmi
CJ illustrated on how s. 340 NLC would apply to the facts of each case as
follows with emphasis added by us:
“[4] I would like to look at s. 340 of the NLC in a more simplified manner.
[5] Let us refer to the first owner of a piece of land as "A" who then
transfers the same piece of land to "B" and which subsequently is
transferred to "C".
[6] As far as s. 340(1) of the NLC is concerned, A's title to the land is totally
indefeasible. In short if A's name appears on the registration, no one can
come and claim for that title. The law will not entertain it at all.
[7] Now comes the next person, B, whose name appears in the register. If
it can be shown that the title or interests obtained by B was obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation by him or anyone else to which he was a party
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
or privy then his claim to the title or interest can be defeated. (See s.
340(2)(a) of the NLC ). Otherwise B stands in the same position as A.
[8] The situation where it is proved that the registration in B's name was
obtained by forgery or by means of an insufficient or void instrument is
the same (See s. 340(2)(b) of the NLC ). His title or interest to the land is
liable to be set aside by the previous owner who has a good title. In this
latter instance, there is no need to show that B was a party or privy to that
forgery or to obtaining the title or interest by a void instrument.
[9] The third instance where B's title or interest could be defeated is where
it was unlawfully acquired through the exercise of any power or authority
conferred by any law. Section 340(2)(c) of the NLC deals with one who
was for example acting in his capacity as an agent to a power of attorney.
Even if C is in the same position as B, sub-section (3) also does not give
protection to C unless he can show that he had acquired the title or
interest in good faith and for valuable consideration. Any title or interest
gained by any person thereafter is also liable to be set aside unless it could be
shown that he had acquired it in good faith and for valuable consideration. This
is what is called deferred indefeasibility of title. If his title or interest is challenged
on similar grounds, the burden of proving there was valuable consideration and
good faith lies on him.
[10] As far as I am concerned, that is the simplest way of looking at s. 340 of
the NLC. I totally agree with the learned Chief Judge of Malaya's view that the
error committed by the Federal Court in Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. v.
Boonsom Boonyanit was to read the proviso to sub-section (3) as being a
proviso to sub-section (2) as well. The error is very obvious because the proviso
expressly refers to "this sub-section" which must in the context of that sub-
section be read as proviso to sub-section (3) only.”
[37] Adopting the simplified manner of analysis of Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, we
find that both the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Boonsom Boonyanit
(supra) case and Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian San & Ors (supra) case
involved forgery by A. The transferred title of B was not set aside in
Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Boonsom Boonyanit (supra) case but
the registered charge was set aside in the Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian
San & Ors (supra) case because B was held to be an immediate chargee
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
that could not resort to the proviso in s. 340(3) NLC. In respect of the
CIMB Bank Berhad v. Ambank (M) & Ors (supra) case, it also involved
forgery by A to discharge the charge and transfer of the title to B. C, the
eventual chargee of the charge created by B was held to be a subsequent
chargee. As to the He-Con Sdn Bhd v. Bulyah Ishak & Anor and
Another Appeal (supra), it is a case of competing interests in the land by
reason of double dealings rather than strictly linear dealings between A
and B and thereafter B and C that involved vitiating factors such as forgery
or fraud.
[38] Since the He-Con Sdn Bhd v. Bulyah Ishak & Anor and Another
Appeal (supra) case is strictly not a case that directly concerned s. 340
NLC, the dicta of Abang Iskandar FCJ (now PCA) as reproduced in
paragraph [33] above must necessarily be obiter dicta only.
[39] The relevant fact scenario here involved forgery by A but also with
B in fraudulent cahoots (established by reason of the default judgment)
and thereafter transferred to C.
[40] In this regard, it was held by Azahar Mohamed FCJ (later CJ
(Malaya)) in Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa
Chettiar & Other Appeals [2019] 3 CLJ 441 FC as follows on similar
facts with emphasis added by us:
“[128] As a subsequent purchaser, the first defendant had purchased the
land in good faith and for valuable consideration. The High Court found
that the first defendant had at all material times neither knowledge nor
notice of the commission of the fraud by the second defendant in cahoots
with the fraudster that resulted in the transfer of the land to the second
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
defendant. In respect of the sale of the land by the second defendant to the
first defendant, the first defendant appointed its solicitors T.S. Teoh & Partners.
Both the first defendant and its solicitors conducted land searches on the land
before the entry of the sale and purchase agreement between the first
defendant and the second defendant. The searches done on 13 July 2006 and
21 July 2006 revealed that the title was clean and free from caveats including
the private caveat lodged by the plaintiff's son on 1 March 2001.
[129] Applying the well established principle to the present case, it is our
considered opinion that the first defendant who conducted searches on
the register and purchased the land in good faith and for valuable
consideration, had, upon registration as the proprietor on the register
document of title, acquired an indefeasible title, notwithstanding that the
second defendant's title itself is defeasible. Hence, subsequent transfer
of the land to the first defendant and the registration thereof in the name
of the first defendant was indefeasible by reason that the first defendant
was the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.”
[41] By analogy, we therefore hold that Bitara Angkasa is a subsequent
purchaser that acquired deferred indefeasibility to the title of the Land
notwithstanding that Charles Oh had committed fraud in cahoots with LC
Cheok’s imposter.
[42] We are further mindful that the fraud by Charles Oh here is only
presumed based on the default judgment obtained by LC Cheok following
the case of Kamarulzaman Omar & Ors v. Yakub Husin & Ors (supra)
unlike in Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa
Chettiar & Other Appeals (supra) where it was affirmatively proved; see
Rajamani a/p Meyappa Chettiar v. Eng Beng Development Sdn Bhd
& 6 Ors [2015] 2 AMR 767.
[43] In the premises, we therefore find that the learned High Court judge
has plainly erred in law that justified our appellate intervention.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
(2) Is Bitara Angkasa a bona fide purchaser for valuable
consideration?
[44] As the matter of law, a subsequent purchaser will only have an
indefeasible title if that person is a bona fide purchaser for valuable
consideration pursuant to the proviso in s. 340(3) NLC.
[45] In this respect, Richard Malanjum JCA (later CJ) had in State Tailor
Sdn Bhd v. Nallapan [2005] 2 MLJ 589 CA defined ‘bona
fide’ purchaser as follows with emphasis added by us:
"The term 'bona fide’ purchase' had been used in a host of cases. Simply put
it means a buyer in good faith. And the basic element of good faith is the
absence of fraud, deceit or dishonesty and the knowledge or means of
knowledge of such at the time of entry of the transaction. But the
overriding consideration is the 'Particular circumstance of each case'..."
[46] Moreover in Au Meng Nam v. Ung Yak Chew & 3 Ors [2007] 4
CLJ 526 CA, Raus Shariff JCA (later CJ) held as follows with emphasis
added by us:
"Had the learned trial judge taken the above facts and circumstances into
consideration, he cannot possibly conclude that the 1st defendant was a bona
fide purchaser for valuable consideration, so as to be protected under s. 340(3)
of the Code. To me, the 1st defendant had acted hastily. He concluded the sale
without any proper investigation into the title or the persons claiming to be
proprietors. No doubt he had every right to take advantage of the low price that
was offered to him but he took the risk. When he embarked into such risk, it
cannot be at the expense of the plaintiffs. This is because while he had a choice,
the plaintiffs had none. In fact, the plaintiffs were helpless. The plaintiffs could
not do anything to prevent the fraud. Even locking the title in a safe would not
had help the plaintiffs. In such circumstances the court must not favour the
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
1st defendant, over the plaintiffs. To do so, would be doing injustice to the
plaintiffs.
Further, had the evidence adduced in this case been properly considered and
assessed by the learned trial judge, a reasonable inference would be that the
1st defendant knew at the time he bought the said land, the purchase price was
below the market value. But he wanted to take advantage of the low price. He
did a fast track to complete the purchase. In doing so he disregarded his
obligations to investigate the alleged proprietors and the genuineness of the
documents. My respectful view is that a purchaser in good faith does not include
a purchaser who is careless or who had been negligent. In Oliver v. Hinton
[1899] Chancery Division 264 Lindley MR said:
To allow a purchaser who acts with such gross carelessness to
deprive a prior innocent mortgagee of her priority would be the
greatest injustice.
So too here. The 1st defendant is under the obligation to investigate
properly all matters relating to the sale of the said land and not to
just blindly accept what was claimed by the 'vendors' as correct
and genuine. When he failed to take the ordinary precautions which
ought to be taken in such a matter he is not entitled to the
protection of the court.”
[47] On the facts before us, we are satisfied that Bitara Angkasa after
having seen the Land introduced by a property agent was interested to
purchase the same for property development and accordingly in late 2016
instructed its solicitors, Messrs Kelvin Phang & Associates to carry out the
necessary searches on the Land. The search results on the title of the
Land reveal that the original registered proprietors of the Land LC Cheok
and Cheok Yit Tuck as co-trustees transferred it to LC Cheok who then
transferred it to Charles Oh. There were Khong Jin Teong and Tan Poo
Chuan who lodged private caveats on the Land on 19 September 2016.
However, the property agent informed Bitara Angkasa that the private
caveators were no longer interested in the Land. Thus, the private caveats
were removed in January 2017.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
[48] Subsequently, Bitara Angkasa bought the Land from Charles Oh at
the price of RM1,200,000.00 and the transaction was handled by their
respective solicitors viz. Messrs Kelvin Phang & Associates and Messrs.
Zahir Razak & Co. A proper sale and purchase agreement, to wit the 2nd
SPA was drawn up.
[49] The purchase price was fully paid, albeit late, but Bitara Angkasa
also paid late payment interest amounting to RM46,525.38 to Charles Oh.
This was because Bitara Angkasa initially applied for a loan from the
financial institutions and secured an indicative offer from Pac Lease but
that offer was withdrawn when it was discovered that an additional sum of
RM800,000.00 is required for earthworks due to the presence of a pond
at the Land. As the result, Bitara Angkasa had to seek Looh Chai Boon to
invest in the proposed housing development on the Land. And this was
done via an unorthodox complicated sale and purchase/security
arrangement. Looh Chai Boon who paid RM1,100,000.00 also lodged a
private caveat to protect its interest in the Land.
[50] Since the purchase price of the Land has been fully paid by Bitara
Angkasa which normally is the dominant consideration as well as there
were proper searches done on the Land followed by proper conveyancing
documentation by Bitara Angkasa’s solicitors, we are satisfied and find
that Bitara Angkasa is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of
the Land.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
[51] We are aware the learned High Court judge doubted the bona fides
of Bitara Angkasa mainly because of the unsatisfactory unorthodox
complicated financing arrangement done with Looh Chai Boon as
particularized in paragraph [22] above. He also questioned the slipshod
manner the conveyancing solicitor dealt with the signatory and attestation
on the form 14A transfer of the Land between Charles Oh and Bitara
Angkasa.
[52] Although the manner the conveyancing transaction and financing
arrangements that were done in relation to the purchase of the land by
Bitara Angkasa from Charles Oh are arguably non-perfect and which
subsequently did not materialise, we are however not convinced that there
were mala fides involved. It is material that Bitara Angkasa paid the
purchase price of the land but how the financing of the purchase had been
procured to enable making that payment is not material, if not also
irrelevant in our view. Additionally, we find that Bitara Angkasa had
reasonably taken the ordinary land conveyancing precautions carried out
by solicitors. It was also not done in extraordinary haste unlike that in Tirai
Kristal Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan
Kuala Lumpur [2018] 4 MLJ 361. Hence, we find that learned High Court
judge erred in fact and law when he found that Bitara Angkasa is not a
bona fide purchaser of the Land in the circumstances and that warrants
appellate intervention too.
[53] Consequently by reason of our findings in paragraphs [44] and [52]
above, Bitara Angkasa’s appeal must be allowed and the title to the Land
be re-vested to Bitara Angkasa.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
[54] For completeness and albeit it was neither pleaded in the High Court
pleadings nor raised as a cross or separate appeal here, we will briefly
deal with LC Cheok’s contention that the transfer of the land by the
imposter of LC Cheok was null and void because there was no record in
the Land Registry of the transfer of the Land from LC Cheok and Cheok
Yit Tuck as joint trustees to Cheok Yit Tuck solely. In this regard, it is again
gainful to refer to Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani
Meyappa Chettiar & Other Appeals (supra) where Azahar Mohamed
FCJ (later CJ (Malaya)) held as follows:
“[111] In our opinion, as correctly stated by the High Court in the present case,
the land title would be void ab initio, if and only if, the land registry had, in blatant
breach of its duty under the NLC wrongfully registered any land in the register
document of title and issued the replacement issue document of title in the
name of a third party.”
[55] We are however of the view that there is no cogent evidence
adduced by LC Cheok to demonstrate that the Land Registry had blatantly
in breach wrongly registered and issued a replacement title of the Land to
a third party. Although the Land Registry could not produce the material
records to exactly explain the occurrence, we noted from the land search
results that it was in fact only a title transfer between co-owners as
trustees to one of them only rather than the issuance of a replacement
title to a third party altogether. This did not therefore fit into the strict limited
category that rendered the registered title null and void in law.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
(3) Claim against the Land Registry?
[56] By virtue of the finding in paragraph [52] above, it is unnecessary
for us to deal with Bitara Angkasa’s claim for contribution or indemnity
against the Land Registry by reason that Bitara Angkasa suffered no
actual loss.
[57] Nonetheless, we are mindful that the actual loss befalls on the
original registered proprietor of the Land, LC Cheok as trustee (so
conceded before us albeit not pleaded as such).
[58] Although LC Cheok has not appealed against the Land Registry
(understandably because LC Cheok won in the High Court), we are
mindful that in the event Bitara Angkasa succeeds in its appeal, the
recourse now available to LC Cheok may be found in s. 69(5) of the Courts
of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA”) which provides as follows:
69. Hearing of appeals
(1) Appeals to the Court of Appeal shall be by way of re-hearing, and in relation
to such appeals the Court of Appeal shall have all powers and duties, as to
amendment or otherwise, of the High Court, together with full discretionary
power to receive further evidence by oral examination in court or through a
remote communication technology, by affidavit, or by deposition taken before
an examiner or commissioner
.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
(2) The further evidence may be given without leave on interlocutory
applications, or in any case as to matters which have occurred after the date of
the decision from which the appeal is brought.
(3) Upon appeals from a judgment, after trial or hearing of any cause or matter
upon the merits, the further evidence, save as to matters subsequent as
aforesaid, shall be admitted on special grounds only, and not without leave of
the Court of Appeal.
(4) The Court of Appeal may draw inferences of fact, and give any judgment,
and make any order which ought to have been given or made, and make such
further or other orders as the case requires.
(5) The powers aforesaid may be exercised notwithstanding that the notice of
appeal relates only to part of the decision, and the powers may also be
exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although the
respondents or parties have not appealed from or complained of the decision.
[59] In this respect and since LC Cheok has made a claim against the
Land Registry in the High Court, we find that s. 69(5) CJA may properly
be invoked if LC Cheok has a meritorious cause of action against the Land
Registry.
[60] There is of course s. 22 NLC available to the Land Registry in
defence which provides as follows:
22. Protection of officers
No officer appointed under this Part shall be liable to be sued in any civil court
for any act or matter done, or ordered to be done or omitted to be done, by him
in good faith and in the intended exercise of any power, or performance of any
duty, conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
[61] Although, the statutory provision on its literal interpretation applies
to officers of the Land Registry only, we are nonetheless of the view that
by its purposive interpretation will also apply to the Land Registry.
[62] In Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor & Ors v. Shafulizam
Mohd Saleh & Anor and Another Appeal [2020] 5 CLJ 595 CA, Zaleha
Yusof JCA (later FCJ) held as follows with emphasis added by us:
“[35] According to the evidence of the 12th and 13th defendants, the issue
document of final title could only be given to the plaintiff upon production and
surrender of his old issue document of qualified title. It was also the evidence
of the 12th defendant that when a landowner comes to the land office to collect
his new issue document of title, he must at the very least bring his old issue
document of title and identity card. Without proof of his identity and evidence
that he has his old issue document of final title, he will not be given his new
issue document of title. If a new issue document of title is not collected,
according to the 12th defendant and another witness SD12, it should be kept in
the Pejabat Tanah Petaling's safe room. As explained by the witnesses for the
third to 13th defendants themselves, the procedure for safeguarding an
uncollected issue document of title if followed strictly would have made it
impossible for anyone but the true owner of the land named in the issue
document of title to collect that title.
…
[37] Next is the issue of the transfer of the title of the said property to the first
defendant. The question raised is how did the final title of the said property fall
into the hands of the first defendant? Section 90 of the NLC requires the final
title to be retained by the land office. But it fell into the hands of the first
defendant. And yet the land office did not have any record as to whom the final
title in respect of the said property was released to. As alluded to earlier, their
own witness admitted that there was a deficiency in the record keeping
systems and there were shortcomings on their part. Their witnesses even
admitted there was negligence on their part. To further aggravate matters, the
land office's file for the said property was missing.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
[38] Such acts and omissions on the part of the land office amount to
improper conduct and these improper conduct of the land office reflect
bad faith on their part which, in our view, clearly show negligence on their
part. Further, the non-compliance of the NLC shows a breach of their
statutory duty which is equally a breach of a common law duty of care.
The land office has failed in our view to properly keep land title details
and land titles secure in the manner required by the NLC. In Pendaftar
Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur &
Anor v. Poh Yang Hong [2016] 9 CLJ 297, the Federal Court had inter
alia held that the administrative shortcoming on the part of the Land
Administrator or Registry amounts to negligence. This is clearly the case
here as admitted by the land office's own witnesses.”
[63] Moreover in Overseas Realty Sdn Bhd v. Wong Yau Choy & 5
Ors; Tetuan Tay Ibrahim & Partners (Third Party) [2014] 8 CLJ 107,
Harmidar Singh J (now FCJ) held as follows with emphasis added by us:
“[52] As the fourth to sixth defendants have failed in their statutory duty
to ensure a safe system of land registration, they will have to indemnify
the second and third defendants. The measure of loss of the third defendant
is more straightforward and it has to be the amount due on the loan. As such,
the fourth to sixth defendants are to pay the third defendant the sum of
RM479,387.02 with interest at BLR 1.60% per annum from 29 August 2013 till
judgment and thereafter at 5% per annum from judgment till settlement. It is
expected that with this payment, the third defendant will no longer have any
claims against the second defendant on the loan and the charge.”
See also Yew Foo Chun v. Wong Nye Keong & Ors [2014] 1 LNS 189.
[64] Likewise in the High Court below here, LC Cheok, amongst others,
contended that the Land Registry was grossly negligent in issuing a new
title of the Land notwithstanding that the original manual title of the Land
has still been in the possession of Seah Choon Chye authorised by LC
Cheok and Cheok Yit Tuck as joint trustees (see paragraph [5] above) as
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
well as in transferring the Land to Charles Oh without ascertaining the true
identity of the transferor (see paragraph [9] above). Towards this end, the
Land Registry has never sought from them to surrender the original
manual title of the Land. As the result of the issuance of the new title by
the Land Registry, the Land was transferred by an imposter of LC Cheok
to Charles Oh and thereafter to Bitara Angkasa; thus, LC Cheok was
unfairly deprived of the ownership of the Land. Furthermore, the resultant
transfer of the Land to Charles Oh and thereafter the transfer to Bitara
Angkasa permanently deprived LC Cheok of the ownership of the Land.
[65] We are surprised that the Land Registry explained at trial that it did
not have any record whatsoever on the issuance of the new title and the
resultant transfer that took place in respect of the Land. Furthermore, the
Land Registry could not explain the reason for the issuance of the new
title and transfer of the Land from LC Cheok and Cheok Yit Tuck as joint
trustees to LC Cheok and transferred from LC Cheok to Charles in spite
that the Land Registry was then still operating under the manual system
having a master register document of title pursuant to s. 158 NLC. Also,
the Land Registry could not adequately explain the transfer for the Land
to Charles Oh, particularly why there was no ascertainment of the true
identity of the purported LC Cheok. We noted that there was no formal
comprehensive internal investigation carried out by the Land Registry to
ascertain the truth of the matters. In other words, there was no
explanation by the Land Registry at all to account for their statutory acts
and omissions.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
[66] This non-explanation did not bode well for the Land Registry in
defence against LC Cheok’s gross negligence claim against them.
following Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor & Ors v. Shafulizam
Mohd Saleh & Anor and Another Appeal (supra).
[67] In the premises, we find and hold that the Land Registry must
compensate LC Cheok as trustee for the beneficiaries damages for loss
of their Land and litigation expenses incurred as the result thereof.
[68] Although the learned High Court judge need not then decide on LC
Cheok’s claim against the Land Registry because LC Cheok succeeded
against Bitara Angkasa, we now find that the LC Cheok has in the
circumstances based on res ipsa loquitor established gross negligence on
the part of the Land Registry in the discharge of their statutory duty. That
notwithstanding, the non-explanation could not also avail the Land
Registry reliance on s. 22 NLC either since the burden of proof is upon
the Land Registry to prove that it has acted in good faith.
CONCLUSION
[69] For the foregoing reasons, we unanimously allow Bitara Angkasa’s
appeal against LC Cheok and the Decision of the High Court is set aside
with costs of RM80,000.00 subject to allocator. We make no order in
respect of Bitara Angkasa’s appeal against Charles Oh.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
[70] We also dismiss Bitara Angkasa’s appeal against the Land Registry
with no order as to costs.
[71] Additionally, we unanimously enter judgment for LC Cheok against
the Land Registry in terms of paragraph 46(h) and (i) of the statement of
claim to be assessed by the High Court and costs of RM30,000.00.
Dated this 18th September 2023
-Sgd-
LIM CHONG FONG
JUDGE
COURT OF APPEAL
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
LIST OF COUNSELS:
Counsels for Bitara Angkasa 1. Brian Ernest Cumming
2. Teo Qing Qing
Solicitors for Bitara Angkasa MESSRS. GIDEON TAN RAZALI ZAINI
Advocates & Solicitors,
No. 812,8th Floor, Blok A,
Kelana Square, 17 Jalan SS7/26,
47301 Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Counsels for LC Cheok 1. Manian A/L Raju
2. Raswanti A/P Nagaindren
Solicitors for LC Cheok MESSRS. MANIAN RAJU & ASSOCIATES
Advocates & Solicitors,
No. 63, Jalan S2 D36,
Regency Avenue 2
Seremban 2,
70300 Seremban,
Negeri Sembilan.
Counsels for Charles Oh Unrepresented (never attended proceeding in
High Court and Court of Appeal)
Solicitors for Charles Oh
Counsels for Land Registry Senior Federal Counsel, Puan Marsilawati
Binti Mohamad Shah
Solicitors for Land Registry PEJABAT PENASIHAT UNDANG-UNDANG
NEGERI SEMBILAN
Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri
Sembilan,
Jalan Campbell,
70000 Seremban,
Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
STATUTE/LEGISLATION REFERRED TO:
Section 22, 340 of National Land Code;
Section 69 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
CASES REFERRED TO:
Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor v. Caesius Development Sdn Bhd &
Ors and Another Appeal [2020] 3 CLJ 327;
Heveaplast Marketing Sdn Bhd v. See Leong Chye @Sze Leong Chye &
3 Others and other appeals [2016] MLJU 835;
Kamarulzaman Omar v. Yakub Husin [2014] 1 CLJ 987 FC;
He-Con Sdn Bhd v. Bulyah Ishak & Anor and Another Appeal [2020] 7
CLJ 271;
Gan Yook Chin & Anor and Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309 FC;
Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors [2020] 6 MLRA 193;
Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian San & Ors. [2010] 2 CLJ 269;
Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Boonson Boonyanit [ 2001] 2 CLJ 133;
CIMB Bank Berhad v. Ambank (M) & Ors [2017] 9 CLJ 145;
Pushpaleela R Selvarajah & Anor v. Rajamani Meyappa Chettiar & Other
Appeals [2019] 3 CLJ 441;
Rajamani a/p Meyappa Chettiar v. Eng Beng Development Sdn Bhd & 6
Ors [2015] 2 AMR 767;
State Tailor Sdn Bhd v. Nallapan [2005] 2 MLJ 589;
Au Meng Nam v. Ung Yak Chew & 3 Ors [2007] 4 CLJ 526;
Tirai Kristal Sdn Bhd v. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan
Kuala Lumpur [2018] 4 MLJ 361;
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor & Ors v. Shafulnizam Mohd Saleh &
Anor and Another Appeal [2020] 5 CLJ 595;
Overseas Realty Sdn Bhd v. Wong Yau Choy & 5 Ors; Tetuan Tay Ibrahim
& Partners (Third Party) [2014] 8 CLJ 107; and
Yew Foo Chun v. Wong Nye Keong & Ors [2014] 1 LNS 189.
S/N PdIoim5720i6fzmlyqag5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 71,247 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-17D-30-12/2021 | PERAYU Tan Lay Ean RESPONDEN Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James PENCELAH Bar Council Malaysia | Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board/Committee — Disciplinary Board (‘DB’) affirmed Disciplinary Committee’s (‘DC’) decision on liability that appellant committed misconduct under s 94(3)(o) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) — DC imposed a fine of RM30,000 on the appellant – DB affirmed DC’s recommendation on liability but set aside the fine and censured the appellant instead Legal Profession – Disciplinary proceedings – Whether there was a failure on the part of the DB to formulate a clear charge against the appellant – Whether there is a legal obligation for the DB to provide reasons that led to the DB’s Order | 14/11/2023 | YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b70747a5-1ebf-4ea7-8505-bdec1ea32196&Inline=true |
14/11/2023 15:28:26
WA-17D-30-12/2021 Kand. 52
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N pUcHt78ep06FBb3sHqMhlg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA—17D—3D—12/2021 Kand. 52
1:1/11/2023 15:22-25
DALAM MAMKAMAM TINGGI MALAVA DI KUALA LUMPUR
(EAHAGIAN RAVUAN DAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS)
SAMAN FEMULA N0 - WA.-11D an 12121121
new Delkma Penman Terpmda Lambega
raumub Fogunmbuln u... Pagnzmcarl
llembsua") nenmn 1911 202: yang
mkanaxau mbual ax bawah Seuyen man
ma Fuflesmu unaamwmng ms an
d\samp:Ik.an kepada Pemyu pads
29 n 2921.
Dan
Daiam Nrkara Aduan Na Dam/9476
berasaskan sum! mm d-Inplda
neamnam banznkh an 5 2014
mm In-an ualam pmmmg Lomboga
sebagau Adunn K2-1'}
Dan
mum ulrkara Atl\kaLAmke\ 5 s darn <21
Peflembagsan Persekulunn dnn Seksysn
uni AH: Prvfesmu Undnrw-und-W ma
Dan
Dulum perms Kaadznrkasdah Pmlesaon
Uvvdan9»UndirIw (Pm am maxamm
(RAyunn! ma Gan Aluvan 55A Gan Aluran
92 mean 4 ma. Ksadah Mnhkimih
zmz
Dan
Datum nalkava maangmsa sad-a ma
Mahkamah yang Muha m.
ANTARA
TAN LAV EAN
(No. Kl - 51111-07-5486) ...PERAVU
DAN
KENNETH voom: KEN cHINsoN 57. JAMES ...RESPONDEN
sm vucnmunmiamwummv
«-um. sum n-nhnrwm be mad M mm :2. mm-y aw. dun-mm VII mum p-mm
MAJLIS PEGUAM
DAN
...FENGELAH
JUDGMENT
The (actual hankgmund
[1]
[7]
[4]
[5]
Tne respondent and tile wile were involved in a rudioial separation
prooeeding. Tlie wife was represented by lna appelian
respondent, who was also then a pracllslng advccale and s
lodged men ooniplainls in me aar council agllnsl rna appellant,
whim are me supleol mailer oi the appeal na
The oomplaini ernnnaled train a lenter daled its lzzotz (“me
impugned letter‘) trom tne appellant to lhe Judge of the High Court
(‘Family Division“), wnion was addressed to nor Ladyships
secretary.
The impugned letter slates inter alia as iollows
W3 ask in. ieamod rudge to lake cognizance at
me nespondenrs iuineoonnng laaiiavourmcn
Ii neeamina Intolerable
The raspondenl look uniprage to tire oonlanl oltne impugned letter
|| is the respondents complaint lnat tne appellant made libellous
statements and delamalcry remarks against riim According to the
respondent, tne lmpugnsd letter “is an act laden wiln malice and it
has eaueed damages ln my good name and reputation as an
Advocate and soiicnor
The respondent asserted that tne inipugnad latter oontained lunhsr
allegations that
tail The appellant desonbed tnul ma respondent lied viled
“unnecessary vexatious applications“; and
(pl That tno respondenl was ‘behaving like a vexauous litigant‘.
IN pucMlmnmFamsHuMnlv
“Nair s.n.i mmhnrwlll .. u... M may i... nflnlnnflly Jim. dnuuvlnrll n. nFluNG Wm!
[41] The eireslion lnal arises is. is me DE under a duly |o give lna
appellanl an opporlurllly to be neard beldre maklng ns aooeplrng pr
rajeciing lne nos recummerlda|Iorl7 My opnsldered view is this ll
"19 orderlc be made is Ilkelyllo be adverse againsl an advoaale and
sblicnpr under s ID3D(2) or s 1D3D(3)o1Ihe LPA, ll snail nbbfy lne
advdcale and adllcnpr bl irs lrIY.en|lDn in do so and give him a
reasonable nppnrlunily to be beard This is provided tor under s
103014) vflhe LPA
142] in the lnslanl case‘ lne DB's de on in reieenng ma punisnrnenl bl
lne nne ol RMSKLDDO and subslllullng ll wiln censure could ndl be
said to be adverse agalnsllne appellanl The subslilulldn ole lesser
punishment could nm, by any slrelen ol legal nnaglnalrdn, be
mnstrued as ‘likely lo be advelse against“ me appellanl lpr ner to
be aeoorded a reasonable opppnunny in be heard.
[43] The Courl of Aupeal in Data’ Kanagalingarn a/l velrrppmal v
Mailis Peguarn Malaysia [3122] 3 ulLJ can CA beld lhar
were due: nelaooearld be any reourrernenlol
bervlae of iris reasons «er me reyeaen or me
DC‘s reoommendallan mere penelly or
pnnlsnniern is wncsmed muugh one may
pmswlls ml in. lularll would be green ii lna
advocate and solrenor oonoerned enoula
rebueu Io! lne masons
ll was lonner neld mal lne lacl lbals io3D(4l requires the DB lo
rnlerrn me advbcale and sdlrdrldrs pl rls rnlenllon lo make an order
likely in be adverse agalrlsl him and to give mm a reasonable
bppenunrly id be heard would ealeglrard against any prelddrpe
arising wl|h respecl lo llne appellanl not being aware bl me reasens
lor the grealer or even grealesl punisnrnenl
[44] Applying lne said pmpasi|lurl to the irlslarn case‘ since lna
punlslwlem rneled om by line DB is lesser lnan me one
recommended by me DC, mere is no svalulory requlremenl lor me
DB |0§N6 the ounoflurllly ID be heard to me appellanl With respad.
lne Hlgh com, in amvlrlg at its conclusion VI Syed Ahmad lrndedz
did not have me benefit of me nrdgrnenl pl me Courl v1Appeel in
DsIo' Karlaga/lrlgam
IN pucMl7Mn|lFab.1sHdMnlrl
«we. s.nn mmhbrwm rs. UIQG a my r... ennn.ny Mm: dnuuvlnnl Vfl .nune WVM
[45] I therefore hold (hm, firsl. ln |he Ilghl of (he Calm cl Apusafs
nnlgmenl ln Dall.7‘Karlaga/ingam, llle DE IS undernn Iegalobllgallon
m proffer any reason «or us aeclslon unless requesled by me
zppellenl Tharp ls nc evldence helm: the Cmmlhal such a request
had been made 5€WHd|Y‘S1D3D(/“GOES ROI lmpose an obiigallorl
lor Ihe me lo glye lne opportunity |o be neanl slnee lne Imerlded
punlahmenl wnuld rml have adversely aflacled me appellsnl.
Fin ingl
[46] For lne bald reasons, my llnalngs are as lollows
[aj There is no lailuve on one pan ol lne DB lo lannulale a clear
anarga agnlnsl (ha appellnnl. The appellam an: rml ralsa any
lssue al nol lmderslandlng lne charges ag sl her when she
sought an EOT to reply to me respclndenrs cnmplalnt.
(ll) Tne members 0! me DC did not descend lnlc lne arena ol
cannula and lne appellam was given every opporlunlly to
defend nersell The quezrlinrl ralsad by Lane allne members of
lne Do on me llaoesshy lurlne appellanl lo employ lne words
ln lne lmpugned letler. ll answered by me appellanl, could
nave absnlvad nar lmnl lne charges.
(5) There ls no legal requlrernenl |o pnwlue lne appellanl wlln a
copy ul lne DC‘: repurl l| would evenlnally be xupphsd under
r 4 oflhe 1994 Rules in me an/erll ol any appeal In lne l-llgn
caurl.
(d) on lne aulnonly cf Dam’ Kanagalrngam, mere ls no legal
obllgallon lor me DB |o pmvlde reasons lnal led to the DB's
Omar unless requeslad bylhe appsllam. There IS no evlaenoe
befove lnls Courl lnal lhe requasl was made and lnal ll was
relected by me DB.
(e) The appellant had empluyed the wrong made in lnvillng Ihe
presidlng Judge lo use her power under para 17 al lne
Schedule Mme CJA.
rn pucMl7!InllFBmsHl:Mmv
“Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm s. .l... M my l... nflnlnnflly Mn. dnuuvlnrll n. nrlurm Wm!
[A7] Yhis as is lhareicre dismwssad.
[45] No mdel as lo costs.
Tarlkh: 14 Novumhu zaza
LA
(wan AHMAD FARID am wm SALLEH)
Hakim
Mahknmah mag. Knma Lumpur.
wmau-am
539: mm Periw smmuga all A Kmeulmgnm um. Ng.
mum Kmveulxngim 5 00
Elm Pmak Ruwundsn Tan m Km Janaman Gama
Tainan Ken 51 James
Baa: Fmak pemm. Nurnfamma mm M: Rahlm
(Mam: Pngulmj Yntuan Arthur wm Luau a. Assoaalzs
sm vUcMm:n|mFamsHs:Mmv
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmmuny MM: dnuumnl VI mum Wm!
[6] Upon ma cmclusmn of (he naarm ma Dmolplinary commmaa
(‘DC') «sand that me appeuam was gunry under me 7” mmp\aIn|
The r" aamplam Is anchored on me impugned Ienar.
[71 The DC View «has me hhenous statement and defamatory remark
agamsl a Vawyer m wrmng lo a mdga who 15 hearing and decrdmg
the case ws serious miscundud According to ma DC, |he said
mrsaarmum was m breach 0! s 94(3Ku) and (up at ma Legal
Prolessmn AcI1976(“LFA as wen as rr18,31 and 32 ollhe of the
Legal P70155510!‘ (Praclvoe Ind Elwqueme) Rubs 1978 (“the 1978
RuI5'j. R 1a and R 31 pmwde as inflows:
{ml nu aurrdum mu advucaln and snlmilar
bednre live Cowl arrd rn rewnon (L7 ulnar
emanate: and aanrauan man be
charsmensed by candnur. cnurlssy and
lalvnui
[31] Every ndvucate and Iohcnor man at an
(Imus uprraad ms drgmw Ind mun
s1andmu ov ms Dmlessnn
[E] In its Repufl‘ wh' h males to the 7"‘ wmp\a|n|‘ which is the subiam
manar anhis On inalmg Summons cos‘ me DC was at the mew
max Ihe appaHan| had conlmllled '5 serious m|soonduc('.Aooa1dmg
In the no, me appellim made dsvamaxory remarks agamsl a lawyer
m wmmg to a judge who heard and eventually aaaarmmad ma case.
The DC lhen wgnl on to consume
ms eandud s umccenisblg w. wnsluevad
mm ma Reanan\danI:[‘] rmpdnn Ind
sunmrssm mu mad man an . ::m\duc1 was
unhefimrvg 01 In ad»/oak and souwar Much
dsaflyhnngs ma Vega! pmlessmn mm dvsrepme
[9] The DC men recommended a ma at RM3D.000 in be umpased on
the appeuam
[10] The manor was brougm baflore me Dlsclphnary Board (“ma ma“) lar
uonsxdelanon under 5 man at ma LPA,
[II] The DE vound that me appanann was guIl|y under me 7* camwalnl
omy an me ground that the appellanrs oond-«:1 was m breach M s
94(3)(t1joH.he LPA.
rw pucnm-nmFamsHuMmv
“Nana sm.r nmhnrwm a. d... w my r... mmrm-y aim. dnuumnl vu mum war
[121 on 19 11.2021‘ me as made me lallowmg Imended order agalrlsl
me appellam lwfllch was relened Io as me 1‘ respanaenvy
ln resvscl M was 7- mmnlmlm lgilnll mu 1“
mesponuenl, me Dlsclpllllaly poem alnnnea me
nleclpllnun Cmlmlllsel «mm nl Mammy hul
-eleplaa (ha plllllshmanl luv fine‘ Irlsmad rr IS
nsnsav ORDERED lmn me «=4 Iusporlderll be
censured
Aggnovee py we order (“the DB‘s Omar‘), lne appellanl med mus
appeal under s 1035 ofltle LPA.
[13] By way or an apphcallcn m Encl 10, me Ear Councll soughl leave
lrorn lne Courl up inlewene ll! thus appeal. The applicallan m Erlc|10
was not objected |o by any at me pamee heleln
[16] Slnoe lnere was no amealinn raised, INS courl had allowed me
appllcallan by lhe Bar Colmcll In I lervene on 21.3.2022 1‘1he
Inlerverwlg Omar‘).
Tm orlglnnlng Summons
[15] ln lhis 05, me appellant suughl lpr lnlsl al/a lne lollzmlng omers.
(a) That pan pl me DB’: Order orderlng mal the appellam be
censured wan lespecl la lne 7" complllnl be set aslds.
(b) The 7* colnplalnl be dlsmlssed
[16] The os IS supplmed by the appellant‘: amdavll In enel 2 ("AIS-Z").
ln essence, Ihe grounds of me appeal are anchored on an alleged
breach M lhe principles 07 natural juulce, Ihs panleulars of which
are as follows‘
(a) The lallure ol me us up lpmmlala a clear charge agaIns| lne
appellant
(h) The manner H1 wfllch me DC had ponauclea me pmoeealngs.
(cl The fallule Io pmlllde a copy of me l:lc's report lo the
appellant.
m pucMl73In|lFBp.lsHuMMv
“Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm be HIGH m may he nflmnnllly M. dnuuvlnnl VII arlum Wm!
(d) The DB's failure to provide reesensllial led ld lhe DB‘; order
[17] Firs learned counsel lor lhe eppellenl ellreered my arlenllen Io lrie
DC's repun, which slaled llial me appellanl had made “defamatory
remarks ageinsl a lawyer in wrllillg lea judge‘ According lo learned
counsel, il musl he remembered lnel lne appellanl was wnling lne
impugned remarks ahclul lne respdndenrs ccnducl as a lilrgaril and
nor as a sdlieiler
[18] In any evenly learned ccurieel submilled lnal lne DC lied lailed lo
wnsidellhefirlal paragraph pl lne impugned leller. wriicri urged me
learned lriel Judge el llie ludlcial sapamlicrl proceeding lo reelrein
lne resppndenl as ne was “behavlrlg like a vexallous li arir.
Learned epunsel lunher cdnrended lrial lne DC nad lailed c lake
irilc eeccunl lrial lne appellunl end ner senior ecuneel, Chew swee
vcke (MID was lrie 2"“ respondenl al llie DC proceedings), were
under an obligallon to vlgomusly delend and advance lneir elienl‘s
case under r is cl lne lws Rules.
[la] in snarl. learned counsel hignllgmed mar Ihe impugned lelier was
wrlllarl wiln a view lo urge lhe learned rrral Judge In cdnsider lrie
necessary aelien under para 17 pl lrie scriedule cl the cdurls ol
Judlcalure Ael 1964 (“owl ll slales as follows,
Fewer rd rsslraln any pemn wnp nas habitually
and verslsrenrly and wllhoul reasonable cams
inslllined vexalmus lsgal proceedings Ill any
cuun. wnelner agarnsl ine same al fllflevenl
pmcnir, rrcrri inrliiulinp any legal nrooesdlrlfil
in any nmlll save by leave ole Jlnqe A may gr
any such order rnaii ue puninned in
me sazerre
[20] The appellanrs peeilion is lliel the impugned lener was craned in
good lailri in lrie discharge dl lrie appellanl and criew‘s duties lo
lneir elienl.
[21] were is andlnerrelaled issue wnien IS raised by Ihe appellanl II is
mis The DC riad lcund bolh lne appellanr and cnew gullly of me 7"-
ccniplainl. ll lnen recommended Impcslng lne punisnnienl en both
me appellenl and Chew. However, lrie DB only censured ms
appellanl and acduilled Chew aiicgelner. The appellanl look
IN pucMl7SIn|lFBl~..lsHuMnlv
«war. s.n.i nurlhnrwlll re UIQG e new i... anrii.ii-y elini. dnuuvlnrll Vfl uFll.lNG wrul
urnorege in the use finding on the ground that the DB piollered no
mtplanellon in arriving at the said conclusion.
[22] seeondly, learned eouneel tor the appellant submrllad that there
was a breach oi the principles oi natural iustipe nthe cundua ofthe
DC‘s proceedings According to the learned counsel
|aj There was a faiiure to ierrnuiete a clear charge against the
appsllam
(oi The De had preiudged the issue in the course at the
proceedings oy suggesting that the words in the impugned
letter were delainatpry
(c) The DE‘; laiiure to give the appellanl an opportunity to be
heard heiore making II: decision whether to accept or reiecl
the DC’: reoonirriendation Learned epunsel rated the case at
syed Ahmad ltndadz Sud Abna V Ime] Muhibbrlll sun
and: Mimi: Pommn Mel-ym, lnrsmnor [2011] 1 cl..l
125. The use names the pmposilian that the DB. in seeking
to impose a greener or lesser penalty or punishment than that
reoorriniended by the be upon a snlidmry ought to notily the
solicitor ot its intention to do so and give him a reasonable
opportunity to oe heard, as such an order may have an
adverse eflect on the said advocate and solicitor,
(d) The DC did not eonsider adequately the delehces raised by
the apusllanl. In any event, the no tailed to provide the
appellant with a wpy at its report when it was completed
The rlspondnnfs response
[231 The respdndenttiied his emdavii in reply in anal 4 [“AIRA“) There
are turtner exchanges of alfidavlls. including lmm the intervene!‘
which WI“ be relerrad la is and when the need ansss.
[24] In his AIR-4. the respondent auened as loilow .
(a) The reependern riled an applicalion at the judicial separallorl
proceeding in End 107, which was pending hearing.
IN pucMl7!In|lFBl~.JsHt:Mhiv
“None s.n.i nuvihnrwm be u... m may i... oflmhoiily eiihi. dnuuvlnril VII nFiuNG vtmxi
(b) Fm more than 11 indnlns, lhe appcllanrs clienidid nalme any
alfidavil in reply to uppose it
(a) AI lrie case management on 221i.2u13, me Regishar
direcied the appellant‘: client lo file an amdavii in reply.
(:1) Aggrieved hylha Regislrars direction, lrie respdndenl filed a
name at appeal tome liidge in chambers on 3 12.2013.
(3) As a reaciien in me rialiae cl appeal. irie appellani issued irie
impugned letter‘ wliieli is new me subject matter oi dispute
[25] Fimher. -cparding in me resporidanl, ina appelianl sndiild nol have
wrilleri |o line presiding Judge and made dalaniaiory femarks
aanpeming a pany la vie mailer.
[25] In pam ll cl AIR-4. ilie respomiaai affirvrled lliai, contrary to me
appellanfs contention, there IS no requiremanl In 'fumlu|aIe" a
'charge' agalnsl lne appellanl In any event‘ according |n me
iespondeni, ilie appellani was given and exercised rier rigmd he
heard belure (He DC pieeeadings This also iiieiudu making a
wrlllen axplnnallcn M the comnllml Vida her lunar In the DB da|ed
11.12.2014
[27] On me nacasslly luv the DB Rapnrl (0 be made available In |7Ie
appellani, me respondenl evened iliai mere is no legal requiienianl
|n do so. R 4 er ine Legal Pieiession [Disciplinary Proceedings)
lAppeal)Rules1994(“IheI994 Rules“) only inquires the Dlredor of
ine complainis Secrelarial (-me uirecmr) to supply lo the appellant
me oenifled we copies of me doaiirneiiis ralarrad lo ai me DC
proceeding This is in enable live eppellani |o prepare irie appeal
record
Th. rasponsn train the Bar council
[28] The Bar council. as me irilerverier, also filed an amdavli in reply in
ErlcI19(‘AlR-19')
[291 The amdavil is amrrned by Ariaad Raj all R Balaaupi-ainariiam on
23.4 21:22 Encik Anand Ra; is irie secrelary Io ilie Bar council.
m pUcMl7!IDMFEb.liHuMMv
“Nair Smnl nuvlhnrwlll be ii... m may i... nflnlnallly JVMI dnumlnnl VII aFluNG Wm!
[30] In his para 10 o1AlR—I9. me Anand Ra; affirmsd as lollows‘
(5) on 10.12 2022. the Dssupplrea me cemlxed lme oapies ollhe
relevant documenls under r 4 at me 1994 muss. The
documents mc1ude|ha DC Report
(I!) Vn (he DC Report, It was siatad N’! no uncenaln Ierms that [he
appellant had breached s 94(3)(o) and s eama) at the LPA
and r 16 olme 1978 Rmes
In any event. the appenant recewed the Record at Compminl vnam
me Dc, munch rncmdea notes el pmeeearrrgs m respen ov me
respcnaenrs commainl an 19.4 2019 and 25 6.2019
Arulysis
[:1] Let me negrn by slallng whll me raw rs an vexallaus Irugarus. Thu
appellamr in the impugned lener, alleged that me respurrdem was a
vexauous hllganl. She urged me presiding Judge to lake aclion
agamsl Ihe respendanl
In order not In mrrnsn Her Ladysmp mm any
nrnnsr unnsnemry wrrrrsrrws awnrcauons we
urge Hsr ladysmv to mnsader me necessary
xchnn unduvthe Schedulu Mfllllmul Puwsu at
me Hugh Count Calms av Jufluznlre A51 \964
Parairanh 11 M the Anmmnal pawrrrs ul ma
man Cowl ro nesuam||1Ie Rzspumdurl as in rr
behaving like a vsxanous Huuam
The nrsr question |ha| comes to my mind rs this Vs wnllng to me
presiding Judge me ngm mode to urge Her Ladysmp In exercrse her
power under par: 11 of me Schedu|e7 wnrr Issued, u do not think
su. Para 17 01 me Schedme oumd not be exercised summamy
without pruper appurcauarr me appllcalmn can elthev be made by
way of notice avsppnrca Inn in ms same sun or by way our couarerax
aflack
[32] Under no cvwmslancss an Ipphcalwcn ohms magnimde |haI has a
far-reaching Ampacl on me amer party can be made by mereVy
wrmrrg (0 me presiding Judge.
m pucMxmnmFamsHuMn\v
“Nana s.n.\ mmhnrwm r. LAIQ4 w my r... nflmnnflly Jrn. dnuunnnl VII mum WM
[33] To my mind, the respondent‘; position as a lihgam and a solicitor IS
interiwirned srnoe he was represented by his own finri Reading the
impugned letter. there is no clear line ol distinction between the
tuspondenrs rene as a ii|igan( and a suiicnor
[34] in Amoricnn Express (M) sun and v Matthias Chang wen
Chi [2012] 1 ttlt..t an. it was the pneirititrs case that utter it had
obtained summary iudgnienn against the detendant, the detendant
had engaged in a piethorol at proceedings challenging the veracity
ot the summary iudgrnerit an the grounds that it was irregular, II’!
that. it was obtained dishonestly for a iudornent sum in exoessof the
arneunn aclualiy due In the ptainnitt. ‘the olatnnitt Submilled that the
delerndartfs conduct in the train at proceedings it had instituted
against the piaintitt in respect ot the summary iudgment was
sufftcienl to declare the detendant a vexalious ithganl the plaintiff
thus oonrmeneed e civil suit puvsuant no the CJA no hava the
detendarin declared a vexatinus litigant in order to par him troni
instituting any tuither legal pmceedings against it.
[35] it is my considered view that a proper appitcalton must be made
under para votthe schedule otnhecJAto enable the party against
whem the order is sought |o deterid hlrnsett prvperly py wey M an
affidavit In repiy, as the case may be.
[35] I theretdre hold that the appellant had adopted a wrong made in
writing to the presiding Judge to use Her Ladyshtp's prmer under
para 17 oi‘ the Schedule.
[37] On the issue at whether there is any necessity tor the D5 to
formulate a clear charge against the appellant
(a) i take cognisanoe that the letter at complaint by the
respondent to the Direuor was very clear and that it
mentioned the relevartl provisions at the LPA end the 1976
Rules that the appellant and chew were alleged to have
breached.
ta) tn tespanse, the Director wrote to the appennenton 2a.to.2tm
seeking a wrillern explanation under s IDO(1)(b) oi the LPA
within fuurleart days [tom the receipt at Ihe letter
(C) The appellant sought an extension at time (“Eon to reply‘
Whtch Die DE acceded to
IN pUcMl7SIrlmFEt>JsHt:Mhitl
«nu. e.n.i nuvlhnrwiii is. u... re may i... nflflihniily aim. dnuuvlnrrt VII aFit.ING mi
(at in her ieiter asking tor the EOT dated 11 M 2014i the
appeiiant stated that
Iwwuld he maxlnbiruod flyou Wuld Illuw Me an
zxtenston nl time to rite my expianamn by 11
Daoembsr zotn as Ihuve hurt very had up with
the noun Walk and have that heen ehie ta
mnrptere my Axplsriallon within :4 days
with respect. there is nothing in the letter that the appellant ceuirt
not understand the complaint made against her. one can be
iurgrveh in concluding that the argument that there is a need to
iorrntrlate a Dmper charge against me appeiiant is only an
anenhaught
[35] As in the aiiegatian that the DC had descended inin the arena. I
have gone through the notes of proceedings nature the DC. M the
hean at the appeHan('s aehrpiaint, i believe, is when the DC asked
the appellanl whether the words used in the impugned letter were
necessary. The DC, In my rninu. was only making an enquiry. It was
a question which the appeiiant mute have answered
[39] Even ii the D!) was making a smemenl, the appeiiant could have
srrnpry responded by saying the wares einptayea in the impugned
letter were necessary and gave her reasons lhere|u. Unfortunately,
there is rrothrng In the mic: at proceedings where the appellant
proflerad herexptanetiens en the ch as ofwurds that she errrpioyed
in the inrnugnea letter.
[40] The next issue is whether there Is any legal nscessily (or the DE to
give the appeiiant an opporlunily to be heard before making its
deotsion whether |u acceptor retain the Des recnrnrnenrtatran. In
this parliculur case, |7Ie DE tvversed the fine of RMZWJJKXJ imposed
by the no and subs1iluled tl wilh a censure, The 05 Order was
made under 5 103B ol the LFA. S1D3D(I) pmvtdes l!Ia|
Alter oovliidariliwn ul the report M the
Dtsciniinary ceninrirtea, the uhwiinarv aoare
may mikl an amr amrrriirtq oi rerecting the
mining or iemnrnrerumen at me Dticipilnary
carrrniittee and fllhn aiacrphraiy Board rswmi
the rinarna ur teoammeoaamn at the
mreipirrrery coninriuee, rhe Diatziplinnly mare
eriaii mum! the reasuri torthe reieamr
IN pUcMl7!In|lFBbJsHuMMfl
“Nana s.n.i nuvihnrwm rs. UIQG a my i... nflmhniily mm. m.i.h vn aFiuNG wiei
| 1,748 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-41H-40-10/2022 | PERAYU Pendakwa Raya RESPONDEN VASANTA A/L AMARASEKERA | The accused was charged with an offence of forgery of a will - under section 467 of the Penal Code - before the Magistrate Court | 14/11/2023 | YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=eb1be32f-4c60-4ffc-b037-6186b343cdef&Inline=true |
12/12/2023 11:37:55
WA-41H-40-10/2022 Kand. 33
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N LMb62BM/EwN2GGs0PN7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
w.\—uH—au—1n/2022 Kand. 33
12/12/2013 um-ss
DALAM MAHKAMAN TINGGI MALAVA nl KIIALA LUMPUR
DALAM WILAVAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAVSIA
AVUAN JENAVAN N WA-41N~4 M012 5 M141 :5 0/2012
ANKARA
PENDAKWA RAVA ...PERAV|l
mu
VASANTA A/L AMARASEKERA ...RESPONDEN
RAVUAN arms
VASANTA A/L AIAARASEKERA ...PERAVU
om
RESPONDEN
PENDAKWA RAVA
(Dam Pevkars M.r.um.n M-‘mm rm mm. Lumrmr
uaram wuayan Persekuluan mus Lumvur
K21 Nu wArs$534D-0812018 can Seksyen 307 Kamm Tatacara Jenayah ws
can xxxvm
Fendakwa Rays
Lwu
Vuama a/I Ammsexerau
Jumsusm
[11 vasama a/I Amarasskera, (‘the accused‘) was charged mm an
oflenoe 01 forgery of a wfll under section 1367 al the Penal Code belore
the MagAs|raIe Conn He was found gmy 01 me change and was
canvxcled and sentenced to a one (1) year and six us) months
wmvriscmment rrom lhe date or ssmenae.
1
sw LMMZEM/Ewmzssdawvw
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
[21 Belars we. Caun. ma Public Prosecutor appealed agamu (ha
senlsnoe xmposed by me Magwslrala coun whilst lbs accused appealed
agamsl me convucxion and ssnlenee
Tho Chlrqu
[3] The change agamsl the accused reads‘
‘Bahawa kamu pads 13 6 2005, d! anlsra [am 9.00 peg:
senrngga 5.00 petang, bera/amal -1: raruan Amam 5. Ca,
03-15, Pangsapun Impian Kara. Jaran Kg Map, Kuala
Lumpun dalam uaenm Dang wangz, dr da/am Wr/ayah
Psrsekuluan Kuala Lumpur, kamu relah melakukan
pemalsuan landalangsn wssral Lssl Wm and resramem
mandiang Adsmbsvage Ananda Rex Alwrs, (No KP
dBL7327—1l7—5G95) bsrtallkh 13 06 2005 dam Kai-ml ada/ah
dengan ml Ielsh mslakukan kesalahan dr bawah
seksyen 467 Kanun Ksseksaan '
[4] The pmseclmon dauad Ian um wllnssses to gm ewdenoe whilst
lhe accused had rauad 2 uwd) witnesses apan «um mmseu. Io |esUFy
a| me delanzze slag:
arm Facts
[5] The accused was an Advocate a. soucwar
[6] sometime m June 2005, he was appmachad by a lamfly iriend o1
ms, ans Adamberage Amanda Rex and known to the amused as Rex
(‘Rex')who came to ms amce wanlmg (0 makes wvll The accused than
draned me wm
2
am Luuczam/Eum2Gs41PN7w
Nuns sum n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pans!
when he knew ma| ma wanar am not an any rrrna srgn or maka ou| me
wm.
[29] ms in mm begs me quesuan of new forgery or me ‘dwshonesl or
haudulenl‘ making our ar signing of ma mu may be pmven
[an] Under 5 45 nflhe Evidence AL1\95Olhe uplman nfa handwnlmg
expen as to the genumeness vfhandwrmng or signatures are expressw
aumrssmle on the grounds that «me. Is a relevanl fact
[31] Sermon 47 oi ma Evmanca Acl ruse provraas rmar aha vor me
aarnrssrbilrry or ma avkience M a wllness nn ma genmneness at
handwrilmg wnere that wllness can be sara to be aazuahlsd wun ma
person s'a|ed In have wrmen me urspureu handwnlmg ur stgnalure
[32] secnon 13 onhe Evidence Act 1950 allows Ihe court or a wuness
to oompanr a msnuled srgnamra arnanawnrrng wrnn rm genuma wrmng
co the aHsged wrner
[33] In Stale (Delhi Adm: seraciorr) v. Pan Rxm AIR [1919]
supreme Court :4 Sarkana J mnsrderad the vanous secmns of the
Indian Evidence An which oomarns plovvsruns sirnuar to tha| of
Malaysia He held as Ionows In remran to me woo! oi the nandwmirrg
ola Person:
' Just as m Englrsh Law, ma Inaran Evidence Ac!
Isnogrums Mo airacr methods alpmwng ma handwnlmg
al a person
(1) By an admrsston oflne person wno wrote it
(2) By lhe evrdance ofsome witness who saw 1! written.
11
am wmszam/Ewm2Gs41PN7w
“Nuns s.n.r nnnhnrwm .. used m mm as nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm
rhese are me bus! methods alpmol masa upsrf mm
are lnras other mods: olpmal by ownion Thaysls
m By ma ewdence ola nanawmmg exam {Section 45 ;
on By ma amance of a witness acquamzed with ma
nandwrwng bnna person who .s ssrdto mm wmlsn ma
wnlmg m quashon (Section 47 )
rm) ommon lormsd by ma Coullon mmpanaon made by
Me}! (section 73)
Allthesslhrss cognals mods: ovpraormvcm a plocess
nl campansnn In mode (0 ma comparison 1: mad: by
ma export of ma aiapmaa writing WWI me admvllsd
wr/(mg ol ma person who »a SAM In have wvfllsn ma
quaslrorved document In nu ma nompanson rakes ma
Iorm or a be/rel man the wunasa snlarlafns upon
comptmng ma wnnng m qusslton mm an exemplar
fanned m ms mmd Irom some prevrous knowledge or
rspofmve observance av ma handwnlmg ol ma person
concerned rn ma case of[m)‘ ma compansan Is made
by the Court with ma sample wmmg or exemplar
obtained by M from ma person concmau '
[34] As for the role M a handwnling expen « 15 must be noted (ha| the
Indian Conn went on to cannon as to «he admwssxbllrly nflhe handwvmng
experl and much was aarsmuy wcumscnbed as lcnoms:
' ms not lhe pmvince Dfthe expert to acids Judge
or Jury As rightly poinled ob: m nu. V Janss ILR 56 All
423: AIR 1934 All 273 live real Iunzlinn cl [he export
:5 m pm bofon on Cam! all ma manwfals, Iagevthev
x2
am Lmmxzam/Eum2Gs41PN7w
«ma am n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 a mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
with masons which induce hlm lo come to ma
concmuon, so me: me Court. nlthouqh not In
upon, mny four! In own Judgmenl by us own
ousemuon al thnse muemls, ommenly, :1 is not
pruper Iar Ihe Court to ask me expen to give me /inmng
upon any 0/me pssues, wnemer anew or /5151‘ because,
strvcl/y speekmg such Issues are rm me com 0: Jury to
aezemune me rmnawrmng upon’: runcuon rs to
aplm after a selemmc campanson 1:! me disputed
wmmg wnn an proved or edmmoa mmng wllh
rugani to me palm: of slmllnrhy and dlsslmllarlty In
me two sets 0! wrlklngs. me Caun should then
campnm me handwrlfings mm its own eyes for .
proper assessment ol the value or the lam!
emrenee . '[Emphas\s added]
[35] Remmmg to me mslant meuer, m ham 0! me xmnonant mredueni
of mtermon‘ “dwshoneslIy’ or “!raudu|en(Iy' lha| needs to In proven, the
accused submns me: the mgredmnl was ormusd mam (he churge and
ms, he vs severely premovced as mere is e drflerenca m law beaween
“d|shonesl|y" and “lvaudu|sn|ly“ Reference .s made to Rlllnlxl A
Dh|r|jl-|'I Liw ol Crlmu 24" Edlllon (Vulumu 2) where me learned
aulhm expwemea es lollows
‘There Is an ob»/mus difference between "d:shonssHy”
and -rmuaucemry" In oider to do a thmg dishonest/y
there must be Ihe mrenlion to cause wmgm /0:5 or
wrongful gem or uopeny, am m order to do a my
fraudulently I! IS no! necessary Mal Ihsra should be the
u
sw Lumszam/Eumzssdawvw
‘Nata em.‘ ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm
mlelllion to cause wronglui loss or wmrtg/ul gain ol
PVOWIY
[36] It is trite taw that in trarning charges agains| accused person/s,
the charge in question must he precisety tarrnuiated to irictude the
speciric accusation auams1 the accused This is in drder tor the accused
to know and have notice or the very nature ctthe charges at the tirst
oppurllmm/, so that they are being ierewerned with ciarity and certainty
the essentiet elements or ingredients that the prosecution has td
esteeiish against them in order to ensure that they are torearrned in
their dalertce tar the purpose at directing an the evidence eitciiisivety lo
the specihc charges (per zaniani A Rntiirn J (as he then west in Ellll
Md one V FFR011] i cu nut.
[37] This edun is at the considered view that the absence at the word
“dishones|\y“ nr -iraudutentv in the charge does not cause any
iriiscairiage ol ]us|tce ta the accused. it can be gleaned ircrn the notes
at pmceedings that the aemised was very aeie lo undetstand the charge
against him and to raise his detenee acedrdingty The drcsecutien tar
that iriatter rnust prove the eieinent oV“dtshonesflY‘ or “lraudu|enIiy' on
the part otthe accused beyond reasonable doubt and the coun niust
make such a tindirig notwithstanding the Ingredient dt “dishonestly or
lrauduienlly" is net stated in the charge.
[sat However‘ having acknomedged that the issue at idrgery oi lhe
witi may tie ascertained by censiaenng whether the amused
* ried the wilt this court finds that the
tearned Magistrate has tailed to consider this very essentiat ingredient
is. dtshonssly on the dart ot the accused. which niust be pmven by the
“dtshones|iy“ or -trauuutenti
M
sin LMMZEMlEwNZGG<flPN7w
“Nate a.ii.i nnvthnrwm re used m van; i.e nflgtrinflly Mimi dnnnvtlnl vu .riuiia pom!
proseouunn. the basis for I119 learned MagIs|raIa‘s flndlngs mat the
amused had lerged me Will can be seen m her grounds as loIlows'
‘[46] From ma awdenca adduced WI lha course onna
Ina/. anly accused nas me access ro ma vwllana na ana
nas knowledge or me existence ol the WI! Accused
knew Rex and um and agreed lo hsln Rex wan WIN
wllnaul charging any laa or opsn any fila ll! lna llnn Io:
ma wul mam is no plsparsllorl slgnmg lmll ln ma
acnused3 alfics as no wllnass prepared PW4
auandance was not planned and Rex and not
cormnumcala for such lmponnnl dooumsnl. No rwal
wlmess saan Rex Signed mg ml axcapl accusau
Accused was ma ona ma: surrender ma wm lo lna
lawyer appoinled by ma lamlly of Rex Thus‘ mm lna
Chsm ofswdsnces, [here Is In: on. mu/l1 nava accass Io
Will and ma vwl was kspl by ma accused. Such svarlts
could only aoncluda that aaausad forged ma slgrlalum in
ma vwl and ma: would be only lnfemrwe to be drawn in
ma case "
[39] ms coun finds Ihe above filmmg VS mlsplaoed. Awllnsss lo a will
need not know the mn|enlS of the will A sollcllar who had asslsled lrl
gwmg a drafl will la a lnend and who naa subsequently asslsled Ia
wilness me execullon vflhe wlll need nol charge nur open a me lame
same. The fact that PW4's presence In the accused: amce was not
planned ls Irrelevant
:5
sm LMn«zaMlEum2Gs41PN7w
ma. s.n.l n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnllly mm: dun-mm VII mane v-mm
[AD] lne unchallenged lacls reveal mail me edcused aonriirned lnar lie
had asked PW4 io be a wlmess because FW4 nad known Rax
previously PWA came lo invlie lne accused lor lunch all me eccuseds
olrice and allnougn lnlllally reludanh lie nad llien agreed when we
accused lold nirn lnel il was Rex or Alwie as lie was known wno was an
lne omoe. PW4 did ncl deny ol Rexs presence al Ihe adcuseds ollice
runner, lrieie is no iequireinenl in law lor FW4 lo know lne conlenis ol
lne will or even know lne leslalor or me will
[411 The negalive lnlerenoe made by lne learned Megislrale whsrelha
accused is said lo be me only one wno knows aboul lne will as a copy
was keol wilri him and llieielore lie inusl be lne one who lorged lrie
signalure cl Rex‘ is again. clearly niisulaoed. The fact is, lne Idle Rex
had a copy ol lne Will loo so. lne accused was nol llie only one who
has me ccoy ol me will No orie knows ollne will oecauco ll is no: lor
lrie accused lo lell lne wliole world aocur lne will unlil Rsx‘s demise
man no had noliced or me lack llial Re>l's larnily was looking loreny
will or leslarnenl olfiex ll was me accused wnc had senl a copy cl lne
same lo lne solicilois lorlhe laniily This com is olllie considered view
being a solicilor lornicre lnan 1 3 years slarldlng al llielinie llie willwas
execmed by Rex in 2005, me accused would nor have taken sucli a risk
lo rils orolessional career lo lcrge a docunieril lo wnich he gains nolning
liorn i\ The accused can be descrlbed lo be a wnolly disinleresled
wilness in regards lo the wi
[421 In San vook cliiii (F) a. Anor v loo lng Chin @ Lee reek Seng
5. are [2005] 2 ulL.J 1‘ llia Federal coun in assessing lne issue on
loigery ie wlielner the coun ol Appeal erred in ereleinng lne diiecl
evidence or MU wilnesses ie a solicilor (DW2) and lire legal clerk
I6
sin LMMZEMIEwNZGG<flPN7w
«wee s.n.i In-vlhnrwlll be used w my me nflglrlnllly MIME dnunvlnrll vu eFluNG pom!
(owe) wno witnessed me mu over me evident: ol me nanawming
experls sIa|ed as iouews.
‘v The Forgery ouesnen
31 This question also relates to me issue oldus execution
ofihe wiii anne deceased. on mix, the coun omnneai
said as follows‘
we nowtum to consider me issue: as re whelherlhsre was
due execulian of me will by the deceased The ieemeo
iudiciei commissioner /ound against me delendanis on lms
point on two main grounds First ne Iound Ihal ins
slgnnlurv on the win was no: ine deceased‘: andlhersfars
a forgery. Sflcami in: round that there had ueen cniy one
suesiing wilrlsss pvsssm‘ when execution lock piace and
lhsl lmznzlovs [here was noncompliance wim me relevant
Dmvisions onne Wills An!
32 me courr 0/Appeal men reviewed in some detail me
auioence on znis issue oidue execution. This is rel/scted in
paras 62 to so alihsiudgmenl nu Court omppoai (wk
me view me: the Nlnh com mid I-Ilod to conmm mo
alomonl armozin an Inn plrl of non Ming (owz) and
Chln Fong Lin mwa) in rupee: ultho nxlculion of Ibo
dncus-d’: will,’ that It did not Isk me quosllon Is to
why! pass/bu mauve In a two wnneuu would nu c
in concocung such a story :1 my took no intnnst
umkr an will nor In: ow: p-Id Iny significant
lmnlml for tho pnplrlllon er en. said will
in
sin LMMZEM/Ewmzsssuwvw
-nae s.n.i I-vihnrwm be used m mm n. nflmnnflly MIN: dun-mm wa nrium pm
33 Hera, counser ror the apps/rams G“ex!:ansd the
soundness of lhe ptoposmon or observauon, conrandrng
mar DW2 was aflemplmg to covarher mrslake: as aresrrn
alhsrinexpsnoncs, re ydrrng, /oorrsn sndmo huslmg vwm
Isspecl‘ we do not accept rnrs arms marry, mo
avrdanco snows mar nwz nad been An legal pncllcl
In! About nun yur: at tho rnmrm time. she was
obviously nor a novice. In any ownr, ovnn accapung
her lnaxparlenca. given the llama! zlrcumslnncns In
nus case, 1: rs anukary. In am View, um owz would
mm mun such an enormous rrsu to her prarasstonar
carur. Moroovar, n Is a rnamr orprurosslonar rnoramy
and so its standard would nor on rnaasurod by we
ungm or ono'4 pncflcn Evaryrhlng consrdmd. we
and lo agru wmr ma obmvauons oaprussod by the
Court oIAppuI In an Iollowlng him:
Once on tvldmcn ol ow: nnd own an c-ruruuy
scnmnuod and mud Agnmst mo grnblblllrln or ma
us. n is lggmnk am [hex urn wholly dlalntorurod
witnesses. TIMI! mdencs may be nfelz mad uggn
and agar to have bun acted ugnn by me Ium-d
1-rdmalcornrnrssrorror. ow: amnded on the deceased
won his Instructions ground a mu In accardance
with those Inszrucuon nd mndod to m uocuflon
d Hilts an or that will owz and Dl/W, tssunod ma:
me deceased was ermre/y mud and mentally alert born at
the me ofgn/mg /nslrucl/ans and at me nrne arsrgnrng Ins
wrll wa find no good mason for trust two wnrrossos In
M
syn Lmmxzam/Ewwzssdawvw
more Sum ndnwhnv Mu be used M mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm VII arwum pm
have concocted WE/I srovy as nemm of mm hid
Inylhlng to gain mun doing so." [Emphasns added]
[431 The -zueenan ye was there any raasnn [or me accused to hug:
me wm What motive could me accused mm (0 Verge me Vale Rex‘:
swgnalura on \he WHI wnen there ws no suggeshon an an (hat he would
sland to gam enytmng lrorn nne wmv Tnere us no avidenoe man the
accused naa made any farm ul 1manc|a\ or muneiary gam mam Rex uv
any onne xauere vanuly member Whatever uanepneu after me Gram
av Fmbale belween Rex‘; wue FW3 and ms bro|her DW3 are wnouy
Irvekantanl mlhe Issuewhelherlhe accused was gumy as perms charge
[44] Moms vs Indeed rslsvanl harem The Cow‘ umnpeal m Lee mg
Chinq @ Ln Tack Song u Gan Vook Chin 12am] 2 MLJ 91 raised
me same quesnon as |a me molwz er lwu defendanfs mnesses DW2,
me sohcuar and her clerk (owe) whu anenaea lo the preparallun and
me anesoauen of me impugned wm Gopal sn Ram JCA (as he men
was) slated as vcucwe
‘Frrsr, me evrdelvce er pwz and ow: which we have
already summanzed. Here, me learned judge failed to
apply Illa can-Ict lusts to determine IIII clbdlhllliy OI
lhl two wltnuus. HQ did nar Ask hlmsetllhe crucial
question‘ whll mollve did these two witnesses II vs ta
concoct me my Ibaut me maklu or the by the
deceased? Nollllor look in lnlensl under the wm. And
is Mr moms pointed out during ergumem, owz-e
Ilrm reeelvea me pnltry sum on me more llnn msau
for preplrlng And Imzsting the deceased’: win. As in
m
em LMMZEM/Eumzssdawvw
-we Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm ue mwmnmly mm; dun-mm vn mum pm
:3 law: In concnlmd, em was merely n elem ln - Ilrm
ol sollcllols Ind rlrm appears to bl no motiv-
wrrmmyor for nor la I-brlcllo mo mm concumlnq
ule execuklun enm wlllby nu docn.Iul.1.'
[45] The unellallengea evlderlce ol llre accused eannel be
disvegardad and musl be aceeplsd The lacl Isl me only person wne ls
an eye wrlness lo lne Signing or me wrll is nene olhsr bul lne accused
and we learned Magislrele lor lhal mailer had made lnal rlncllng whale
sne slalea
‘No real wllness seen Rex slgned the Mll except the accused‘
[45] the aeelleecls enaenee was nevu challenged by me
pmseclfllon. The evldenoe :7! me necusea ls reproduced below
‘O Please elaborate on how me srgrllrlg ollne vwll (Exhlhil
P-5} look place er your o/Vice on la 6.20057
A' On l3 5 2005, Rex came lo my arree al Amara & Ho
el DJ-15, Pangsapurl lrnpran Kala, Jalan Kg Allap.
50460 Kuala Lumpur during lunen hour
l was srmng in my room al that me. My room rs small ll
has a (able and chali lor me lo sll ln lronl olme mere are
3 chairs ler clients lo srl on my lell ls a wall ollhe room
and on my rlgnlls lne mam daa
l mulled Rex to come lnlo my room Rex came VI and sal
acmss llre leble ln lronlolme on me clner chair closeslla
me well Rex then showed me P5. lnollee mar P5 is all type
wrmen wlln all the parilculars been msened ln ll.
zo
SIN LMMzaMlEwN2Gs4lPN'lw
-we Smnl luvlhnrwlll re flied m van; .. nnglnnllly sun. dun-mm VII nFluNG palm
[7] The campllmanl. one Nya Aye Aye (PW3) who Is from Myanmlv
Wu mamed m Rex smoe1111 was
Is] on 1.3 2006. Rex passed on.
[91 Aecurdmg to PW3. Rex en: mi weave any wm Ths [army
members slatted lo locklcr any WI“ and Iestamem a1me\aIe Rex PW5
was man appomled by PW3 cp mmale proceedmg lov Iener of
admlnislralxon.
[10] Subssuuemly. me vernuy members av me lale Rex had advertised
nouee .n me newspaper seeking vpr any peny me would nave known
pvany mm by me late Rex and |o rever me manenp Messrs Faun. Ngah
a. Neasa. Advocates .5 scanner:
[1 41 The accused havmg made aware wf Rex s uermse had lnrwarded
the origina\ copy pnne will to Messrs. Faun. Ngah 5 Neasa. the lawyers
ac1m9(orthelam\Iy of me Vans Rex
[12] Mssrs. Faun. Ngah 5. Neasa men apphed tome Kuala Lumpur
mgr. cpun var gram pv probate and m [ms regards. new the aeeusee
and PW4 affimed me amdaws tor the sam purpose span the accused
arm PW4 averted Ina! they had wmnessed me Iale Rex srgmng P5. me
WIN (the ' ' I.
[13] on 19 7.2006. me Grant cl Frobale was Issued by me Kuala
Lumnur H\gh com and Rex's mower, ow: Is me execulor M me '
m Lumzawzumzstknwvw
«we. s.n.r mmhnrwm be ....a e may r... paw-y em. dnuumnl y. mum WM
Rex rsquemu my help to wtlnsss mm 5/gnmg nrs Will I
agreed In do so
Araboul the same me, my cnuanooct Irrend Subiamamam
a/I Sudram (Sabra) (SP4) cams Irllo my allme In VWVIS me
lo! Iuncn
Whsn sum Ism) came rnIo my ulfce, he walked Inm my
room straighl and he saw Rex seated (here
IIequesIed Subra Io become a wrmsss Io Rex srgmng ms
wm. Imna//y Subrs was reluctant as he Ina not racogmze
Rex When I told Subra (hat this was Rex De A/wrs, Subva
nodded his new sad that he knew Rex bu! ecu/drI‘l
recogmze Rex. Subra men agreed to be a witness. sum
men set In me man c/uses! lo Ine dool
After Rex $911611 2 comes :2! hrs MI I lhen pm my chop
Vasanla A/L Amalasekera and sagnsd as a wflness.
ImmedIaIeIy I gave II In Subra.
sums Is a Isl! handar. Ha Iaok ma mu (P75) and wrote Ins
ruII name ‘Subrannmam s/o Sundram‘ logamsr with hrs
idenmy card number “550.'!1&V0~5B1.'!“on II Subra man
signed Ins 2 names al me wIII above me name and
Iaenn/Icavron cant number as a witness rne execunon 0/
me MI! (P5) took a law mrnuzss.
I gave Ru 3 copy ol Ina I/WI Ikspl Ina mm, copy ol Ins
WIII as an olnce copy
0' mi Subra know Rex?
A: Ves. Subra and I used lo play badmmlon In ms
Buddnrsl (ample M Bnckfie/I15 with a law people
Incrumng Rex and ms bmmar, Maurice In Ina Iasos
1)
sm Lmmszamizumzsssnwvw
mm. sum Iunhnrwm .. u... m mm he unmnm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
0 Do you know wny snma drd not rscogmzs Rex?
A: Rex had aged and looked a la! oma: syncs ma Irma we
used to play oaamrnton at ma Bmidhlsl temple m
Bncklta/ds, in ma 1930;
Q In what may was rm wr//s»9nad7
Rex signed Ina ww first. rmen signed as a wrlness and
was followed by sm
0. In what aapacny were you signing as In ma page
malked as Page A o/Exn/bu P-57
A Istgnsd as a wvlness to ma w///.'
>.
[471 It 13 vmponanl to note Ihal ma acwsed had leshfied that lhere was
no mlannon/nmniva on his Dan in vmga |he Wvll The accused slalsd
-0- What do you have m say about ma charges ma:
have oaan Ian1 agamsl you’)
A I was wmrlgly charged roran aflence wnrcn I an: no!
commit man: not forge Rex: win Ida not have any
reason or molwe 10 do so / only asststed Rex by
preparing a man will for rum and men becammg a
Witness 1:: ms wr//. I have nolhmg to gain by
conunnung any forgery ol Rexk mu I was only
helping a menu by Dscammg a wnnass to the will. /
can confirm [hat Rex signed me will in Imnl of me
and spa on me dale srara-1 m me mu, that Is
13.6.2005."
12
am Lumxzam/Eum2G<:41PN7w
mm. an.‘ n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my n. annmun am. dun-mm wa mum v-mm
[as] The Vealned Magrslrale larls Io evaluale lhe above aelenae by me
accused ana lne lauure to do ac is lalal bscause dlshmesly on me pan
of the accused ls cru::la\ Io prove me charge at lorgery
[49] Furlhermoler lne accused's varslon orlacxs nrdelsnee was never
challenged by the Dmsecuhon In cross exanrlnanon. Vn Ayoroml Hllon
v Publll: Frmolzlnar [2005] l MLJ 699,015 Cuun cl Appeal In flndmg
man mar ma Hugh Courl Judge had lauea lo oonslder me lacl lha| the
nralenal pan cl lne delenca ol lne accused was nu! sublect la any
cross-examlnallon had ham
'(2) The accused ouglll lo have been cmss-examined
an me aelenseauvanced by me: and me iarlure ulthe
prosecution la do sa anrounrs la an accepoance cme
material pans afher defense This nrcanr that she has
esmblislled that She had no knowledge Ma! W715! was
found rn Iver custody were in /acr dangerous drugs mm
the results mar mere rs no ewrtence 10 snow thal she was
in possession ollhem." [Ernpnasrs added]
[50] upon scrulrny ol lne noles a1Drooeedlngs,Ims Coun agrees lnar
wllh lne learned counsel lor Ihe amused mal are class examinamll on
me accused can be summanzed as loHows'
. whether lha accused had openea I melcrpraparrng
(ha Wlllr
why ma accused mu nu| give a wpy ml the wm ll:
PW; ma wlls al the Ia|e Rex:
2:
an Lumzam/Eumzstkawvw
Nuns smal luvlhnrwm be used m mm has mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm
wiiy me accused did nol charge less 104 ihe dmfllng
M ihe will:
FW4, who was me olhel wiinins lo "1! execulion oi
will was nei a close lnend at me laie Rex, and
A lawyar inusi open a me even ihcugh ine wdiii was
done pmbono
[51]
Irvelevanl and do not in any way aidved ihai ihe accused had mad the
vwll on 13.6.2005.
This Ccurl nnds inai all lhe above cruss—sxamlna|Ions are
[52] At no (me me issue dl inienlion or motive on me parl oi the
aeeused was challenged by lhe pmseclman Theieloie. me accuseds
version eannei be ieieeied because when lhe oreseeinion chooses ndi
lo Cr0SS—EJlamIne a wilness on a niaieilai lael. the inleienee would be
lhe pioseculion acceois iiie evidenoe (see ran Klm Luo v Public
Piasecindi [1911] I MLJ 114; The accused had given a deiailed
aeooiini on wnai happened beiween nim and Rex ai his office in his
wiiness sialeineni and in lhe aasenee of inens rea on me pan oi the
aocused whicn ieinained unieauiied, ii must ineieidie be accepted.
The learned Magisirale failed lo address ihis issue. This is an enoi in
law and in iacl on lhe nan oi lhe learned Magisiraie.
[531 lnleresiingly, one would men ask, now eduld lhe aeeused laiged
Rex's signaiuie when lhe adcuseds ieeiirisd inai he had no anoi
knowledge wnai Rex‘: signaiine lucked like and mai he was nol even
lainiliar wiiri Rex‘s Slgnalure This evidence was noi even challenged
Tiiere is no evidence lo show ihal lhe accused had seen ei had in
possession Rex‘s saniole slgnalure oi ihal he was familiar or have
26
sin LMMZEMIEwNZGG<nPN7w
-we s.n.i nnvlhnrwm be used M vaiw he aniiniiiy mi. dun-mm wa muua Wm!
knawledga ol lne slgnalure. The lrlvesligallng omeer lor lnal mailer nad
eenllnned max mere was ne euldenee lnal lne accused nad pessesslon
ol Rex‘s slgnamle, samples 9! speulmens Sn (here ls no evidence in
all el how lne accused could nave lorged Rex's slgnelure.
[54] The nandwnllng experts‘ PW1 and PW2 lddk me View ma: lnere
ls a dlllerenee ln lne slgnalure in lerrns el cenaln charac1erls|ics in me
sienelure on me Wlll and lne eenmles whxlsl DW2 lasllfied lhel lne
slgnelure III lne wlll and lne samnles are snfliclenlly slmllar ln elner
wards‘ lrdrn lne evidence dune handwrlling expens, I| can be deduced
lnel lne signatures in me WIII and me samples are nel edrnplelely
drllerenl. Tnerelme, ll lndeed lne accused nad ldrged lne lale Rex‘s
sigrlalure ne rnusl be lanuller or have knowledge or seen lhe lellers
slgrlaulre 10 be able Io large lne slgnelure. No ems-exarnrnalldn en
lnls lssue was pm lo lne accused Age-nl me learned Magulmle (Ills lo
ervalua|e and conslder (Ills erueel nleee ol evldenca I e lnel lne
accused nad no pner xneuledge whal Rex's signature even leaked Ilka
and "HS seam, ls anelner error on me pan dune learned Megrelrale
[55] In evaluallng me findlngs made by me courl or Appeal lll regards
lo lne alleged signalure ol lne deceased sald lo be «urged Illefein and
one general gulde lo lhe judlclal appreciauon cl nandwrlllng evidence
againsl direcl euldence, me Federal coun In an Yook Chin (P) 5
Anor v In Inn chln (suplal, had agreed with me nndlngs rnade by the
Court of Appeal lhal dlrEEl evidence ham a dislntelesled wllness who
nas seen me slnnlng of me will rnusl be prelerred egainsl me
handwrlllng expen 0p<l1Icl1.The Federal coun scaled Ihe Iallowlrlgs:
25
sru LMMZEM/EwN2Gs41PN7w
mu. Smnl In-vlhnrwlll e. u... m may he nflnlrrallly Mlhln dun-vlnrll VII nFluNG Wflxl
‘:4 In. Court n!Aapsul men 4195!! wan mo mgn Cowl‘:
nnmng or nxgery es regems the allegsd sfgnalum 11/ me
deceased on me mu Hera, caunsal for me apps!/anlx
contended that me Court of Appeal comm/(lad a
fundamsntsl snot m hmdmg that Hrrsct svrdencs rnewlamy
prsvar/s over hamiwrilmg experrs opinmn which should
Ihslelole oe dysmunlsd‘ He arguadlhallhalapploach was
wrong and me re//ance by me com 0/ Appeal an me
Enghsh case oINsw1on v Rmkslts (1951) 11 ER 731 was
misplaced becauss m me: pass livers was no clvai/ange to
me dune! awdencs wnron was dasmad to have neon
accepted (sea paras 5s and 59 awn»; wnuen sulzmtssran)
He Iurmer contended that a court had m have rsgard Io all
me evidence be/ere cone/udlng on me genumansss L)! a
signature‘ dnswmg atlenlforv to Dr Snanmuganallvan V
Fsnasamy [1997] 3 MLJ sv, Cmmsel made rslarsnns Ia
Dara 109 onne com o(APPea/'5/udgment wmcn slates‘
We consldu It la be a wol/-oslab/Ishod gtrvoral guide
to ma judicial nppncmlan of handv/Ililng ovmnca
man when men I: A sharp connm bclwun mo dlncr
Iestlmnny 1:! n dlslnnmslad wnnnss on me out side
no nnn an hlndwrlllng experl en the alive! I: to me
aenulneness oflho one-nlan of: document. men ms
- safe course for n com to pnfonm dlmtmdence
35 Agsm, me Cour! oIAppaaI cued Newton V Rmkem. /1 rs
perhaps psmnen! In nols me: me Com! 0/ Appeal also
draw suppall Imm me Indian case of Kamsswala Rae v
25
syn Lnmzowzmemww
-new smnw ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm
Suryapiakasarao A/R V962 AP we VI parliculav mo
following passage oiiho /udgmsni‘ lharsin.
rho opinion ofs nonuwniing expel! is, no daubl, admissible
undsl s 45 (Evidence Ac!) Whn vn/uo is to be attuned
no that opinion in a given cast is iiowom, onmiy a
dlihrom inmei. An expert’: opinion with mom Io
nlmtwrillnq mus! ohnys on received with grant
soniion. There csminiy mny be. andperliaps are cases
whm iiio handwriting oxooira oplrilan may in oi
nuisance to lhn calm In coming lo o conclusion as to
tho gsnulnlnou oi oispuioo honowming. But Ilia on
Lil Iormlng opinion by comparlsnn oi hzndwrtllng is
-sseritlnlly emplrlnl In cliaracler Ind enur is seldom
Insepurahie rmin such aplnlans. Where however, llu.-I:
is uiioouno lruslwnrlliy evidence olpersans who Ind
mooiiy seen the signing or ma document by me
lestllrlx, It is not riccossary In nior to OI niy on the
expert opinion.
36 in emphasizing Inn pan iioiisoa noon, tht co-in of
Apponi roan Nu vim ihni inc High Court hm moo in
unmsonoiaiy rejecting the evidence or two lttestlng
witnesses ow; Ind ow: who noo ooiooiiy witnessed
the execution of in: wiii by Ilia docoosod. nu co-in
obviously regarded iimn u oinci and trustworthy
wlrnosses. Moreover, when the shlfemenl oi the court
chad zhave is examlni.-d in the canrexl oi the
observations made in xamoswaio Rao no iiow can be
amibulad to that statement’ [Emphasis added]
17
SN Lmoczam/Ewwzssdawvw
-non Sum ...n... M“ be used m mm o. nflmnhflly mm; nan-mm VII mum wim
[56] Henoefonn, |ms Court ws taken to |he svmance 0! PW1‘ PW2 and
DW2 and N vs -mperanve «a rake gu-dance «mm Ihe aumonhes on
evidence 07 handwrmng expert.
[57] Firstly, m Dr snanmuganuman v Pnriasamy slo snhambarnm
Flllal [1991] 3 MLJ 61‘ the Federal Ooun reminded as fnllawsz
‘It Is um law that an principal object of expert
evidence is to Jssisr the manic Iorm Its own opinion
An expert should give his reasons. The mun 15 Mo
Iinal amner. not the experts or eyewitness Dssprte me
wealth or authonlies avai/an/e on this subject, the errors
that appear rn judgments mvlle us to elaborate on rrns
malls].
The Supreme Court of India‘: deorsron m Murarilal V Slam
of MP AIR 1930 sc 531 at p 534 rs 4/usrrauve and some
paragraphs of ms /udgmsnl are warm Ieproducmg:
14) We mu firsl consider me argument‘ a stale argument
anen heard, parncular/y In mmmal cams, that me oprruon
evidence ala IVEIIUWHHIIQ expert shauld not be acted upon
without substantial corroboralian We shall presently pom!
out how the argunrenr Carma! be [usmied an pmlcrpls or
precedent. We begm wnn me abservarron that me exyarhs
no accornpncs There rs no nmsmcnon lor condemning Ins
opmionevrdenae to the same class of evidence as that of
an accompflce and msrs! upon conubaranon True. I! has
oocasronally been saw on very high aumanvy ma: u would
be hazardous to base a conwaron solely an me aplman of
a hanflwntmg expert. But, tin hazard in accepting the
u
syn LMMZEM/Ewwzssdawvw
Nuns snrm n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nnwun mums dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
opinion at" any expert, nandwriting export or any other
kind at expert, is not because airports, in ganerei, are
unreillbie witnesses — tne equaiity oi crediniiiiy or
incrediaiiity doing one wnicit an expert snares with aii
other witnesses — but benuse aii humun[ut1gmenk is
ieiiibie and an expert may go wrong because ai some
deiect of nbsuvallon, some nvor oi pninlsus or
nonest mlslnko of conciusion. rna more deveidped end
ins more perfect a science, me iess ine chance oi an
iricoriscl opmiarv and me converse ii me scieiice IS iess
dsvelaped and imper/eci. Tne Science oi idenlflicalion ol
linger-plmt nas attained near peeveciion and the risk or an
incorrect opanron I5 pracncaiiy non-exisleril on tire orhvr
nand, tne science oiidentiiicatien ainandwriting is not
nearly so pcmct and tire rm Is, lherifon, itigim. Bu!
mat is a /ar uy from doubling the Opinion die nandwnting
expert as an invariable ruia and insisting upon substantial
conoaoranan in every case ndwseeuer tne aplnlon may
be aacited by tne saundesteireasons ii is Iiardlylaiito
an expert to VIEW ms Dplmafl with an Initial suspicion and to
treat min as an inle/ior son ci witness . His opinion has
lo be tested by thu accepteaiiity oi tne muons given
ay Mm. An expert depases and not decides iiis duty
‘Is In Ilimlsh lhe [edge with the necessary scientific
criteria fw teslmy in. accuracy oi III: conclusion, so
as to anaaie me iudge to form his own independent
iudgnteni by tite appiication or these criled-I to [he
iacts proved in evidence’
22
SN LMMZEM/Ewwzssdawvw
wane Sum am... Mu be used m mm a. anamu-y mm; dun-mm VII muuc wim
15) F/om me eeniesi limss, nouns have ieoeiyea iiie
opinion of experts As iong ego es 1553 ii was seie in
Buckley!/Rice rnonios (1554) 1 P/cwderi 115 iiineiiers
arise in oiii law wnicn concern oinei sciences or remiiies.
we coi-nnioniy apply ior iiie eiii oi iiiei science or iaoiiizy
wnicn ii concerns riiis is e noinineniiebie ining in our iew.
For inaiepy ii appears lhal we do no: iiisniiss eii oiiier
science: Dill our own, pm we approve oi insni and
encoiirege xneni as mings woiiiiy oiconirnendeiion.
is; Eiipen fesflmuny is min nkvlnl by s 45 oi ciio
Evidence Act and wiieie the min nu to fonn on
opinion upon ii palm as in Identity oi iiendwriiing, (ho
opinion ol a poison ‘spnclllly skilled’ in questions 1.:
lo iiicnmy oriinnciwming' is oiipnssiy inndc - nluvnrit
fact . The Evidence Act Ilse/I (5 3) tells us inei '3 ieci is
saidlo be proved wnen, aiiei considering me mallarbsfors
ii, me noun eniier believe: /1 to exist or considsrs fls
existence so probable me: e pmdenlman oiigni, iinaer iiie
circiimsienoes nf iiie paiiicuini case, in ac! upon me
siippoeiiion me: II 91051:’ /I is necessary to occasionaiiy
remind Guise/Ves oi mis inlalplatatinn cisiise in Evidence
Aci iesi we aci on anmoiai Slandald alproo/no! wannnied
by me provisions oi ine Aci. . ii is also in be nallcad that
s 45 oi me Evidence Act makes iocis, noi oiiieiwise
ieieyani, ieieyeni ii iiiey eiiopon or are /rmonsislem wnn
me opinion of experts, when siicii opinions are reievnni.
so, corioooraiion may no! invariahly be insisiea upon
peiore acting on the opinion oie nanuwming expert and
30
SN LMMZEMIEwNZGG<flPN7w
“Nate s.n.i iuvihnrwm be used m yam .. nniimiiiy MVMS dun-mm n. nF\uNG pans!
[:4] PW: challenged ma wm and denied ma! Rex had ever sugnea the
vwn. PW3 mac a sun In chaflenge |he wm and me smlwas disrmssed
wllhom a mu |naL
[15] In the present mailer, the learned Magxshale «mud that the
nmsec
pmened against the accused under secnon 467 aflhz Penal Oode
succeeded m pmvmg beyund ueasenabxs doubt me charge
Summary 91‘ Iho mgmmn Flndlngs
[15]
on the evidence gwen by the handwnlmg experts called by both the
proseculwon and the defence They ale PW1‘ PW2 and DW2 However.
me learned Maglsvale prelened me ewdenbe D1 PW1, a Science
Dlfioer with me Forensic Deparlmem 01 me Chemisky Deparlmem
Malaysia and PW2, a Fnvenslc Document Examiner 21 the Forensic
Department of lhe Raye! Malaysian Police accordmgly on the ground
that mm axpens were able to explam me characlensllc or me signamre
The learned Mag\sua|e1uslIfied as TOIIDWSI
In assessmg me avmenoe, the learned Maglshale relied neavuy
139] ms sxperls slated ma: ongmal documents would be
the best sslscuon la make companson comperad to
pholacopred documsnls Haws:/sr, mm are enough
spec/men wgnaluws to allow PW2 Ialorrn her opvmon. The
com accepled me opmro/1 by FW1 and PW2 when: mm
oflhs sxpsris wera able Ia exprain me characteristic suns
stgnamra DW2s opmran was mom on Iindmg ol the :ly)e
and shape and baby! of [he persan who stgnsd the
signature wrmouz ems lo Adsnltly what was the
churaclenslrcs 0/ me srgnalure, The Court believed mar
.
sw Lunczam/Eum2G::41PN7w
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
[hale need be no inilial Suspicion am, an the iacis ale
palhcu/al case, a cam may require corraoorairnn 0/ a
varying degree There can be no hard and res: rule, DUI
nomrng will justify me reiaction oi ms opinion aian expel!
supponsii by uncha//arigsd rsasaris an the sole ground
moi r: is no! corrubolated The nppmncn an aunt! while
daallivy with the opinion oia handwriting upon snouid
no to procud cauriousiy, pram (ht muons for ma
oplnlon, consider all ocnar ielevanl evident: and
decide nnniiy xo accept or reject it.
(1 1) We are /rrrniy oi me opinion mar mere is no mie uiiaw.
nor any rule a/piuderice which has crysiaiirzea into a mic
o/iaw, ma! OPVNOII evidence ola handwriting expert must
never be sued upon, uniess subslanlia//y conoboialed
am, iuving ciuc roqnrd to ma Impumct nature of mo
sclmcn alldnnllflutlon ol hlndwrltlng, inc Approach,
.5 in inuicmu earlier. shnuld be arm a! clurlon.
Reasons ior in. aplnlon inusl be carelully prubed and
examined. All allier relevant evidence must in
considmd. in appwnflala cases, corroboration may
bu sougm. in casts man an msons no: an opinion
If! convincing ma mere 15 no roiinnio Ivldonco
lhruwlng . daubt, the uncormbarafed testimony oi.
handwriting expel! may be accopind. Thorn cannot be
any Infloxlblo lulu on n in-mr which, in tin uiurnare
a alysls, Is no more men .1 qumion of tvsflmonlal
nrcigin." [EmpI1as\s added]
u
SIN Lumzammcmonrw
'NnI2 Sum ...nn.. WW he used m mm in nnn.u-y mm; dun-mm n. mum pm
[53] The Court oi Appeal in cnua Sung Sam Realty sdn and V Say
Chang sdn mm is ors And Other Appeals [2012] 7 cu :31 in racing
wilh Mo ooniiiciing experl evidence on irie cause oflhe euiiapse ei trie
nrsi piaintiirs wall slated iiie ioiiovnngs
-[45] in treating confllctlny expert avldancc, the
court, besides examining the eredi ‘lily of the experts,
sriouid also examine the scientific grounds and (acts
nliad by the experts and wimiier, when taken in
lotaliry, the inrurences drawn from moi! findings are
sound or otiierwise (see sirigapore Finance Ltd V L/m
Kan ivgem (spore) Pte Lid 5 Eugene HL cnari Associates
miird Pan;/)[19B4]1 ms 3;
/49] in aurjudgmenl iiie learned High Caun‘ judge fell
into serious error in iaiiing to give adequate
eonsideralinn tn the evidence ortne defendants ' expert
witness DW7, wrio riad prepared triree reports an tne
cause or tire collapse ii! the firsr piaintirrs retaining
wall Two of the reports were based on riis iniiesrigaiian an
sire. and me iiiird report was based on drawings suppiied
or me nrsi piainiiir.
[50] we iisiie carslufly sxaminsd Ihs reports of this witness
and we are 0! the View inatriis evidence as to me cilllse
al are collapse is more credible as opposed re tne
evidence or tne pIaintirrs' Ixpcn witness, FW5."
[Emphasis added]
J1
sin LMBGZEM/EwNZGG4JPN7w
-we s.ii.i ...r..i MU be used M mm Die nvW\ruH|Y MW; m.i.n VII AFVLING WM!
[59] In Publlc Pro hauler v Mohnmld Knnln hln mum mm 1
MLJ u, Hasmnn Yeop A Sam J (as he lhzn was) slaled lhe luunwings
‘I! Is uflltdlnw that Ividtncu by - hlndwrning upon‘
can new be conclusive tloelusn it is anly opinion
ui¢nnc»_ see /shwarl Prasad V Mahd /55 NR 1953 sc
1729
me assessment 0/ svldence ol hamfwntlng experls was
also deal! mm W lndar Dart V Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore
4:25 413 /n Ihatcase In 73 a Velvkala Raw(1913) IL)? 36
Mad 159, 14 IC us, V3 CI LJ 225 was cued and also a
quolarion lrom Dr Lawson's work on the Law 0/Expert and
oprmon Evidence, which runs as fa//own‘
‘The evidence cl me Qemllnsness ol (he Sryrlalurs based
won me comparison cl nanclwmmg and of ms OPINION of
experts IS anlll/ed lo Dvfinsr consldelallon and welqhf. It
must in confund howvvor lnnl it is of mo lowest
ordor ol tvidtncv or 0! m. mos! unsllishckoty
chnnclar. We lnlian am in mi; apinion axpariancnd
layman unim wilh ma mnmburs olln. I-gal pmhssion.
oull kinds ol wldanu adlnm-ad In a cam lh/s Is in-
most unullsfacfovy. It I: so wnk -nd docnpit as
scnrctly to llunrw - plncl in our system or
Iurisprudonco -
ln Srlkanl V King Emperor AIR 1953 so 1723, rwo learned
judges olme Allahabad High Cour! observed mm
33
SN LMMZEMIEwNZGG4JPN7w
-um Snl1n\l-vihnrwmlxe used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm n. .mm mm
'10 ban a conviction upon in. lvtdorlci u! .n "pm
in iunawming I1, I: n gonmi mic. my uns.r..'
[Emphasis aimed}
[so] Returning to iiie instant maner, the iearnea Magistrate iouria tha|
PWL PW2 and DW2 have adequate skiiis arid experience in anaiysing
nanawniing inciuaing signatures. However, the teamed Magistrate was
Mlhe opinion that PW2 was better equipped with better equipment and
kncwiedge in tanning her opinion Acmrdlng tn the learned Mlgisfile.
DW2's mslhadology was corivenlionai because he used magnifier,
oiienay and microscopic wriiisi PW2 used specirai mmparalorto which
better View at the signature can be obtained. In iegards Io PW1, the
learned Magistrate iouna man even inougn she did not use any
equipment In examine, PW1 had cleariy took Into both signaiuves and
was zbie In see the ditferenizes and similarities withoul the aid ofany
equipment
[51] PW1 look mree is; working days to prepare ner reimn Nu
equipmeni was used
[52] um look almul one (1) to Ma (2) months in examine irie
questioned signature on lhe win and the specimen signatures He usea
several equipment in conducting ms analysis.
i aesisoope BS302DT
Pmimcior
Overiay
Grid Ruler
Hand Magninei
:4
SN LMMZEM/Ewm2Gs4iPN7w
“Nuns s.ii.i in-vihnrwm be used M van; i.. nflginniily Mimi dnunvilrit VII nFiuNG pom!
[63] DW2 has Produced ms reporl won se|s out (he anawsus and
comparison at the queslmnnd sngnalura an the w-u wulh I0 ulher
s4gna|ures of Rex. n can be seen fmm me genera! may 01 a blown up
imagewlagmfied 4 «ms orA()0%)oHhe qussnoned slgnalure. venous
lemwmlngdes. Vabels at venous strokes and forms were marked
snowing the characlensncs o1Rex‘s signature Delailed reasons were
given by DW2 tor usmg all the equipment menlvoned \n ma above -n ms
(es|Imony DW2
oomparisorvs In numerous onans in ms expen repon
reached ms cunduslnn afier making momma
[54] In gmng nis opmion Ihal me quesucned swgnalure vs hke\y m be
genume, nwz answered as €aIlcws:
ADS .Can you exmam your findmg: m para 4
sxs Because o/me presence offine dem//s, a/nnese are Inund
In me quesnonea srgmalure and /rkery me queslronsd
srgnalurs .s gsnmne
ADS ‘The prsssncs olfinsr data:/s represents wnsl?
sxs man: Is likely zo be genums sagnatura
ADS 'S:mr/alilies in page 1: Hats mu say altogether I found 73
matclwvg signatures,
smulanl/es you found?
SKS :Page 15, me cunnamm oflop curve
can you tell us my brref, what any me
ADS wnwng mm/amen! It szens at page 15 wnm you mean by
wnrrng movement?
sxs :Tne curves are graceful 01 not rne slailgoes szrargnr ocwn
and no wavering Arse oonlmu/ly and coherence The
coherence means that me pens are moss Iugslhsr
:5
en Lmmszam/Ewmzssmwvw
mm. smm ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: mmn wa munc Wm!
ADS page 15, maybe you can grva us an sxampoe
sxs The more angular mm is Iuund rn x4 them Is a sngnt cum
and there IS an angular mm
ADS .wna: does lms snow Io you
sxs .‘Thu abrupt tum rs axpectad //I o Abrupt mm 15 when (here
Is 3 snstgm and smmn curve.
ADS sltuw us when is [ms laurrd in Q
sxs cum 4 Thslu Is a straight stroke and sudden curve S1 1,
stmrgm stroke and /nlemal cans/slency
AKS what does Ilus mdlcals?
SKS It 75 normal Page 15, pom! no.39 There ts a flaw The
wnung movsmsnl IS same but pm vanalton 0/ hand
pmssum
ADS Show us a and tell us why you say is smmar
sxs Same mcwsnlcm humus! dmmu vsnalmn. "
[55] where PW2 Is concerned apart iron: using the Vuisu Spectral
Comparator woo‘ tter assessment was based on a naked eye
evaluatton
[561 The tnvasltgaung cmcer PW7 provtded I0 speumens sIgna|ure
to PW2 and «we were photocopy spectmens (P-Illa) and P41 (12))
Accurdmg to D—52, a document which lays down the requtretnents rot
examlnaunn otaocumentstmm the Chemistry DeparImenlolMalsIysta.
me documents sent tar exammatton must be tn the farm at ongmal
documerfl and that
:5
am Lmmszam/Eum2Gs41PN7w
«mt. s.n.t n-vthnrwm .. t... M van; .. mn.u.y mum: dun-mm VII .ntm pans!
vonumen eeiinen iomsiai atsu seiinun karbon Iidak
eeeuei uriluk psrbandingan den skan menisjasksri
psmoriksssn"
[67] In olherwords, a Dhnwoovy decurneni is inappropriate to be used
ior oampanson and WM afiec| me exeinmenon This was agreed upon
by PW2.
[68]
speoimenl e. PH»1a) The remaining mne specnnens ieumi which only
PW2 then ionneu her opinion pverms/ed on the phclooopy
e\gh| (a) were origmmsj were abandoned by PW2 In her ana\ys|s
[G91
signature aulhured by me same person are bound |o nappen rne
ceuns auenuon is bruugm to we Illeralule aulhoved by nu. Wllson R
Heuieon enuued ‘Suspect Documanls ‘I'I|alrSI:Ianl|l|I: Examlnallon
(J*- Indian Rlprlnl) znna" slates as laflows:
u cannm be disputed Ihal vanaliuns .n one or more genuine
"As no Mo genuine sianeruiee an identical, It follows
nut in eigneium, s with nendwriiing in generei, e
certein emouni or nnmnl mieiion in mm cie lvn
mus! bl Ixpoctnd end cansoquomly allmvod fur,
whancvlr signltuius -re Ming compand lo deiennine
wimim or nor may MI Ofcommon eumouivip.
Nothing is man ceicuimd la bring me eomperison or
Iundwriling imp caniunpr mun the attitude or me
wlmass wna decieres - genuine siannure in be -
rumuy because .1 deperu in some -iereii of ienei
av
SIN Lumzam/EumzGs4aPN7w
None Sum i-nhnv WW be used m mm u. nvVn\iuH|Y mm; dun-mm VI] erium wim
dulgn from ellmr ol me mo genulrre specrrrluls ne
has und :5 tho mm or me comparison. This kind at
fully nu lupperled wmlln me oxporlerlce 0! th-
-uurdr [Emphasls added]
170] In re clear lnal PW|‘s evidence ls laeklng ln dela
exarnlnalldn and analysls. ll re 01 me cdnsldered vlew \ha| lne
lenlls or
metlculous exarn-nallon, analysls and epneldsldn lprnled by DW2 are
more credlble than lne evldence ol PW2 whrch are queslldneble and
eemprdmlsed as they go agalnsl lhe redwernenl pl lne cnennslry
Deparlmem rlsell.
[11] Moving on, I! can be observed lnal lne learned MagIstra|e seems
lo pe nlple adneerned wlln me eledlmllly dl PW3. lne wlle ol the lale
Rex and own, lne lale Rex's brother Thls Omm IS ol lrle odnsldered
vlew ma| nolnlng ulrns on [mm men evldenoe lo prove me gull an lne
pan :2! me accused One flung VS aenaln, nwa was never at lne
accused‘: elrlee al me (lme Rex bruughl me Will lo be dllesled and
mere ls no evldenlx: up sndw lhal il was nws dr any dl Rexs lernlly
member who had asked me accused up prepare me w M me end at
me day, PW3 s challenge on lne vahdlly of me wlll by flllng a clvll sull
agalnsl uws was releoled by me Hlgh caurl, Court of Appeal and
Federal cam
[72] PW4 ls ln lac! an lmpdnanl wllness However. lne evldence at
PW4 wnd was pveserll all me rnalenel lune, was only donsldered rn
pusslng by me learned Maglslrele Trle learned Meglslrala ldund lllel
PW4 cannot be sad in be In eye-wllness In Rex signlng lne WIII
because PW4‘s allerldenoe was nel planned The pmseculmn dn ma
13
SW Lundzam/Ewm2Gs4lPN7w
-nee s.n.l 1-vlhnrwm be used m van; me nflglrrnuly enn. dun-vlnrrl wa nFluNG wnxl
outer hanu harped on the had that the Wm was nm explained In Pvw
am msrelore me wm cannot be said we be a \egiIIma|e wm. These are
Irmevanl and a non-Issue nerem
U3] The crux oI he PW4’s evidence can be seen hem Ihe reuewmg
excerpxs
‘On that pamcu/ar day, my Inlsnllofl lo /nee! Mr Sunrr, ms
oflrcral name sr Mr vassnza Amarasekara, my Imennon )8
lo invite him for Iunch (hat was my only inlsnlian so, I
parked me car down slsrrs end Irush up and lush In. and I
shouted 'sunn, let's go In much’
wmnn a second he just looked aI ms‘ Iess man one minme
and ask me, ‘can you come and srgn this WI/ . " My
auIornan's reaclian was ‘I'm hungry Isls go down and eat
fun And he says, "na, no, no‘ please srgn ms WI” and he
mennotv a very Iong name.
(said, “I can't srgn because I are not know me name olme
person" and Ihal when he Imedecled and sard ns ‘A/wrs,
Aims” and then I remembeved who Alvis was because I
used to work If! Buddhst lomple In Bnckfields and help
Iempre
I'm very famflrar to this name because he used ro p/ay
bedmmton Then, Isafd Iarm/y wil/? He sara yes I sagnsd,
so I was weII<Inq our I could see somebody sming Imm my
corner oi my eye and I ,us4 walk out because I am very
hungry and all this happened in Iess men s mmulee then I
lell.‘
syn LMMzaMIEum2Gs41PN7w “
«me Sum nnnhnrwm be used m mm s. nrW\hnU|Y mums dun-mm VII muNG v-mm
[74] Ir rs rrreramra alaar lmm ore avrdenoa o1 FW4 In the above, mar
mere was no denIa\ on ma pan M FW4 that Rex or Alwls/Nvls as he
was known mm was plesanl a| {he accused's omoe
U5] Ir is penirram la nme man mere rs an smdavn amrrned by PW4
(D39) on 5 6 zone cunflmunglhal vwa nad rdentmed rrrrrrsewesa vrrand
who had known the accused and \he deoaasad (Rex) rn «hrs case |\
cleany shows mar PW4 had descnoed the deceased (Rex) as a “mend
that he had known‘ This evvdencs eorwborares the accused's evrdence
that he had reminded PW4 cl Rex whom he had known betore
[76] Feninenlly, PW8 are invesmgalmg omoer oonfrrmed man when
wwa gave his statement under seorrorr 112 or the Cnrmna\ Procedure
code, |he Iarrer had conhnned \ha| hewasa witness lo Rex’s WHI PW4
had also corrnrmed that were were two wrrnesses to Rexs win. are
accused and rrrmsew PW3 had aarrrrrrrred mar In PW4's alfdavil (may,
PM had amrrrred the! he had wrrrressed Rex 5' no me war‘ and Ihls
was repealed by PW8 in cross exammalion ms again, aorraoorares
ma ar-,orrsed‘s version 0! facts mat PW4 was arromar person who had
wllnesssd me s\gmng or me Will by Rex on 13 5.2005
[77] FW4‘s aifidavu (D39) rs a oonlemporaneous duoumarrr and n
mus\ be praverrad aga|ns| ore oral ewdence gwen by PW4 which can
be seen to be lamy and sketchy In |he aflmawl, it re clearmar PW4 rrad
wnlnessed Rex srgnrrrg the wru, PW4 avewed as rouows.
-2 Says marryarakarr dr smi hshawa "Wasml" sfmali
Adembenage Amanda Fax no Aims berfarikh 13 hanbu/an
Jun 2005 dr marra llndltlngln
ri dimmrrknr dl
ra
aw Lmmszam/Ewm2G::41PN7w
«ware sanaw In-nhnrwm re used m van; me nnmnnuly MIME dun-mm VII nF\uNG am
ovary slgnelure wlll neve slgmilcant chamclarlstlc and not
eole lo be coplad by ems! person Alorgea slgnulurscoul-1
reeen-lole me some shape Du! avelylhmg aspeerelly me
speual chamcrensllc.
nwz explemeu me snepe nflho slgnslurss were slrnller
but lallsd lo loenlrly ulna: was the Impunant leelures ol ell
me specimen slgnalures. A5 explerned by Pwl and PW2,
aven lnera ls one slgnllrcanl mlrerenoe oelween
queslloneu slgnsmre and specimen, 1! IS sufflclam‘ I0
canduda me: me slgnalums were not Imm me same
person. rne dlllsrsnce n-us: he matellal and slgnlficzanl ena
rvotjust a V505!/en. Based on me svaluat/on by com PWV
and PW2, mere ls one slgnmcanl lealula lnel absence m
the question slgnalule wnlcn me nlams lrne. As DW2s'
oolnlon, he concluded ma oombmatlon onne 73 srrrnlarloes
as unlaue chsrnclerlsm: However lhe courl uneole lo
agree wlln Opinion of DW2 es me unrquenese ls me
combmallon :2! me slml/srlliss me: found In all (he
spoclmsn slgnelures ln 12 ooeurnenls Thls clearly show
me: DW2 lelleo lo idenllly me umquenesa me: appear ln
aV9'Y ol the speclmens A/so DW2 slated that me
alllerence may appear between quesllcmed slgnelure and
speclmen slgnelures ls e Intm of unusual uenellon and
should not oe elessmeu ulsllngulsnrng eneraolensllc The
noun Illld there rs eonslslency or the specimen signalurss
the)! Show val-lellons orslope, curve, shaft and loop. rne
consrsleney of hlalus eppeereo III elrnosl every specimen
snows lnel me nenll 09' me eulnor. ln lne queslloneu
ru LMMZEMIEwNZGGsnPN7w
«ma Sum! nmhnrwm be u... m may he ennmuu mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max
hadapan sm dc/am waslal nezseom: [Emphasis
added]
[13] It \s a pnnclme ov law ss|ah|Ished Ihmugh plethora of aumonues
men contemporaneous documents musl be omveneo lo ova! ev-aenee
(see T|nflok sour some stir: and v Tlnluv ca [1912] 2 um 22:,
Foo Sam Illlng v Archl Environ Pmnmmo [2004] 1 IILJ 449 and
Elh-ruddln bin Ahmld v Public FrmIcu(ov[20|D] 7 MLJ 577). D39
Is a documem made on 0501 end PWA had cnnfirrned that ne had
smcmed 039 on 5 5.2005 abeu\ a year ener me Will was execulad. It
Is of lhe nonsndsmd vvew (ha! D39 \s a oonlsmmnansuus document.
Had me Ieamed Magvslrals evimiled Dag and gwen proper wewghl in
me same‘ carmul be msouueo that PW4 was in YaC| a wnness |o lhs
wm Vmpnnanlly, cneue was no emoenoe in feel to suggesx lhal Rex um
um sign me wm at me accused's ones in me presence M ball: the
eoeoseo and vwa As such‘ «ms CcurIflnds|hi1|he\aarnad Maqlsvala
erred In making me lnHaw|ng nnoings
1 That “there rs no eye wnness who seen Rex
s/glued me W/H PW4 has nu knowledge ul me
conlsnl onne mm. The accused only asked PW4
In Sign lhe mu wrmaul Iurfhsr axplam eonaenz 0!
me Mflflor wvfness me person is Rex -
Thnl “there rs no dnec: evidence in we case
rnere rs no eye w/mess eecepr me accused rn we
case PWA on: not nnness Rex srgn me w//I."
[79] Where uruc|a\ enoence mghlnghled .n the mregmng mcludmg me
accused‘: vefsxun 01 what Iranspved on 1362005 was nut even
1;
sn LMMZEM/Ewm2Gs41PN7w
we s.nn n-nhnrwm es used m mm ms nrmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII snum v-vrm
::haHenged by me pmsecuhon and mslead meievanl mailers were
being put m cross exam\nalion.Ll1s val: ly ov me wm ramam mac: and
has rum in any way proves man me accused had [awed ma Will on
1: s 2on5
Conclullan
[so] In hghl of ma abuve, «his cum finds mm mare was no or
msufficIen| ludicxm appreciancn oi the enura emdenoe adduced behave
the Magwslram Court The accused s awn! was allowed. The
cmmcnon and sentence under secnon 467 a! the Pena! Code was set
aswde and me accussd was dvscharged and aaqumea. Thu sweat
againsx sentence by the Pvcsecution was dvsrnissed.
Daled 14 November 2023
[Ma um BADA‘R|3DD|N]
Judge
Higr. pun 01 Ma\ay3
Kuala Lumpuv
Dopuly Publh: Pmmum
Nlk Mahd Fadh bin Dam’ Nlk Az\an
Altnmey Genera\‘s Chambers
Counwls tor the Raspondem
Alex Nandaseli De Silva lugetharwnh Angehne Tay Lee vm
Messrs Bndxpalar Ponnuduraw De Sflva lKua|a Lumpuvl
az
sw maazawz.mzas4wm..
-ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm s. mm-y mm: dun-mm wa muNG pm
srgnaluras snow unueue/ wmcn
cunsfstancy of flow end vwfling uwz agreed me: were »e
venanons snnw
ne pen in: rn me quasfmnad signatura rne appearance of
mezus snow them 75 e break end mue me signatures not
conlmuntron afpan movement. Tharufouz, Cour! rened me
apmrnrl Irom Pwv end PW2.'
[11] Rewlng on lhe opinion of PW1 and PW2 me Veamed Magxslmh
¢aund mat me signature on the Wxll did not ongmale lmm the person
Mm signed me specmven dawmsnls.
[ca] The Ieemed Magwslmte further (ound Ihal smce mere was no eye
wnness wne eeund lesmy men .1 was Rex who signed me wm exoepl 10!
me amused who have kept me wm and trial n was me accused wno
had surrendered me wm lo me lawyer appoinmd by Rex‘: larmly‘ such
circumstances oomd nmy need In me eenclusxen Ihal n was me acwsed
who had forged Rex‘s sxgnatuve Tne Mag\slra|e slated:
'14 6] From lhs ewdenee adduced in me course onne mat,
only accused has me access In me wm and no one has
knowleflge al me existence 0/ me mu Accused knew Rex
endum and agreed lo ne/p Rex mm mm wrthou! charging
any fee or open any me m me Inm let me vwu. There Is no
preparation signmg VWI In me accused‘: ofcs as no
witness prspersd PWA enendenee was not planned and
Rex did no! commumcale Ia such important documenz. No
real wanes: seen Rex signed me my except amused
Accused was me one (Iva! surrender me my to me rewyer
appomtod by me lamrly ol Rex. mus, wnn me man cl
5
sm wmszam/Eum2Gs41PN7w
«we. sun ...n.mn e. u... m mm .. ennnue mm: dun-mm VII .nuuc we
ewdenco, (here ;s no one mum have access lo Wr/I and me
wm was kenl by the accused. Such emu: mam only
conclude ma: accused forged the signature rn 1719 w.// and
me: would be an/y rnlsmnce to be drawn In this Cass "
Summary of mu Armand‘: canunuons
[191 summanly, me accused mnlendslhal me beamed Magwshale had
erred m failing to consider the Iouowmgs:
1. The arwavn amrmea by PW4 (D39) oonfnrmng
that he had wvlnessed me signing or me wm by
me Vale Rex‘
2 The evidence of spa an me stakemenl gwen by
PWA In him under sermon 112 of me Cnminal
Pmcedure Code.
3 The amuseds defence
[20] In addmnn, me learned Maglsllme .5 submmed to have erred m
lakmg Inln amuunl irr¢\evan| mauers m arm/mg in! her concmsxon Ihai
lhe accused was sunny 0! lurgery.
Summnryof lhn Pruinclniolfs Conlcnlionl
[21] me pmseculmn subrmts mm the learned Magislraie had ngnuy
adrmlled and accepted the evldsnne a{PW| and PW2 whnare fllmlmed
experts V! the fiemi ol handwriting exammahons Further he evndsnca
07 PVV3 i5 sad to he ralevanl and suppnrlad by PW1 and PW2 where
Pwa had Isslmsd ma| the signature m the win Is not the accused‘:
swgnahue PW3‘s ewaence Is subvmlled to be ra\avan\ under secllun 47
7
sm Lunczam/Eum2G::41PN7w
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
nnhe Ev|dsnoeAcl195D as she Is me person who was acquainled with
\he handwnling enrer husband, irre iaie Rex.
[221 In regards In F-we II is submitted that re does rromuamy to he
an eye witness to F(sx's signalure since he did not know and was rrei
lnld nl [he content of the WM and his pressnl at the acwsed's ONCE
was just a co" 'denoe and no expianeirorr was anereee Io him by the
accused as ie irre rraiure oi irre vwu,
Erreirrauorr Ind Flndlngs
[231 Al me nulssl me primary issue (or oerrsrdereuorr in «us appeal is
wirenrer me accused had in rear, idrgea by placing me sigrraiure
purpomrrg \u be irrai ul Rex er the WW This in mm rrrviies a
consideralion of me rrrarrrrer er proof of a charge at iergery where
ingredients required in sairsiy a charge under seclmn 457 oflhe Penal
code musl be considered
[24] Seclion 457 ei me Perrel Code provides as Ieudws:—
'..Whoever lorges a document wrvch purports to be a
yerrrebie securriy or a win‘ ov err emnomy lo edopi e son, or
wrrrerr pulpmfs Ia grvs aufhamy ie erry person to make or
rrerreler erry valuable secrrrrry, or re reeerve rrrrr pnrrcrpe/,
interest, or diwdends rrrereorr, or to receive ar its/Ivar erry
rrrorrey. moi/tibia properry, or Va/uable securiry, er erry
deerrrrrerri per-perrrrrg in be err eequrnarrce or receipt,
eckrrewiedgrrrg me paymsrll errrrerrey or an aoqulllaricfl or
reeerpr Ier me delivery olarry rrreveirie pmpsrfy or valuable
securriy. srre/I be rwrrrsned with irrrprreorrrrrerrz rer a term
s
sm wmszam/EwNzGs41PN7w
«me semi nnrihnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nflmrrnflly mi. dun-rinrrl y.. nFiuNG vtmxi
wnrcn may extend to twenty yeard, and shall also ca name
to /tne "
[25] The essenuat ingredients of the offence which need to be
established by me prosewlion are -
tn the accused must have tongeo a document‘ am
(in lhedocumenl must be aneafthe clases spectned
In me sectton, [see Law otcritnes by Ratanlal at
Dhirailal 3rd Ed on Q 2346)
[25] ‘Forgery’ tn turn ts oeflneo VI sectton 463 at the Penal Code as
lollows -
'Whoewr makos any Ialsl documant or part cvf a
documnnl wzm iglln! la cause damp or rrriury lo
the public or to any plrsan or to support any c/arm or
me or to cause any person to party with property, or to
enter mlo any express or rmplted contract, or Will‘! mlsnl
to commit fraud or that fraud may be comnttflsd eommtts
Iorgerr [Empnasts added]
[27] The defimllnn at 'makmg a Ialse document’ is set out In sermon
454 ot the Penat Code The Satd secttcn prcvioes lhal a person ts satd
|a have made a tatse document it il tans underane ot the 3 limbs vrntcn
aIe—
‘A person Is sate to make a Ia/ss uocument —
(a) wno dlshoneslly or rraut-tutentty makes, stgns,
seals, or executes a document or part ola document.
5
stn LMMZEM/EwN2Gs41PN7w
-rue s.r.t nnvthnrwm be used M yaw .. otwtnnflly mt. dun-mm VI] nfluNG mu
or nukes eny mark denoting me sxsculron ol a
document, mm the tntentton of causing rt to be
behaved that such document was mede, srgnsd,
seated at axaculed by me eutnenty or a person by
wnom or by whose autnorny he knows met I! was not
made, signed, sealed, at executed. or at 5 Nine at
wnton he krmws met I! was not made, Stgnad, sea/ed.
or sxeculed,
win: without tewtut nulltorm/. dtenoneetty or
mudutenxty, by oencettetton or omerwtse, ts/tors a
document in any tneterret part meteor, after I! has
{D}
neon rneue or executed enner by hrrnsetr or by any
other person, wnetner such person be /Mng or dead
at the Itme culsuch etteretton, or
tn) who dtsnoneetty or rmudutet-my eeum uuy
pusan lo stgn, seat, execute or etter e document,
knowing tnet such person by reason ofunsoundnass
ofm/m1 or tnroxtcaltan nartnal, or Inn! by reason at
danepbon pvacltced upon ntrn he does not, know the
cantsnls at the document or the nature :3! me
etteretton." [Emphams edttee]
[231 From the toregotno definmons in the Penal code, it is ewdenl that
the tssue et the tergery at the Will in the instant mallet can be
astoerlainad by eenstdenng whether the accused dtd 'dishonesfly ar
tmudutehtty make or Sign me Wtll, or evan a can enhe wm with the
Inlermcn 07 cau l \o be behaved lha| Ihe VVi|| was made by Rex,
to
SIN LMMzaMtEwN2GssnPN7w
«we. s.n.t n-nhnrwm e. u... m van; .. enhr.u.y MIMI dun-mm vu mum pans!
| 5,376 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
AA-85-53-07/2022 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa RayaORANG KENA SAMANKUSHALANI A/P KALIAPPAN | Pengakuan bersalah di bawah seksyen 323 Kanun Keseksaan. Hukuman Bon Berkelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 173A (2)(B). Pleading guilt under section 323 Penal Code. | 14/11/2023 | Puan Farah Nabihah Binti Muhamad Dan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1eca7f0b-432e-40ba-8322-42b3ffdccde9&Inline=true |
1
DI DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET JENAYAH 3 IPOH
DALAM NEGERI PERAK
NO. KES: AA-85-53-07/2022
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
KUSHALANI A/P KALIAPPAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
LATAR BELAKANG
[1] Alasan penghakiman ini disediakan atas notis rayuan yang difailkan oleh
TIMBALAN PENDAKWARAYA (TPR) yang tidak berpuas hati dengan
hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan selepas OKS mengaku salah.
[2] OKS telah dituduh di bawah Seksyen 323 Kanun Keseksaan di hadapan
Mahkamah ini pada 25 Julai 2022. OKS hadir sendiri semasa
pertuduhan dibacakan dan OKS diwakili peguam. Setelah pertuduhan
14/11/2023 15:49:41
AA-85-53-07/2022 Kand. 24
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
dibacakan, OKS tidak mengaku salah dan memohon bicara ke atas
pertuduhan tersebut
[3] Mahkamah telah menetapkan tarikh untuk sebutan serahan dokumen
dan juga lantikan peguam. Pada tarikh yang seterusnya, OKS telah
melantik peguam untuk mewakili beliau. Peguambela mengakui
penerimaan dokumen dan mohon tarikh lain untuk menghantar
representasi. Representasi pihak pembelaan kemudiannya telah ditolak
dan satu tarikh perbicaraan telah ditetapkan.
[4] Pada tarikh bicara 14 Ogos 2023, pihak pembelaan memaklumkan
bahawa OKS ingin mengaku salah dan mohon agar satu tarikh
ditetapkan.
[5] Tarikh fakta dan hukuman ditetapkan pada 7 September. Pihak
pendakwaan memohon untuk meminda pertuduhan dan
pertuduhan pindaan telah dibacakan sekali lagi. OKS telah mengaku
salah
[6] Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan Fakta Kes (eksibit P1) dan P1
telah dibacakan kepada OKS. OKS telah mengakui P1.
[7] Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan eksibit-eksibit seperti berikut:
P2 – LAPORAN POLIS
P3 – RAJAH KASAR
P4 A HINGGA D – GAMBAR KEJADIAN
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
P5 A HINGGA D – GAMBAR KECEDERAAN
P6 – LAPORAN PERUBATAN
[8] Kesemua eksibit telah dirujukkan kepada OKS dan OKS telah mengakui
kesemua eksibit-eksibit.
[9] Mahkamah telah menerima pengakuan salah OKS, mendapati OKS
bersalah. Setelah mendengar dan mempertimbangkan hujahan-hujahan
mitigasi dan hujahan pemberatan oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya serta
keseluruhan fakta kes, Mahkamah ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman
perintah bon berkelakuan baik di bawah SEKSYEN 173A (2)(B) Kanun
Tatacara Jenayah selama 3 tahun dengan jaminan RM2000 dengan
seorang penjamin.
[10] Rentetan daripada keputusan tersebut, pihak pendakwaan tidak
berpuas hati dan telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap hukuman yang
dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah dalam tindakan ini.
PERTUDUHAN
[11] OKS telah dituduh ke atas pertuduhan pindaan seperti berikut –
BAHAWA KAMU PADA 17/01/2021 JAM LEBIH KURANG 12OO
HRS, BERTEMPAT DI HADAPAN JELAPANG SQURE NO 2
JALAN JELAPANG 2,JELAPANG IPOH PERAK DI DALAM
DAERAH IPOH, DI DALAM NEGERI PERAK,TELAH DENGAN
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
SENGAJA MENYEBABKAN KECEDERAAN KEPADA DEVI A/P
MAYALAGU, KPT: 610207085506 DAN YANG DEMIKIAN KAMU
TELAH MELAKUKAKN SUATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH
DIHJUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 323 KANUN KESEKSAAN.
HUKUMAN:
HENDAKLAH DIHUKUM DENGAN PEMENJARAAN SELAMA
TEMPOH YANG BOLEH SAMPAI SETAHUN, ATAU DENGAN
DENDA YANG BOLEH SAMPAI DUA RIBU RINGGIT ATAU
KEDUA-DUANYA.
[12] Semasa pengakuan salah OKS diambil, OKS diwakili peguam dan
mitigasi telah dilakukan oleh peguambela OKS.
[13] Rayuan OKS secara ringkasnya adalah OKS merupakan seorang ibu
Tunggal yang menjaga anak berusia 5 tahun tanpa bantuan daripada
bekas mentua. OKS berkerja sebagai jururawat di NUHS Singapore
dengan pendapatan 1500 USD.
Pihak pembelaan memohon agar Mahkamah menberikan perintah
untuk bon berkelakuan baik ke atas OKS memandangkan jika OKS
disabitkan di atas kesalahan, OKS akan mengalami kesukaran untuk
kerja beliau memandangkan satu sabitan kesalahan, waima dengan
hukuman denda akan timbul apabila majikan OKS membuat semakan
tahunan
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
Pihak pembelaan telah merujukkan Mahkamah kepada kes PP V
MUHAMMAD FIQRY JAFRI DAN MUHAMMAD FAHRY JAFRI [2020]
5 LNS 12 di mana Mahkamah telah memberikan hukuman perintah bon
berkelakuan baik.
Pembelaan juga merujuk kepada kes PP V Morah Chekwube
Chukwudi [2017] mengenai factor-faktor yang perlu dipertimbangkan
Pertamanya adalah “severity”. Dalam kes ini, ini adalah melibatkan
keluarga di mana mangsa merupakan bekas ibu mertua OKS.
Kesalahan bukanlah kesalahan serius dan kejadian adalah OKS
menampar pipi kiri mangsa
Pihak pembelaan juga berhujah bahawa walaupun satu tempoh telah
berlalu, pengakuan ini masih menjimatkan masa Mahkamah dan OKS
juga memberi Kerjasama penuh
[14] Hujahan pemberatan daripada pihak pendakwaan secara ringkasnya
pula adalah seperti berikut :-
Pihak pendakwaan mohon hukuman lebih berat dan membantah
permohonan di atas mitigasi. OKS telah menampar bekas mertua
beliau setelah beliau menyerahkan anak dan mangsa alami
kecederaan di pipi kiri. OKS sepatutnya berfikir masa depan sebelum
melakukan kesalahan.
Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa mahkamah tidak terikat untuk
mengikuti kes-kes yang dirujukkan oleh pihak pebelaan
memandangkan kes-kes yang dirujuk merupakan kes majistret dan
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
juga di dalam kes yang dirujuk, OKS-OKS adalah masih muda. Dalam
kes semasa, OKS bukanlah pesalah muda.
Pihak pendakwaan memohon hukuman bersifat deterren dan
pengajaran. Pihak pendakwaan juga memohon agar hukuman yang
lebih berat dikenakan,
HUKUMAN YANG DIJATUHKAN OLEH MAHKAMAH
[15] Setelah mendengar dan mempertimbangkan hujahan mitigasi oleh
peguam OKS, hujahan pemberatan Timbalan Pendakwaraya serta
keseluruhan fakta dalam kes ini, Mahkamah ini telah mengeluarkan
perintah PERINTAH BON BERKELAKUAN BAIK di bawah seksyen
173A (2)(B) KANUN TATACARA JENAYAH selama 3 tahun dengan
jaminan RM2000 dengan seorang penjamin.
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
[16] OKS telah mengaku salah sebelum tarikh perbicaraan dimulaikan,
meskipun bukan pada kali pertama pertuduhan dibacakan.
[17] Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa secara dasarnya, pengakuan
salah akan menjadi satu faktor mitigasi bagi hukuman memandangkan
OKS telah menjimatkan masa kesemua pihak yang terlibat
termasuklah Mahkamah yang akan mendengar perbicaraan serta
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
pihak pendakwaan yang perlu memanggil saksi-saksi jika perbicaraan
dijalankan.
[18] Merujuk kepada kes SAU SOO KIM V PP [1975] 2 MLJ 134 Hakim
Suffian L.P di dalam penghakimannya telah mengatakan:-
Whether a person is a hardened criminal or not I feel that a plea of
guilty should be treated as a mitigating factor. It not only saves the
country a great expense of a lengthy trial but also saves time and
inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses.
[19] Namun begitu, Mahkamah turut mengambil maklum bahawa di dalam
menjatuhkan hukuman, di dalam mempertimbangkan mitigasi
peringanan hukuman dan juga hujahan pemberatan hukuman,
Mahkamah perlulah pertamanya mempertimbangkan mengenai
kepentingan awam dan kemudiannya menimbangkan kepentingan
awam bersama kepentingan OKS.
[20] Kes Fan Yew Teng v Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 235 dirujuk:
In deciding appropriate sentence the first and foremost consideration
is the public interest.
[21] Kes Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor v. PP [2001] 4 CLJ 9 juga
dirujuk, di mana Y.A Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan:
"It cannot be gainsaid that the most onerous function of any court is
to decide the appropriate sentence in any criminal case. In deciding
the appropriate sentence, a court should always be guided by certain
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. In
that context the interest of justice should no doubt take into account
the interest of the offender. But it is often forgotten that the interest
of justice must also include the interest of the community. In
assessing sentence, the court should balance the interest of the
offender with the interest of the victim and strike a balance, not,
of course forgetting that the interest of the public should be of
the uppermost consideration."
[22] Jelas bahawa di dalam memberi pertimbangan untuk menjatuhkan
hukuman, kepentingan awam adalah yang paling pertama untuk
dipertimbangkan.
[23] Ini yang menjadikan tugas Mahkamah menjadi berat di mana
Mahkamah perlulah memastikan Mahkamah menimbang secara adil
kesemua hujahan mitigasi dan hujahan pemberatan yang
dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini.
[24] Merujuk kepada PP V MD RASHID HARUN [2000] 3 CLJ 832:
Courts are duty bound to consider all these matters before deciding
upon a suitable sentence”…
The sentence must be one appropriate to the gravity of the offence...
Accordingly, the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the
offence...
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
Mitigating factors are not to be disregarded, even if the offence calls
for a deterrent sentence…
That is not to say though, that “the circumstances of the individual
offender are more important than the protection of innocent
members of the community from injury to their persons, or from risk
even to their lives”…
Public interest must not be relegated to the background. “The correct
approach is to strike a balance, so far as possible, between the
interest of the public and the interest of the accused.
[25] Pada pendapat Mahkamah, hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah
adalah hukuman yang berpatutan setelah mempertimbangkan
kesemua hujahan mitigasi pihak pembelaan dan hujahan pemberatan
dari pihak pendakwaan.
[26] Mahkamah juga mengambil maklum bahawa ini merupakan kesalahan
pertama OKS memandangkan pihak pendakwaan tidak
mengemukakan sebarang rekod lampau kepada Mahkamah. Untuk
kesalahan kali pertama, kebiasaanya bagi Mahkamah adalah untuk
tidak menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan bagi mengelakkan impak
yang lebih teruk ke atas OKS.
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
[27] Di dalam kes Zawiyah bt Ahmad Adam v PP [2006] 4 MLJ 226,
Mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut-
As the accused has no previous conviction and custodial sentence
is not mandatory, in meting the proper sentence, the magistrate has
to exercise the discretion judicially by reference to the facts and
circumstances of each particular case and having due regard to
established judicial principles. In the absence of aggravating
circumstances resulting in offences which involve serious
elements of criminality, first offenders are generally to be kept
out of prison, rather than being given a ‘short. Sharp shock’ in the
form of a five-day custodial sentence”
[28] Sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman, Mahkamah turut mengambil kira
keseluruhan faktor-faktor mitigasi yang diberikan oleh pihak
pembelaan dan setelah itu, Mahkamah membuat keputusan untuk
mengeluarkan perintah Bon Berkelakuan Baik ke atas OKS di bawah
seksyen 173A (2)(b) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.
[29] Seksyen 173A (2)(b) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tertera seperti berikut:
(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
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
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
(a)….
(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 period, not exceeding
three years, as may be specified in the order.
[30] Di dalam hujahan pemberatan, pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa
kes yang dirujuk oleh pihak pembelaan tidak mengikat Mahkamah
memandangkan ianya adalah kes Mahkamah Majistret dan juga
bahawa pesalah di dalam kes tersebut adalah pesalah muda,
manakala di dalam kes semasa, OKS sudah berusia melebihi 21 tahun
dan bukan lagi seorang pesalah muda.
[31] Meskipun Mahkamah tidak terikat dengan kes tersebut, Mahkamah
masih mendapati bahawa kes-kes yang dirujuk membantu Mahkamah
di dalam membuat keputusan dan faktor-faktor yang perlu ditimbang
oleh Mahkamah.
[32] Selain daripada itu, walaupun OKS bukanlah seorang pesalah muda,
undang-undang jelas bahawa seksyen 173A terpakai untuk pesalah
muda dan juga dewasa.
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
[33] Bagi perkara ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR v YEONG YIN CHOY [1976] 2 MLJ 267:
I would think that the essential difference in the application of the
provisions of section 294 and section 173A of the Code is that the
latter is normally intended to be utilised in cases of minor
import and calling for exceptionally mild treatment affecting
adult and youthful offenders alike where the nature of the
offence, the extenuating circumstances of the case and factors
peculiar to the offender in question justify and perhaps even
require that no conviction be recorded against him, so that
although he is either admonished or cautioned or discharged
conditionally as provided therein there remains no blemish or
stain against him by reason of a conviction being recorded. It
would appear to me that it is substantially a conviction that affects a
person's standing and record for all time rather than the imposition
of any penalty per se, as we do not as yet have any legislative
provisions in our statute book on the lines of the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act, 1974 recently enacted in the United Kingdom which
propounds and implements the doctrine of spent convictions.
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
[34] Di dalam mempertimbangkan perintah ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada
kes RE BADRI BIN ABAS [1971] 1 MLJ 202:
The object of punishment as has been so often said, is two-fold, first
the prevention of offences and secondly the reformation of the
offender. Punishment would become a greater evil if, instead of
reforming the offender, it is likely to harden him by repeating the
crime and thus causing possibly an irreparable injury not only to
himself but also tending to defeat the object of punishment. Section
173A, I think, is primarily aimed at dealing leniently with first
offenders who are not guilty of offences which are not so
serious by giving such persons a chance of reformation which
they would lose if they were sent to prison. A person convicted
of an offence cannot, however, as of right claim the benefit of section
173A. The exercise of the power is entirely in the discretion of
the court and can only be exercised according to the
circumstances of each case. The legislature has very clearly
enumerated that the age, character, antecedents of the offender,
the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the
physical or mental condition of the offender, the trivial nature
of the offence if it be so, or other extenuating circumstances
under which the offence was committed should be taken into
consideration while exercising the discretion under this section.
An exercise of discretion under this section requires a considerable
sense of responsibility and courts should not allow themselves to be
misled into applying this section by any misplaced sense of leniency
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
or sympathy. The public must not be led to suppose that any offender
may commit any crime without any fear of punishment. If there are
circumstances which indicate that the accused had succumbed
to a sudden temptation, or the offence committed by him was
committed only as a result of a sudden uncontrollable impulse,
or it was the result of sheer thoughtlessness, it may afford
some reason to exercise discretion under section 173A. These
are quite a few of the considerations which may be taken into
account. The list can never be exhaustive. There may be
innumerable situations and circumstances depending on the
facts of a particular case and it is upon those circumstances
that the court should exercise its proper judgment.
[35] Selain daripada itu, Mahkamah turut merujuk kembali kepada kes
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v YEONG YIN CHOY [1976] 2 MLJ 267:
…perhaps even require that no conviction be recorded against
him, so that although he is either admonished or cautioned or
discharged conditionally as provided therein there remains no
blemish or stain against him by reason of a conviction being
recorded
[36] Secara ringkasnya, pertimbangan Mahkamah sebelum mengeluarkan
perintah untuk satu bon berkelakuan baik di bawah seksyen 173A
Kanun Tatacara Jenayah adalah seperti berikut: usia, karakter, rekod
lampau, fakta kes ini, keadaan fizikal dan mental OKS, faktor
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
keremehan (trivial) kes, faktor-faktor lain yang menyumbang kepada
kesalahan ini.
[37] Selain itu, Mahkamah juga pertu mempertimbangkan sama ada OKS
telah terjatuh ke atas tarikan tiba-tiba (sudden temptation), kejadian
berlaku atas tindakan yang tidak dapat dikawal (sudden uncontrollable
impulse) ataupun tidakan yang tidak difikirkan (sheer thoughtlessness).
[38] Tambahan pula, pertimbangan juga boleh diberikan untuk fakta
bahawa satu sabitan akan memberikan kesan yang buruk kepada OKS
(leaving a stain against him)
[39] Namun begitu, meskipun dengan setiap faktor ini, ianya adalah di
bawah budibicara Mahkamah sepenuhnya untuk membuat keputusan
sama ada untuk memberikan perintah ini ataupun tidak. Mahkamah
boleh membuat keputusan sama ada untuk memberikan hukuman
yang ringan atau untuk memberikan hukuman yang lebih berat.
[40] Di dalam kes semasa, Mahkamah membuat keputusan untuk
memberikan peluang kedua kepada OKS dan membuat keputusan
untuk mengeluarkan perintah ini.
[41] Di dalam kes semasa, OKS telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah
seksyen 323 Kanun Keseksaan. Semasa OKS menghantar anak untuk
penjagaan bekas suami, OKS telah menampar mangsa yang
merupakan bekas ibu mertua beliau. Akibat daripada ini, mangsa
mengalami "tender over left cheek bone with minimal swelling" dan
diagnosis tertera sebagai "soft tissue injury over left cheek".
[42] Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa terdapat sejarah di sebalik
OKS dan keluarga bekas mertua OKS. Mahkamah tidak memberikan
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
penekanan yang tinggi ke atas fakta ini, namun begitu, Mahkamah
mendapati bahawa ianya turut menyumbangkan kepada faktor
mentaliti OKS.
[43] Mahkamah juga mengambil kira fakta bahawa kejadian ini bukanlah
kejadian yang dirancang dan ianya telah berlaku secara tiba-tiba.
Kejadian berlaku semasa OKS sedang menyerahkan anak OKS
kepada bekas suami dan bekas suami telah menyerahkan anak
tersebut kepada mangsa. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa fakta bahawa
bekas suami OKS tidak melihat kejadian meskipun beliau berada di
tempat kejadian semasa kejadian ini berlaku menunjukkan bahawa
kejadian tersebut bukanlah kejadian yang berlaku secara besaran
ataupun menyebabkan kehebohan yang besar.
[44] Selain daripada faktor-faktor ini, Mahkamah turut menimbangkan
mengenai faktor pekerjaan OKS pada masa ini yang berkerja sebagai
jururawat di Singapura. OKS mendapat pekerjaan ini setelah kes
dituduhkan di Mahkamah dan bukanlah sesuatu yang berlaku sebelum
kejadian ini berlaku.
[45] OKS merupakan ibu tunggal kepada seorang anak kecil yang
memerlukan pekerjaan bagi menanggung anak beliau. Satu sabitan
akan memberikan impak yang terlalu berat ke atas OKS setelah
mengambil kira faktor-faktor lain. Ini juga merupakan faktor-faktor yang
dipertimbangkan apabila Mahkamah membuat keputusan untuk
memberi peluang kepada OKS dan mengelakkan sabitan untuk kes ini.
[46] Setelah mengambil kira keseluruhan faktor-faktor ini, Mahkamah
membuat keputusan untuk memberikan hukuman yang ringan ke atas
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
OKS agar OKS mengambil peluang yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah ini
sebagai pengajaran dan agar OKS tidak lagi mengulangi kejadian yang
sama selepas ini. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa melalui bon ini,
OKS masih perlu menjaga kelakuan beliau agar bon ini tidak dilanggar.
[47] Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa semasa pemberatan, pihak
pendakwaan membantah permohonan untuk perintah Bon
Berkelakuan Baik. Namun begitu, seperti maklum, hukuman adalah
sepenuhnya di bawah budi bicara Mahkamah dan setelah mengambil
kira setiap fakta kes, mitigasi dan pemberatan, Mahkamah mempunyai
hak dan tanggungjawab (“right and duty”) untuk memilih sama ada
untuk memberi hukuman yang ringan atau berat.
[48] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes R v. Kenneth John Ball [1951] 35 Cr
App R 164:
“... Our law does not therefore fix the sentence for a particular
offence but it 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, the court has the right and duty to
decide whether to be lenient or severe.”
[49] Sebelum mengeluarkan perintah ini, Mahkamah telah mengambil
maklum peringatan sebagaimana di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v
Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256:
Needless to say, the court should not simply jump at exercising the
powers under section 173A of the Criminal Procedure Code simply
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
because the accused is a youthful offender and he says he regrets
what he has done. It would be useful, I think, if I repeat here what
was said by the late Sharma J. in Re Badribin Abas (with which I
wholeheartedly agree) as a word of caution on the exercise of
discretion under section 173A of the Criminal Procedure Code in that
an exercise of discretion under this section requires a considerable
sense of responsibility and courts should not allow themselves
to be misled into applying this section by any misplaced sense
of leniency or sympathy. That section is not meant to be applied
indiscriminately to all first offenders who say they regret what
they have done and ask for leniency.
[50] Setelah menimbang peringatan ini, bersama-sama juga dengan fakta
kes serta faktor-faktor mitigasi lain, ditambahkan juga faktor bahawa
OKS adalah pesalah pertama, merupakan ibu tunggal dan faktor
bahawa sabitan akan memberikan impak yang ke atas pekerjaan OKS,
Mahkamah masih mendapati perintah ini merupakan satu hukuman
yang berpatutan bagi kes ini.
[51] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah berharap bahawa hukuman yang
telah dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah dapat memberikan pengajaran
kepada OKS agar tidak lagi melakukan kesalahan ini selepas ini dan
agar OKS akan lebih sedar akan tanggungjawab beliau sebagai
seorang ibu yang mempunyai seorang tanggungan anak kecil untuk
dijaga
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
KESIMPULAN
[52] Atas alasan-alasan yang diberikan di atas dan kesemua faktor-faktor
yang telah dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah, Mahkamah berpendapat
bahawa hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan ke atas OKS adalah satu
hukuman yang wajar, tidak berlebihan, berpatutan dan menurut
undang-undang.
BERTARIKH 12 November 2023
FARAH NABIHAH BINTI MUHAMAD DAN
MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET KHAS TRAFIK IPOH/
MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET JENAYAH 3 IPOH
S/N C3/KHi5DukCDIkKz/9zN6Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2023-11-14T15:51:14+0800
| 25,917 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-25-186-06/2020 | PEMOHON Kool FM Radio Sdn. Bhd. RESPONDEN 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Khairu Norliza Binti Khairudin | Judicial Review - Order for Certiorari to quash the Award of the Industrial Court that the dismissal of the 2nd Respondent was without just cause and excuse - Whether the 2nd Respondent was an employee or an Independant Contractor. | 14/11/2023 | YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=98e5f1c8-d4cd-462a-8223-86337090900c&Inline=true |
14/11/2023 11:54:51
WA-25-186-06/2020 Kand. 58
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N yPHlmM3UKkaCI4YzcJCQDA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
w.\—25—1a6—o5/2n2n Kand. 58
mmznza 11
mum umxmm nuns: MALAVA nu KUALA LLIMPUR
luuu wuuvm psnssxurum xum LUMPUR
4a»ucm4 KuAsM<uAsA mus)
rs mum szu mxmm N w as-nsnoza
Da\am pelknra Awe/d mmmsn
pammun Na :95 Tahun ma mnmm
u 2 ma dilam Kes Mahksmah
Puvusahaan Ne 4/A-sums yang dnlenmu
men Pemamn Dad: 20.2 mm
Dan
Damn pemmnan mum psrmuhanan
umuk Wnntah nemaran.
Dun
Damn mm. Sakiyen 2» Ana
Pemubungan Pelusahaan 1951:
Dan
mm pallura mangarm .l3duB\ 1 Ana
Mahkamah Kuhaklman 1964
Dan
Dllam pertam Alunn 5: K.aad:h—Kasdan
Mahkamah 2m 2
Imam
«mu m Rmilo sun. and . Pnmemn
Dln
v... 1 Mil
sm yPH\mM:mKncI4vxucuDA
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
1. Dlahlumah Pemsahun many...
2 Knlim Nurliu Biml Khalvudln Respoodnn-Rnivundcn
Judgmnm
lnlroducllon
1 The Apphoant men an appficallon var Jumcual vemew (Enclosure 5)
under Ovder 53 of lhe Rules of Cowl 2012 (Rec)
2 Tne Apphcanl was granted leave to apmy «or luducial vewew against
lhe Rsspondanls lo seek Ihe lullowmg reliefs. -
2 1 sualu Penman Certiorari unluk berahh ke Mahkamah Yang
Mulaw um umuk (u;uar\ membslalkan semruh keputusan Awad
Mankaman Perusahaan Nu 396 Tanun 2020 benankh
1422020 |Awad terssbut) olen Mahkamah Pemsanaan
Malaysva (Respcnden Peruma) at am (Penman cemoran
lerssbully
2 2 bahawa Pemohon dlhenkan lanwlan masa dx bawah Aluran
53 Kasdah 3(7) Kaedah-Kaadah Mahkamah 2012 unluk
memuhan Penman Certmrari (ersebm mengammuwa
Penman Kawalan Fengerakan (flan kesemua raniutan yang
berkennan) yang berkuatkuasa 15.3.2020 m mana Femohon
lvflak mempunyai akses kepada dokuman-dnkumen unluk
membmehkannya memfaflkan keriasrkertas kausa bagi
memonan bag: Penman cenioran lersebul:
2.3 sualu vennoan bahawa semua pmsmmg selamulnya untuk
mengualkuasakan alau melaksanskan keputusan
Responden Panama dalam Awad lersebul digamungkan
semngga nelupusan muklamad Permuhunan ml cleh
Mankaman Vang Mu Ia mu,
2 A semua pannnn dan avahan yang bemaman dan berikulan
nendaklan dibenkany
mum:
m yPH\mM:mKnacI4vxucuDA
«mm. saw ...n.mm .. LAIQ4 w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl wa mum Wm!
The as
on emu court
lndependnnt Cmltractorv snrployu
t4
15
16
17
13
19.
The lndustnal court had concluded lhat the 2"“ Respondent was a
workman under sectron 2 a1lhelRA
However. navtng pemsed the facts nresented lzetdre the Industrial
court, 1 am or me new tnat tne learned cnetnnan nad larled to take
trltn mnsldemtlon that in agreerng In and tnere-lter execuurlg me
lndependent contractor Agreement dated 2702017‘ tne 2"’
Respondent was well and tully aware tnat sne was no longer
engaged tn a mntraet ol ssrvlce wttn Synchmsound Studio bu|
rnslead a contract rar eennees with the Apollcarll.
I (ma tnet, rn line wrtn tne Appllcanfs tnrenlmn In only engage me
2"“ Respondent as an independent contractor, me 2“ Respondent
was notrned tnatsne would be requtred lo reglster nerown business
belore belng able m execute me new contract tor servloe wrtn the
Appllcam.
The 2"“ Respondent tnen on 2t 9.2ct7 regrstered a buslness under
tne name 01 LKD Emplre and VI her capaaty as an rndependent
contractor gave ner absolute acceptance to the Independent
Contractor Agreement dated 27.12.2017.
cteeny based on me Independent Contractor Agreement dated
21.12 2011, both parlles are bound by me terms at tne sald
Agreement.
Upan pemsal ollhe sald Agreement, I find mat the lollowlng sallent
terms are Incorporated m the Sam Agreement: -
t. DEFINHIOMS
(a) The renn attne Aqmemem“
mu cummullcu inwn fit‘ n-eunur, 2-2t1 untll st"
March 2m untue etnerwlse emnntnnd unfllr
Clinic 7 Mnlnt
».nm,m
rn yPHlntM:«.lKncI4vxucuDA
“Nate s.n.t nurlhnrwlll n. tn... w my r... lnnnun em. dnuuvlnnl Vfl .nune war
I I
a mnsvsuoauvcounucvon
fay n n nanny dedarua by and between me Pumas hernia
|h=| It u noun. lnllnllon M mum. Company urlhc
mum Ammuncnr nor any (elm In Ihls Aqncmnnl mu
hr dnmld lo lmply or bu nunnlnud a III»: on lfllcl
01 cveaflnn mm-n lhum : unauonsmp of emnluyen
--npuoyu m n In - mull unammoa mu mu
plmns will an! as mdlpundtnl cnnlmclms under mm
mm Ind wndlllans or-nu. Ann-mun
an For me sake L71 damy nnn nan: Annuumtrxhnll not a.
cunslmud as an employee 91 me Company wnmn the
amnion und-r nu Emprnymnnl Anl am nur my
mm slalulns now In lame or Mrullnr cnmd. As
such Ihe cmnpnny Ix unfllr no onugmn at ummy m
cnnlvihflll ma emnlflYIHs mniun to in: Emvvay-0'
Pmviflenl Fund, socsa lndluv In any amer svammry
cmtrlbnllons or dcducllnnl
7 rsmmmou
I I
73 Nummhslandnnglhe above an Eumpanymaylnmllnak
Ihls Aiveunnnl .4 my tllm by giving the mam
Announcnr mm. m dnyl pvior n mm...
wmwul gmnn iny reason: and wflhoul Mammy lor
cumpamatnon and/ardamagas um Inch lanvwulrun
1 I
uz Geneva;
The Radln Announcuricknmdledne manna; Aqrllmnnl has
boon mm: hull and voluntarily mm In: In: sum
Annmmur ms man this Aurumnnl and is s.gn.ng ihn xlmu
with mu lmowlmgn Ind undurllindlmz of nu (arms And
ccmilflans llurvin
(emphasis added)
(see Applicanrs Amdavn In Surmon El "554" an
pagn 1:3)
rule :2 .r 2:
sm ,w»nnmux»..cuv.ucum
mm. smnw n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my n. .mmn.u-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
20. ‘me 2'“ Respondent auegad that she ttad enlered into me
Independent Cantmcmr Agreement dated 27.12.2017 at me
insistence urine Applicant i. Puan Nik Na! Azure NIK Mahmoud
Howevev, I find tnat there was no documentary evidence produced
nature tne industnat Courl to negate tna 2"“ Respondenfs
unambiguous and clear accepuinca olma terms and condtuons oi
the said Independent contractor Agreement
21 Funhert tnna Ihat |he tndustnat coun latled to take into account the
invoice dated 13.7.2013 wntan was issued by the 2"“ Respondent
nersett tn the Aopitoant tor ner semces as an independent
oontvamnr pursuant to the lndepandenl Contractor Agresmenl datad
27 12 2017, wherein it was stated, inler atta as tnttows -
LKD EMPIRE son and
l12A7Wt.|l!
oars JuIyIa.2Di5
u 1
ran Bung omen iv
lufllnmlnrmaumcvvuu \
luv the ma-tlh MJMN
zma
Bruin
Kent at nwto son HHD
men t Auoum an
em; naymmlfiuviuilltml amoumm. luv ‘
_I7temonmuUu\ zeta nmmam
Suvtcn pm owmota .awomota
Knflm Mnnuwer rumtne Agreement dam
tum: zrm . at mmn zots
mm
um Iiillvnunl n-y-mm mamnu
in. IN Noniu xmtmdatnummm Kw
tmavmz I
(emphasis added)
22. The industnai court atsn rated to lake mlo oonsmemllon tnat both
parlies ttad utttm-my agreed tnat as the 2"“ Respondent was not an
emoioyee oi tne Applicant and the Applicant snail oe under no
ooiigatton to t:omribu|e in me Employee’: Provident Fund, socso
Ind/or to any olher slaluwry oontrtouuons or deductions in respect
Mme 2" Respondents angagemenl wilh ins Aoottcant.
up 1: ma
IN ,»ntnmux..ouv.ucom
«mu. s.n.t lunhnrwm .. u... u may t... nflmnnflly MVMI dnuavtml VI muna vtmxi
(See: paragraph 6(b)o1lho Indopendnnl connramr Aginrmut
daud 27.112017: See paragruph 19 abovn, clause 5(b))
23. More rrrrponanuy, I nnu that me Industrial own nad (awed to
aonsmer Ihal me 2"“ Respondent. m u\IimaIe\y agreemg In her
engagement as an mdependenl conlrauor of me Apphmnl and
mereaner pmvldvng her sennca under the Vndependent Contractor
Agreerneru dated 27122517, ma not raise any ameclmns upon
hemp rssusd mm the Tarrnrnanen Laue! dated 15 3 mm, wnerany
she had reeeivaa and thereafter acknowxedged me same wrxneux
any remarks.
24 Thecunducloflhepamesmthepresenlcasemeanyshawslhatme
Inaependem Contractor Agrsemenl dated 27.12.2017 was entered
unto rreeuy and vomnlanly wrmpun any omechon by me 2"
Resnondent
25 The Federa\ Courl n (he case alAN|n Bank and v. Mohd Kulm
@ K.|maI lbrzhim [2013] 1 MLRA 159420131 1 MELR as . (20131
2 MR 213; [2013] uILJ(suvP)1ns; [2013] I CLJ 455 he\d that: -
‘In our wew, me mnducl pr mun parbesr pear lhu rnerpar shows mat ; lmh
mnlrad an employment has been agraaa upon by «nern In spin at his
premr, an nlpondull eamrnarrm ma Imploymlnl mm mm appuurn
under the ntw «urns arm aeeemea ma nlhr cl rrun rrnplnyrnem m
conllnund In went rm ma rlllnmlm an. r 55, In am. more nhnnm M
-Inyiurlmr mqoflallom on or. In: M nllnmcm.
We have cnrmdlmd ma runrnrssran lhnl ma riwondsm ma -scented -na
appelanfs ufler under Indnccmlm by us farmer evnuhyev MM-AGF H!
mm lhal rn AMA AC7‘: Iehav Guard 22 March zoos. he was mlovmod um
me appaflant nan oflered mm cnnlmwui ernwey-nenn an no less ¢av\7urab\a
Ievms ma lmtev howwer came eke: me rener 2:1 mm «rum me appeuann,
aaxea 2a Marcn zoos Thus, when na mourvud me Amnncrs reuer me
raspondem was Vuly aware av me new Aenns new afiemd up nrrn, re, a hash
arnpmyrnenx mm nswmrms una no: a command emmaymnni) mdudmg - new
rurrarnam age at 55 We cannm euncmde lhal mere nas been any
mlsmpml-Hlilnun ar undua mlluenoa when (M msponden| acceplaa me new
mmm:1 pt empkzymenl
under me anprnax uuntracl wan Amn-ACF nna vewonden| may lsmunale ma
arnproyrnanx by gwmg snnfisxm mime no me emmcyer In Ims case ne nea
wuvnd lh-I nmree Ahhough mum war no cumrensau bmwuan cm Dlmu an
In nn. rsmsmervl age me ewdenoe as we vrewaa mam. shamed mm are
appauarn mm rrrrn an is one: nnar ma mIAvan|en| age be 55, and me
respnndem aoamod up up emmuyed undartha nawlerms
so... 11 an x:
srn yPH\nuM:mKncI4vxucuDA
“Nana a.n.r nmhnrwm be mad m my r... nrW\ruU|Y mm: dnuumnl Vfl .nuna pmar
flu pm» in MM bound by man nlw comm of Implo
mo rupomitnl nccnpku me new llrml am umrncl. no u d-mm: lo
nave um Ilw horwfil M um damn whully; m cm" wards m mum
mm In um In Ippmblh mu nplohmt mm the comma! nu ma Iqmd
In."
(emphasxs added)
26 The court at Appeal m me case of Aalapools (M) Sdn and v. IJM
Comtrucllon sun End [2009] 3 MLRA 31 2010] 3 MLJ 7;
rm1o]2 CLJ 23 ha\d as louaws V
141 In connmmg - wmlnn mntncl mu promud mm M an court
was to fllicnvarlhn mutual inlnlllon mm pl rm union or
an pm:-s mum» ascenalned horn ma document nsen. Thus. me
pl Itvumiehvss carmm give fluid nwdlnw lo show um mew
Imermons were an variance mm me nrovwsmrs or me wmran documem
rm (ask arm mm a dud. mpx. nanny‘ Io mnsmm me canlmcmal
helm wvmom any dremncevmen ai to vmal me names imenfled When
me mm. at Km pamae are expressed m an dnammg.-dds manned me
pnncumes of cnntimcllon wmch are at but my a much My lhe seamh lov
ma mlarmon ac me panes cannot be rehad upon In nvemde ma dedimfl
mlenhon M lhe puma: unuqulvucnfly axpmssed m In canlucl
ddeumem
[511 When me mmfls do ma names are expressed m -In unammguous
mnnnav, (ha pnumpnes nl mnslmchun man are at 0251 only a cum: m
|hI search rdr me Imzenimn er (ht pamas cam-d¢ be rened upon In
ovemde Ihe deemed wnarmon cl me names uneqmvocafly axpvused m
ma :anIr=I:|do1:umnm (K Avpukuhan Panmkamnd lnnmlvv sxmw
Ame-wa cnemamn was Kerala 3037. And when me Intention emu
lmm (In lngulyl wmcn may Mw nlld m In:
pruum can It mud, and cm mm eemuxmd
Ind unnmblunawl, Ihne Is no map. for drnwlnn
upon nwaflvuis wnudorahons or nuwund imnnnulu M m-
p-mu (TM Urbon cl ma V KImonla\ supra and Ems AIR 1959
Suprurw am 13521 Nrzmflmg IO lhu use cl James Mflluv Ind
Partners Lxd v wmnwdnn suee« Estates [Mancms|e1) ud [1970] AC
583 um) I AU 5»: 195 mu‘ once 3 mnlrlnl was man cont-dared u
must he -mew-and wmdm remenee m pm-u1nIm:lua\ negohahons ov
subwquenl flealmg between one pamss The reasnn my mu uppmach
xs may dxsmvmlfle n 5 pmvy to preserve me csruimy gww by www-
uonlram
(emphasxs added)
hr us av 11
am yPH\mM:mKncI4vxucuDA
«mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... .a my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
27 Further. VI the case of Mtchul c Sollo v. united Mulaynn 5-nkinq
cerp and [1934] I MLRA181;[1965)l MLJ 454193411 CL! 287,
the Federal ooun held .
"um lntnmmnl unne panlu xru In M gxmond nan. the I gulp:
um. Thly In nrnumtd In hm Intutddd whit Ihty . me
oomman and universal prmdpie rs Iha| in agreement Hugh! ta reserved
thalodnstmclmn wmrlt nu language mu eenn wmch war but emtuare
the mermon dune punter. to he wflected trern the more agreemen-
(emphasts added!
25 aesed on the authonhes ctted above. (ms ceun rs enhe vtew that
the terms and eondmons oi the Vndependent contractor Agreement
dated 27.12 2017 are mam and unambtgaus tndudtng the fixed term
Agreement (rom1 12 2017 unm313 zots
29 Therelote, havmg accepted the terms and condtnons er the oontract
M emptoyment, the 2M Respondent Is bound by rt and W; Court
must gtve eflect lo the sand |arms and cundmcns
30 It Is this Court's mew Ihat VI WDu\t1 be unmnsctcnable [er the 2”‘
Resuandant to be aflowed to ranaga nn her nheotute agreement and
acceptance of the clear and tmambrguous terms and oondmans of
the saw Agreement
31 Based en the clear and tmambtguaus terms dtthe agreement
above‘ tl ts near that the tndustnat ceun had ened WV tact and/er
taw In errwrng at :15 decistcn that the rerauonshrp between the
Applicant and the 2" Respondent was that ol the emp\oyer-
employee nelattcnshlp when tl lafled to take tnlo amount that -
1a) The irtlanhan cl pames when entenng min the tndependent
contractor Agreement dated 27 12.2017:
(D) Wu: 2“ Respondent was at all malsnal umes aware or her
engagement as an mflependent contractor and she had
unreservedty accepted the same, and
(c) the 2'“ Respondent had understood and unreservedly agreed
and acoepled all the terms and eondmens Iheretn‘ Indttdmg
her engagement at an rndependeht contractor and not an
employee at the Apnltcant
vandiatu
rn yPH\nuM:mKncI4vxucuDA
“Nair smut nuvthnrwm be t... m my r... nrW\n|H|Y mm: dnuumnt Vfl .nune Wm!
waged ‘Control’ by tho Appttsarit
32
33
34
35.
as
31.
The tridustriat court trad ptaeed reliance on Clauses 2A and 5 or the
independent contractor Agreement dated 27.t2.2t1t7 tn apptyirig
the con|roI test to tuslify that the 2"’ Respondent was required to
ptovlde tier exclusive services to the Apphcanl
Howeveri having perused the sense papers, this court I5 ottne view
that the Industrial Court had tailed to take into eecount tnat the
atteged ooritret by the Applicant had arisen out or a tegrtirriate
axareise at its zxmtraciual iigms spelled out in the tndapariderit
contractor Agreement dated 27 t22ut7t terrris o1 wftiuh were
unreservedty agreed upon by both partres at all material times
This court views that tne degree at earitrot subjected to the 2"“
Respondem (if any) did nnl at any material time exceed We
Applicants rights under the independent contractor Agreement
dated 2712 2017
As explained by the Appticenrs witness in his testimony:
11 tnere is no mrtlrui vang Ant it tneie will contain oaricatiy is riiiseoiiairo iii
ieririset aaaa nl mntlrtl ins zomparty wt“ be ii.ei. Ind Iltlu .. . IIIK oi tom;
the DHSWIESE iicerire Mn niriiiirio radio bustrtess under Maui. mis-
tsee. Apptteerire Mdltlonll Aflldavll tsxritatt FD2-1) et 3:190
55}.
t rind that Ihts tact was riot wnstdeved by the tridustriat court in
haridtiria dawn tne tmpugrted Award. Further. tne tndirstnat Courl
had also tailed to eorisider that there was in tact a dittererice in the
degree at eontrot (it any) by the Apptir-arit [awards the 2""
Respondent under the independent Contractor Agreement dated
27 12 2m 7 as compared to an errietoyee at the Appttcant
As elabcraled in the testimony oi the Applicants witness unaer
clossvexamlrlallani |he Appltcan| indeed entayed the treedarri at
dechning work that sne dirt riot want to partake in, a ireednrn tnat is
riot enjoyed by an employee
so... 11 a! 11
IN yPH\mM3UK|aEl4VxuCuDA
“Nair s.ii.i mrvtherwm be tr... M my i... aiiriuiiry MVMI dnuuvtnrtt Vfl eF\uNfl Wm!
as
as.
Wlmos iur mo Company:
’Sama am now -mm sehzgav mm. yang ken: be uuam mum .a. peflular
nelkara Vim kfla akan mengambn kva kemna secagal my-ee meme: me saw
Iudul yang ma akan mm pandangan Kenna - bagil snrvlm pmyuau
menu. In: Mk -mm m-mburlllhu nml nda mink: ntulu m.. -k
«mun melakukm kurpasima dennnn pmguuan flan apt pamlur and our
pnrlnlrlhlp cnlllhonman Ind Inch‘ kmau sablgm pcrmins Iyuu have m
Yolk»: in me meuuum ,em mugs. uwxee pmvidnr In: In ad: hak
nnunun nuns unluk txplnln up: perkarn yang mum Ink Mk mum “
(see. Appl In|'IA.d ticmll Affldnvil (Exh FDZ-1 on plfiO
‘Vang An: um Empin sun and van cnglgud to nrnvifli umcn .. . Idle
innnunur but m rnquesled lav on company In men an arlick cor Bevin
rum which um Empln am nun Ally but I-hr an enema: nut Io ...e m
eeeenmmm parficnlar dncnsinn by um Emplra Sin and,"
[See Appncanrs Audiuonal Affldavlt (Exhibit FDZ-1 an page
42).
runner, |he Apphcanrs wwness has Ieslmed that as a service
promaer, x.s., Inaepennenz Oantrscmv, me 2"" Respmdsnl was na|
reqmred (a clock m and out ofwork. whrch \s a rveqmrement imposed
towards an employee came Apphcanl.
(See. Appneanrs Aaaiuonal Affldavlt (amen FD2-1 on pugs
24)
More importantly, \ find that me 2"" Respcndenl was e| ma ma|enal
nme anI:re\y ras|nc|ed hem pm 9 servwces Ia omev campames
aside from me Aapncam, bul as dearly slipulaled m the «arms ollhe
mdepenaem Contractor Agveemenl dated 27.12.2017, me same
may be done mm me pnnv wnuen eonsem :11 me Appncann, as
1oHaws'
my Durhlq mu ‘him of m Anmolmnl, mu Rlfllu Annmmul shall
msuu Ilul mrsm mu not. wlmoul nu ma: wnnln conunl av
um companymp-mm. broadcast, aupp.unn,anom.e bemfil
ed, lny rlulo nod/or Mlllrlllflll Iullan (um um. mo; m) or on
any radn and/eneneyem nelwurk nv synmuled mm and/arhuhvmon
pmgmm ar on any amen mum (sum as me mlemel Inducing am not
men In -pm Hg or pimmpnhwg an any radro slamn on any
sheammg p\aIYorm} mmerman one zvmmea Mm (715 Company! or no
u... n .1 11
em yPH\mM:IuK|acI4vxucuDA
mm. smm ...m.mm .. y... m may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl y.. mum Wm!
negallzle m enter Ima any agreemenl lemer lnan mm In: cemnanyl
regardlng me Rama Armmmaefs periumunusl emadeael. or
appearenee an av «mm. oenerll M. any mm enelm Iuluvlslon mlmn
er an my ream and/av mlevlslan nelwum or syndlcaled radro and/or
lelnluen pmglnm and rm; lncludas appearances an my GFEVLII lumlal.
sunk asme lmemel (olnel man one elmraled wlln me company)‘
(amphasls eddedl
(See Applicanrs Alfldavll ln support (F1
14:)
I ss-3) an page
40. The above lerm clearly dls|InguIshes me normal emplnyen
employee relauonsmp whereby emrallens or wnlllcl el ln|eresI are
elnelly plohlbiled. nowlg rnel an employee cnnno| serve two (2;
employers al lne same llme
(see: Dr Rndakrlshna Subramlnlun v. Lourdes Medical Cantu
sun and [mu] 2 ms 1703; [N13] 2 MELR 224]
41 Thus. ms Ccurllmnks lnamre lnduslnal Cuun‘s findlng on (ms lssue
ls erroneous slnce me alleged oontrul by me Applleanl towards me
2"“ Resnondenl merely ereee uuvsuan| lo lne eenlrecmel lerme
belween pames and me same did nm exceed lne lndependent
eonlraelor-company relalionshlp between lne lwo parlies
42 Based on me above‘ ll Is clear mal lne 2"‘ Respondenrs conduct
ener me executlon el lne lndependenl Ccntractav Agreernenr dared
27 l22cl7 lhel we was aware or end ned an all rnalenal llmes
agreed le her engagement as an rndeuendenl eenlraaer for me
Appllcanl
Whuthar tho Indlpnndclll Convactor Agroomnm dnlcd 27.12.2017
was I continua on D’ mi 2''‘ Rilpondnnfs umploymvm Wllh
Synchvowund Studla
43. clause 8 of me Independenl oonlreclor Agreement dated
27 12.2017 clearly srales lnal.
‘Thls Aureemenl supasedas all Dre»/mus agreements, reprerenlallen or
pmmlses Mm eel em all me rerms agreed belweun me name:
hpflclll
m yPHlmM:«.lKncI4vxucuDA
«we. e.n.l ...n.mn e. UIQG m my me nflmnnflly em. dnuuvlnnl Vfl erlum Wm!
44 ‘rherelore, I am untre mew manna Indusmar Court wem agarnsr the
clear and unarnmguous dause e or ma sam Agreement when rt
concluaea mar me 2" Raspanaern was an arnproyae of me
Applicant when il held as follows‘ -
1-21 ens um Nur Azurl Nrk Msmnuoa, no Man at rm Rama mu rm
(owned by Syncrvusmmfl Sluflio sun aha: rntorrnea me (Navmanl to se« up a
new wmvany to onnlmue nu amwaytuem wan Ihe Rad» Kaol rm stahun. The
wall! 'oonlmul' mufl nncasslry mun mu ma Cmnunl (o mum without
any break Vn servme lrum ms aanIes1<>onl1ac|a1employmtm M January zrm
anrma Mm syncmsauna Smdn San am In In ears man ma Clahnanl wu
bevmmalsd was the crarmam was pecfarmmu ma urns ruls and auuss asspae
me mange mar was nmuanr about by nu Dumpany enlermg mm ms sham
dewm to warm. Cmr-rrarwts mus us In amaruyu '
45. Further, having perused me awdenae presented beiure the
Industrial com, I find that there was no evmance maced before u la
establish the Apphcanfs bare asaeman matshe was arlegedly grven
me legmmale expedalvon Io oornrnue In arnplaymem as an
ernproyee 0! me Appucanr.
Conclusion
46. Prenused an me aloresard reasons. I am of me view mat me
Inausmal Court cnarrnan are not fuHy consxdar an lha relevant (acts
oi «be case and had erred m arnvmg at ms decisxon
47. In the circumstances, I (ma mar ma decrsron 0! one Inausmal com
Chairman Is lamlad with errors M Law. rrrauonamy and/or
unreesonableness wmch warrant me cans! vnlervemmn or mus
caun
as As such. are mduslnal Com Chawrmarfs decision Is sex-isxde. The
Apphcanfs appncauon lor rumcrax review [Enclcsure5)1s allowed
Pipe 11.: .m
sm yPH\mM:mKncI4vxucuDA
“Nana sanaw nmhnrwm r. U... a may r... mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI aF\uNa v-max
2.5 kos permohonan mi: dan
2s rehl selanjulnya flan/alau yang lam asbagaimana yang
:4. nggap paml oleh Mahkamah vnng Muha m.
3. In sssence. lhe Apphraru flied lhls jumciai review to quash lhs
deuslon of Ike 1“ Respandunl (Industrial COMI1) In its Award No
396 or 2020 dated 14 2 2020 (the impugned Award) which was
handed down pursuanl In me dalm [or unvaw dismissal by Khairu
Nurliza Blnll Khalruddin (lht Z" Rnpondunl) against lhe Applicant
under Section 20 Mme Inuusmai Reramms Ac! 1957 (IRA) wherein
lhe Industrial Court held that "IE Auplicanfs dismlssai cl the 2"‘
Responder-xi was wiihoul jusl anus; and excuse and nrdared a total
sum at RM133,D00.DU in be paid in me 2"“ Respondent.
4 Aflev me hearing, I allowed me Apphcanls apphcalicun lur yudxcval
review (Encmsure 5) The grounds lo! my decision appear beiow.
Background Fuel:
5 The background Vacls galharud llom the cause papers and
submissions of ma parlles are iargeiy undisputed and can be
summarized as loilows -
5.1 The Applicant is a media company locusmg on radio
broadcasts, dlgibai media a. ecommerce plallorms which is
uwned by Ripple uprmeny Known as Media Pnma Rama
Netwoms).
5.2 On 22.12.2013, the 2” Respondent won me firs! prize VI a
reality lgievnsion show oenducud by lhe Apphcanl upon wmch
the 2” Respondenl was offered empioymenl as a Ramp
Announoer wllh radio Hui FM (or a one I1) ymr period from
1 4 2014 until 31.3 2015, wde a fixed (arm ooniract 01 service
dated 21.3.2014‘
(See: Fixed Term Contract nfservice dzled 21.3.2014)
M. a on:
m yvuimmzuxncuvxn-JCQDA
“Nana am.‘ nmhnrwiii a. med w my n. anmn.u-y mm: dnuumnl n. mum Wrui
with basis an RM5,uDa.oo suhiecl to me auocatar.
Dated: I‘+ November 2023
/</x/\/\
Ahmad Kama! hm Ma. Shamd
Judge
Hwgh com Kuala Lumpur
Counull
Forms Applicant Dam T mavaungam 1C|k Farah Dim bl
zam. with mm;
Teluan T Thavahngam 5 Co.
Peguambela flan Feguamcam
Sums Kr ~11. Anas 3, am K.
N » .Jalan Stflaris, Mom Kvam,
5D4w Kuala Lumpur,
For me 2"’ Respondent Eu, 5. Muhendavan (Clk Chang Wen Loo
wi\h mm)
Teman Muhandaran Sri
Peguambexa dan Peguamcara
The znongsnan suuamg.
BAA‘ Jalun Rolan.
01‘! Jalan Kampung Anap‘
50450 Kua\a Lumpur.
(Ru1.Tuan MSIZBS1/OS/ZOZMRICA)
m. u .4 21
m yPH\mM:wKncI4vxucuDA
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
5.3 Flawlng imnn me preeedlng, me 2'1‘ Respondenrs fixed term
employment as Raclo Announcer of mu FM wllh
Syrlchrosaund smclo vldelhe Fixed Term Contract alsennce
dated 21.3 2014 was extended for one 111 year until
3132016.
54 on 153.2015, me 2" Respcndenl execulea anulher fixed
1enn conlracl [or sennee wlm Swchrosmlmd Sludin lor a
period o1 lhree 13) years wnlcn was scheduled |a run [mm
1 A 2016 unlll 31 3.2019, under man she was engaged by
Synchrusound Sludla as a Rzdlo announcer for KOOL FM,
(See: Flxed Tum: Emplwymenl Conlrlct wnn
Synchruwund Studio}
5.5 In me year 2017, lne 2"” Respondem was lnlurmed by one
Puan Anida Mahd Tahnm ollne Applleanrs lnmrpcralbcn and
lnel me Appllcanl mended 1c only engage Ils radla
arlnouncels (lnelumng the 2* Respondent) as independent
contractors and not as empluyees ln llne mm me Appllcanl‘s
inlenlinn 1.: cnly engage the 2"” Responaenl as an
Independent conlreclon me 2"‘ Respondenl was notmeli 1nal
sne would he requlred lo reglsler ner own buslness Delete
bsmg me to execute me new conlracl for semues wlln me
Appllcanl;
5 S The 2"‘ Respondent had on 21 9.2017. reglstelad a husmess
under the name 01 LKD Empire Sdn. Bhd (Comniny
Rsglsllallon Number: 124799142; (LKD Empln) wllh lls
nature 0! busmess being “Acuvllles ol lrldivldual Wnlers 1or AH
Sutyecrs. Erezllve, Ans ena Enlsnalrlman| Acllvlhes N. E c.
omer R9131! sale in Nonspeclallzed slores N E c" and
named a Dlrectov (Mohd l<na.nl Anuar) and a secrelary
(Marlins slnu Mcnalnnlaa) alongeme hersell as a nlreclor ln
the Sald company;
5 7 Under me laregolng. me 2~< Responaenl, whilst trading as
LKD Empire‘ had execuled 3 contract (or services dated
27122017 (lndepandonl Conlnctor Aanemunl aaml
21.12.2011) whereby Ihe palm had unequwccally agreed
|ha| LKD Emplre shall pfovlde the servlces 01 a Radla
Announcer lo the Anplicanl lora DBHOG oflhree (3) years from
»...-.n u
IN ,»nnmm.cuv.ucum
“Nair s.n.l mmhnrwlu .. .1... m my 1... nflmnnflly ml. dnuuvlnnl VII .nunc Wm!
112.2017 untrt 3132019. It was turther agreed in the
tnoependent OonIn:c|orAgreemenl dated 27.t2.2t1t7 that the
sums ot the perttes was at an rnetertet trmee as an
rndepenoent cortlracmr and company and that the satd
agreement may be tenntnateo {or any reasons whatsoever
wtth n seven (7) days‘ nettoe;
5.8 Notwttnstandrng the 2"“ Respondents agreement to render
her servtoes to the Apptteant under LKD Ernprret dunrtg the
substilenoe at the tnoepenoent oontreotor Agreement dated
27 t22c17, the 21° Respondent had vetted to tumtt the
Appttoants requtrernent to go ‘on-atr’ wrth another one ot the
Apptteanrs rldto announoer, one Muhammad Ishak orn
1bIahtm.asmey were frequently at odds wrtn each other wntte
renoenng thetr semces together;
59 As such, and rn ttne with clause 73 at the tnoependent
Oonlracluv Agreement dated 27.122017 when was
unequtvocally agreed upon oetween parttes, vtde tetterdeteo
t a.2ota Issued by the Appttesnt eno tnereatter renewed and
eckrtowtedoed by the 2"‘ Respondent, the Apptieent had
lemttrtaled the Independent Contractor Agreement dated
2712 2ot7 etteottve a 5.20151
5.10 Aggrteved by the Appttcants tenntnetton ol the sam
Agreement when the 2"“ Respondent otatmed tantamount to
an untetr dtsmtssat ot her Bmptoymertlt the 2"“ Respondent
med a eomptetnt under sectton 20 ot the Rm
511 The 2"-1 Respondenrs eontptarnt was then reterred by the
Honourable Mtntster o1 Human Resources to the lrtduslrtal
Conn and registered as case No 4/4-301/I9 tor art
adtudtcauonlt
5.12 The tndustnat coun hao attowed the 2*‘ Respondent's otarm
egetnst the Appltcanl eno men that the 2” Responoent was
dismissed wtthout Just cause and exouse and ordered the
Appltcartt to pay the 2"“ Respondent the sum of
RMI33,uuD no. and
raxesmn
IN yPHtmM:mKncI4vxucuDA
«we. s.n.t nuvthnrwm .. u... m my r... oflmrrnflly MW: dnumtnrrl Vfl mum Wm!
51: Harm the present iudtcial review appitoetron by the
Appitcatten
The Applicant‘: ground tor the judicial review
6 The Applicants appitcatton herein can be summartled as ioiiows —
5.1 The inauetnai coun had erred in tact andrar law in amvtrtg at
its dedsion that the retetrenshrp belween the Appitoant and the
2'" Respondent was that at an ernpieyeremptoyee when ll
0 aeeount retevant considerations, inter eire,
(a) Thai prter |o executing the independent centraaor
Agreement dated 27 12.2017, the 2"’ Respondent was
at an rnatenat times aware that she would, upon
accepting the terms and eondllmns oi the Said
-greement, be engaged by the Appttoent es an
independent oortoactor on a oontracttor service and not
a oontrect oi service. in rent, the 2*’ Respondent had
pnor to executing the independent contractor
Agreement dated 27 12.2ot7t trtttrneteiy taken an aclive
step or rnoorporettng her own oentpany to enapie herself
to pmvtda her eenneee as an irtdependenl wniractor to
the Anpitcant as a Radio Artrtmmcerr and
to) That the Applicant did not at any matenat hme regard
and/or treat the 2"” Respondent as “S ernptoyee.
Funher, the eiteged ‘cantml' py the Applicanl towards
the 2*“ Respcnderti dunng the supststenoe at the
lrtdependenl contractor Agreement datee 27.122017
arose irom the oortmiclual retettonshtp pursuant to the
said agreement and did not at any matenai tune exceed
the Applicants rtghls under the same.
5 2 That the industrial coun had erred in lacl and/or law when it
had ernved at a conclusion that no reasenapie stnniariy
ctreumstanoed tnpunei wuutd have reamed when rt had
conciuded that the 2" Respondents services under the
e... r em
rn yPHimM:M.iKncI4vxucuDA
“Nair semi mmhnrwui .. tr... M my r... pflmhniily Mthin m.h.h Vfl nFiuNG vtmxi
lndependenl Corllracmr Agreement daled 27.12 2017 was a
Conllrluallan or herservloes wllh Synmmsound Sludlo men
more was no ellldanbe produced balms ll ID support l|!s
nndlngs; and
e 3 Tnamla lnduslnal Court nad ened ln iacl and/oi law ln arnvlng
al lls declslon lllal me 2”’ Reapondanl was a worknlan‘
pursuant lo seellon 2 of me IRA when ne was ln lac: an
lndapendem wnlraclor engaged under a eanlract dl sennues
at me nlnlenal llme and lnereldre new no righ|s lo nle a
replesenlallon lor unlalv dlslnlssal under llle s|rlcI pmvlew oi
lne lRA
The Law
7 Judlclal Revlew IS generally condenled wml me declslnn making
process wnele lne impugned declslon ls flawed on lne ground 0!
procedural impropriety
5. However. me law llas rlnw develaped (0 allow a declslorl la be
challenged on grounds of lllegallty and inallonallly, wmch man
permns ule calms Io sCru|inlzeme declsion nol only for me pmoess,
am also [or substance
9. Hnweven the Federal calm ln subsequent deolslons neld ulal ndl
every case ' amenable lo such appmaen and lnenls can only he
scnlllnlzed in me nldsl anpmprlale oi cases. Tnls can in seen as
6cllaws* e
a P-lrollnm Nuional Ehd v. Nlk Rum
ML! 256; [2003] 4 CLJ 625; [2003] 2 NILRA I14.
‘ml Dull/a cleady, lna vlaws unmanned ny the nlalamy n Rim:
Chanorarl am not live produn dlwnal some legal commenlalms
descrlb-fl-I wdkullexusslwxm Onllluzonlrl ltluyrllltcl
the klnflofconlwllcd iudlclil activism lnamn and In older
to molt. ln . lualrvlusry cnnkxl. nu m.....ld.nl..g pawn:
eonhrred upon lunnory lrlbuna|s an em. budi . Whlth
hm: pmllfinlnd. ln nnmn. llmn and aflezlhlll quil-
cnncnl bly. alllunllofl .n. I say ‘con\‘mllI¢' bocnuu I
take me vi ulal Ram: cnandm. powuu Ihotflfl only be
mmu
sm yPHlmM:M.lK|aCI4Vxl-JCDDA
“Nair Smnl mmhnrwm .. HIGH M my l... nflmnnllly ml. dnuuvlnrll VII nFluNG Wm!
invakld m lwmpvlam um, Olhuwiu mm mm u...g..
nl lnculnnllng mm . Iunwfl mm: in lmly dunrllwfl - -
‘nmawny umlopmnx muancm n - (su Dvvwkalwuv
rm Vmponanoe auunrunr rzswaw, Inset van non No 4 n so In
dmwmn anamncn Ia ma Yum-n uaansnca. ha say: Km:
lush Iundl uul u . pllml .x mpln a! nun unfommlll
develnnmnnt n. In: nuns, hln nsumud cumvlhncl
av v In Imam! Amy M punuc zctlvny: mny hnvn gmn
dincllons u to 12.. man. 5:! a mu uwing ncc-u lo a
bulldmg (Upmara Bax: V sun: of U112: Pvadesh mass} 4 sec
war was a sun. to 9-
wlleql xmdlntm (Stale 9
iluuanl av Msdncnl came, sunxa [I935] 3 sec; uvulwd am
mnn nu: ma nun put on the Ixpnmfilun on drugs m a
mlmzl nupm (Rakmh on.-Va Naram V State at am [ma]
Supra 575», I .a awn nuldullml for lmur-country .unmx~.n
of nhildnn‘ [L:xrm Kant Panday V Llmun no India AIR 11951150
232). Ir-ncnhud uu flullmcntlonl fur mm: 5:! bun!
belrmnlml In av mud by Iducallonal lnsdlnnlinm (MC Meme
V unnn at Ind-a [1995] Ix AD LSC) 37;‘ ud In on
[131 monsmg m mm‘ ma Imflan pmcnce has been In: suluad m
crmcxsm baciute om owns wouki luvs ancmachnd upon me
sphere amen In use Veglslaiurs by makmg pupu\is1dedar.amns
wl Hghll . nqhu wn-ch panununn m M: wlldcrm chose nol Ia
Vegblale upon
[u| cu-any mmm, mt lvuy use is anmum In 0.. Rxma
cn..m.n lppwarll. I: depend: an III: llclual numx and/or
um um: madam»: ohm mu ls urulnly : mm or
iudlclal ansamaan an Inn pan of the reviewing judqu Vn Ina
mslam case, mmm.una.ng lhe Van, am. submlxsmn nV me
Dr Cyvus Dis‘ I remam unmnvmcod that a case has been made
MAI lav revmlmg Rama Chandran m (emu av ms pmposxmns
That bemglhecaie me answerla mg quamun p0I1u\ale41fnrour
cunsqdaralmn has m be .n ma amrmalwe
(emphasis added)
I: Rlnjn K..Iuv Ilp s Gopnl Slngh v. Hm: Ex: ulor (M) Sdn
Bhd[201D]8 MLJI; 1201015 MLRA as (201013 cu 929;
[2011] J AMR 35
1151 me Name Chandran aocmun has been mgamed ur mtsvplebed
n: giving Iha mmng own 1 Hume In nman wrmom Iasuam
.1. ssonilorsuhslance even wmn the sand aecsxan VS mm on
nnmng at Van; However‘ pas! Rama Chandvan cases have
appm lam: brakn m Ihe mun‘: Vlbav-IV apnmach .n Rama
Page s .: :1
sm yPH\mM:wKAacI4vxucuDA
«mm. smm nunhnrwm .. V... M may he nrW\nnU|Y mm: dnuumnl VII munc Wm!
Chindlan The reaemx Cvun m me case ev Kumplflan
Pavaflgsnng Smangor am: V lard Nan[1997]1 Mu vsi, men
2 Cu 11 aflsvamrmlnu me Rama Cuandran daemon hmd mm
mm my be nus In which for mason at public pollcy.
nlllnnll um wubllc uhly nr Imionnl Incurily uu
pmlcipll m rum: Chandran m-Iy Inwholly Inapgampflale.
(171 The reae-er Cowl m Pelroham Malena! am V Nlk Ramh um
Hassan mm] 2 MLJ 2:8, 1200314 cu szs aga hem um um
IIVIEWIIII caun mly xcrulzlnln e dcclsion an its main bnl
anly In um men eppmpnm at was and not «my us: Is
lnunahlu I: In: Rum: Cnuldl-In mum-en Funhar .: wax
held Iha| e reviewing judge aVgm ml 1:: meme flndmgs ac xhe
lndusllm Cmm unless may ware gmunaea an IH-glhly or em
uvanonamy even were me Iewewmg gudge -mgm m| have came
m In same wndusxen‘
(emphasis added)
c Alam vomun Sdn and a Anor V. Abdul
& Or: [2015] 5 cm 1; [ZDIEHMLRA 311;
‘IA-snn«wse1I|ad Iawlhauhe omms may revwwmn acumen ac an mlenor
manna! an we gvmmds ul megemy, mummy and pcsumy
pmpom0ruW(y R Rnmn Chnndun V nnamuw Conn MMaIIymu& Anov
119971 1 on up 119971 1 ML.) 145 llvus pelmmmg me courts to
xcrulumse IN: autumn nul omy Var pmmss mu nlso lur nublunoe m
Penouam Nashua! BN1 V Mk Ramu mu Hassan [ma] 4 cu 525
1200412 MLJ zu mu mun nwvavu en-nnea that not cvcrv cm
was emmm tzufudlclal rlviflw Dtlrluantwlm Prlnclnlom n Rum
ChIndr:n's ease. I: xhnuld nnly bvlnvolne-1 in Ippvoprialn mu.
rum may be an m whlcn For nuonn -11‘ Du}: Dnllzy, nlllonul
muul. wen: sahly or nmiunal u wiry u may be wholly
Apnvoprlltn In! the coma in llrnmpl Iny wbilllullon a! mu
xumpmen Perarvgiang Sebnwr BM V Zan Mohd Mon 119971 2 cu
u (199711 Mu7a9~
(emphasis added)
10 II vs sewed law mat the High cam wvll nn| mnervere with a decision
oi the lndus(na\ coun umess K can be established that the decxsnn
ws mlacted wilh errors of law
11 The meamng :71 arm: of law has a\sa baen explained by the Own
nl Aupeal m the case M Syarlknl Knndcraan ulelayu Ktlanun
Bhd v. Ynnlpafl workers Union mus] 1 MLRA ze mus] 2
v... . 1:! )1
sm yPH\mM:wKAacI4vxucuDA
«me sew nunhlrwm .. V... m may he nrW\nnU|Y mm: dnuumnl VII nF\uNG we
CLJ 74:; [1595] 2 AMR 13m: [1295] 2 MLJ an m the lonawmg
words.
-n it mm" haslhle nor fluinbln lo an-mm an exhauslivn dlfinilion 04
mm Imaunh to In nvvr M In rm ms ulagnnu 01 inch an mdr ave hm
closed. am it may be said man In Irrw of llw would be fllscluscd mm
diclllolnnalner mks mum» um wrunfl fiuesdon or take
Ivnldvam nonli vlhnnl or mum In HR! inlu manna nu-mu
mnlldul-ulons (ma may be mwahsahuy termed an Amsmmuz: ahdn or .4 ha
mllcunulruu ch. mm. 01 my mum mam. ov ml
mnssum a winclple Dflhe gtmnl I: -
(emphasws added)
12 Smulariy, in the case oumpnoo Mung-mum s-rvlnu sdn and
v. Col (E) Hunmu sinqh chingav slngh [zonal I MLRA 554;
[2000] 4 CLJ 11, the com 01 Appeal held that an ermnecus
Inlsranoe at (acts Is also an error 1:! law wmch wouki warrant an
mdevcloemoran A
~on ma other hand we nccnpl. av course Ihal rt .5 amlvmy campalam lor the
Hwgh Cuuflln Demorall dmcaaamgs to msaaree MlhlheIndu:1lIa\CuuvluH ma
adnmusmns m mmhcas drawn by ma tamer hum me moved or admmed
evwdence an em ground man no masahama «human suuuany a-sun-sxamad
would have zmved a| such a odudusm or drawn such in Werenbe An
urnnwul Inhnnol hum pmvld oudmnmd mu .. anammw; nut
in mm offact."
(emphasvs added)
13 sasad on ma imagdmg passages, n 15 my mew that In suceeed m
an an (ion for wanna! revwew‘ the Apphcanl mus! shew lhat nha
Indusmal coun had, among others. —
a. Asked nsan the wrong quasuon
b. Consmered walavanu maners;
4: Failed to consider relevam mailers.
d Faded lo appry the proper prmclnlefs) of law. and/nr
e Reached a dscxsion me! was so perverse ma: no raasahabwe
lnbunal under simflar c-rcumsxahcaa wduwd have reached -
so... 1:: ufll
sm yPH\mM:mKncI4vxucuDA
«mm. saw nunhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumhl VII .mm Wm!
| 2,772 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
P-01(A)-119-03/2022 | PERAYU Mohd Efad bin Khalid RESPONDEN 1. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia | Judicial Review - Certiorari to quash the decision of Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Di Raja Malaysia - Declaration that dismissal was unlawful and/or consequential remedy for reinstatement to previous position with all benefits Appeal allowed. | 14/11/2023 | YA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyKorumYA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. MoorthyYA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyYA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4f43d2ec-6d04-4f83-98b2-45f7cddcd536&Inline=true |
14/11/2023 11:35:39
P-01(A)-119-03/2022 Kand. 23
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 7NJDTwRtg0YskX3zdzVNg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
p—u1(A)~119—u3/2u22 Kand. 23
Tam/mu. ,1 =.~, :2
IN THE COURT or APPEAL or MALAYSIA
(APPELLATE JURISDICYION)
CIVIL APPEAL N9 P-01( I-02/2022
BETWEEN
SAIFUL BIN NORDDIN ...APPELLANT
AND
I. SURUHANJAVA PASUKAN PoLIs
2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ...RESPONDENTS
HEARD TOGETHER WITH
IN THE couRT or APPEAL OF MALAVSIA
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CIVIL APPEAL No 2-01 A) 115-0312022
BETWEEN
MOHD EFAD BIN KHALID . APPELLANT
AND
L SURUHANJAVA PAsuKAN PoLIs
2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ...REsPoNnENTs
sw TmuTw»‘<Iqnvsxx:mzvM§
Nat! Sum INNDIY WI“ be used M mm u. DIIEIMIIIY mm; nnnmunl VII muna PWLII
[In me matter ml the Hm Court aVMa1aya an Fening
Applucatmn for Judxcwal Review
New 57 2_IzD19&F 5-7 2/2019
CORAM
S. NANTHA BALAN, JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDV. JCA
MOHD NAZLAN BIN MOHD GHAZALI. JCA
JUDGMEN1
nrrnonucngn
[11 There are 5 related appsans arising mm me same set ouaua where
(he Appe|\snls[‘A1‘-‘A 51 have appeavsu aguinsllhe rsspectvve decision
01 ms Learned Judicial Commissioner [as he then was uc] vflhe High
Court m Penang who dlsmxssed lhs\rJudvc|u\ Review Applu:aIvons[‘JRAs']
wherein they each sought an arder at oemcran In quasn me impugned
decwswon M ms 1“ Respondent [‘R 1‘) to find them guncy of ma charges
preflerred and to order Qhelr dismissal and ancillary orders. This wdgmenl
would be «or Appeal 101 and 119 At me aulsal I would mace on recurd
(hat, I would adopt with approval ma reasoning and gwunds :4 Judgment
M my Learned Bmthers‘ Namha aaxan, JCA and Mahd Nman‘ JCA who
have ably written at length on the ‘aw and lam Wa must am: state nur
deoisxans la! ma respectlve appeals are unanlmuus.
w vmuwmanvskxamzvrh
-ma Sum IHIWDIY wm as used m mm a. nflmruflly mm; nan-mm VII nF\uNG pm
us] Ae new m vueyarau (supra) me Appeuams. in cezrneee, augm ta
have been supphed wrrn all me re\evam documents and {spans required
by them hearing In mind that the same were [he very documents that the
DA had renea upon to make zne imponanl flndmg that e pnrna vacie case
ned been made am against mern ro inmate rne dlscvphnary prooeedmg
[171 Our new rs In award wnn me Appeuenrs pusmon that based on are
Instant faciual soenana r: was crys|al clear me: me Respondens m are
ueusron-making pmoess had nreacnera e cardmal nne at nanural jusuoe
and had cemrnmea pmcedura\ nnpropneny when eney failed to pvovide rne
Appeuenrwnn me: flocumenls, snauemenre reports and cow reeurmnys
rneugn only nraHy saught by mm at me proceedings vmnom bemg m
possession ol the same‘ eepecreuy the crush! repen renewed by ACF
Raxali bin Abu Samah which was specifically referred to in the shuw
cause Vener, me appellants were aerlamly waned m a drsaawrnregeoue
pnsman rn defendmg urreauegenons levelled against them. we are, hence,
oonstvamed \o hold man «he pmceedlngs conducted by me DA m we
rnseenoe rs mconslslsm wnn the rules at natural jusuee ee enshnned rn
An 13512) Mme FC
[131 Weare not rn ' ed ro agree with me Rsspondentsthat as there wee
no cunclusive evidence that the AppeHarI(S had made an DMCWSV fsquem
our the documents, the hrmer had been absowed onhe duty to supply or
disclose the contents 07 the same In the Appeflanle The Respcndenls
lockme paenren meune Mohd Zulhul and vueye
mstmgmshed and are not applicame la lhe swtuamun WI out Ins1an( case
cases ought to be
because
rn rmermenvsaxamvw
-uue sum In-nhnv MU re used m mm ne nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm vn mum wrm
(n In both me eases re¢eneu Io aneve, wnnen Mflc\a\ requests
we Wetter: were made by me nmeers fur them to be furmshsd
/given with oensin documervfin
on A5 eveeny deposed m me Respondents‘ Amdsvn m Repw of
am present case, at any unecenel mes, me Appeusnn me not
request fur any documents or matevms used co cnerge me
AppeHanl to be vurmsnea in mm or to be gwen access to, and
(in) In our present case, ss cleany deposed In me Responaenxs
mam m Remy, en any material me, the AppeHanl never
asked for an extension M time In lander MS represematmn
against me charges nnpased on him
[49] Neither do we agree wnn the Reswndenbs comenuun that as me
1991 Reguleuens do ncl nnpese s duly an R 1 to supply documents used
m Ihe exermse clRl‘sdiscre1Ion when dlvectmg the Appeflant to make
represemanonlu excmpale mmself R 1 rnaythe absnwedafmat duly Tu
our minds, that duly Is juflgmenw .n lhe decxsmn-making process by a
body eonducnng s disciplinary wnqulry
[M] Llkewlse me Respondents‘ pmpesmon as be\ow me ha! find favour
with us:
‘‘In Ihe eusenee of any pnmsvon in me 1993 Regmalmns Impusing
such a duty. the 1“ Respondent come not be sax! to have demed
me Appeflam av any procedural vsnness my not lumvshing me
documents u: me Appeflam mere cannot be any breach or duty
where none exlsls In law"
[Reference made lo Nnmln H] mm ('llmba||n Km: Pall:
Kallnun) & Anor v. Molld Now Abuullan [2004] 2 CLJ 777]
[211 We say so because .n the lnslanl appeals me material documents
saugne were made refevence ta by the DA use» Wllhuul any dlsclusure In
the Appellants 07 men cements wlvcn, ln our Vlew‘ could likely naVe
caused subs1an|Ia| prajudiue to ma Appellants H1 elfectlvely delsndlng me
charges levelled against them ln our aansmsnsa view, wnen rules M
natural lusllce are Invoked, lnere ls nu naosasny lerlne oarsons aggvleved
to rely upon any provision o1 the law to challenge the lalrness 0! ma
decrsrommaking process undsv the pecullal circumstances Bf Ins case
QQNCLUSION
m: For lnsloregomg reasons‘ we wnuld. therefore‘ nolo lnal the LJ had
fallen lrllo error ln law ano fad in Imvlng at ms decision (0 dismiss me
Appellants‘ JR Applncanon much, on the grounds In supper!‘ nao
subslanfial mems. particularly an we Issue cl denial El nalural juslloe (0
(he Appellants. I! was abundantly clear lo us lhat the Respondents had
breached esmblrshefl rules of natural lusnoe when he Appellants were
denied amass tn vnal documentary evmenoe man was oenual in ms
defence against lne charges levelled against them. R I themselves
founded the charges on a spoon: Repon on which me show cause later:
In ene Appellants were predlcaled. Tnls Report‘ Hm having been served
on the Appellants was pnma fame preludicval la the right 0! the Appellants
tn adequately prepare tnelrdefenoes In ms charges cnnsldemlg that may
was an orolnary, low ranklng pom-.a personnel wha had xo fine ma
13
W rmnrmanvnxsmvm
-ma Snvlnl ...n..r wn be used m mm a. mlnlrullly mm; dun-mm VII mum mm
sdvemmem michmery which had subslarmal remmee to pursue Ks
case agamsc them
[231 In the circumstances, we wamd conclude mat. both me appeans are
well subslan||a|ed on the ments :71 the has and in pmu:\p\e We.
accordingly allow mese appeals and set aswde me decision dnne HC with
was ac RM1U,UOD co m each epneer (as cuals hem Ind be\aw—w\lhoul
endeavor)
Daled’ 24 0c1ober2023
GUNA AIL’ NIANDV
Judge ndmppeel
Pumaya
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:
Ha]: Muhd Vsmau mu Mdhamed
[Messrs lsmawl Khan 4. Associates]
COUNSEL FOR THE RESFONDENY '
src Muhammad bln sum
[Penang sme Lega\ Adwsers Office]
w vmurmunmxamvm
-we Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm we uvwmuly mm; mm. vn mum pm
MATER L 5591;
m Briefly, me malenal facts are as muaws
1. The 2 App|ruamsrAppeuems were Lance Curpora\s with me
Rayal Meneysrarr Pohce until «her aremreeeu from servroe They
were charged wrm vinaus azecrpunery amen: pursuanl to
Petaluran-peraluran Pegawaw Awam (Ke\akuan dan Talatemb)
1953 (‘the 1993 Regu\a¢mns') with the possimmy of being
dismissed or duwngradsd m rank
2 They were tasked for Ops Wawasan at the border L71 Malaysia!
Tllafland sometime m 2017 They euegea that on or about
26.3 2019, may received a rener lrom Jabalan Inregrnr dan
Pematunan Standard of ms PDRM mbmling them of the
d\sa:\p\Inary acficns against them respeeuvery
3 In the said letters‘ VI was stated that upon examining the relevant
rnvorruecron, : prima «acre ease exrsrea an me respecwe
charyes, The said lallers man rnrmrueu lhal they were required
to prewae rnerr wntten represenranron wnmrr 21 days pmwdlng
grounds mar lhey wrsh to rely on ta exoulpste themselves
4 Vn respanse, me applrcems duly sent merr wnnen
representations Thereafler‘ through a Ienrer dared 25 In 2019,
me applreancs were Inlormed that may were found guilty of me
respectwe charges that resunea m Iheir dismissal ham serwoe
wrm efiea hum 23 10 2019
mg g m_- on Igh Court
[3] Briefly me LlC‘sfln mgs on me xssues Khal he eonenry memmeu as
the core wssues for neterminanon, canvenienuy expressed under sspavalz
headings, are these
1.1 ' illnl Procenurn
The JC wewea that me pruwdum adopted by me Dvsmphnary
Aumomy um camplled with the 1993 Regulahons The
Applicants were VIIEI aha wssued WIH1 the show cause lensv They
were Irwnsd co make wnllen representations, which may and
II was omy snerme DA found Ihanhewrmen rapresemamns and
not axcmpate me Applicants and the DA men name to dlsmwss
them
2. Failurn To Furnish Documggg
Havmg perused Ihe Applucams‘ wrmen repressmsmnns‘ wt Is clear
that no such rsques1 were made. Vn (an, m the JG‘: mew, me
Applicants were awe lo gwe a mu explanaoon on a” charges
The auagaunns of having mada am raquem for dncumems etc
were only maaevunnems: lime m this spphcalmn and nu request
were made Elf the matenm (Ame. IV rsafly dacumems were
required‘ one womd expen that the same be reques1eu1urmme
leller ol represemanon
3. £315 In Conduct Arr Orll Huarlng
There was na breach 01 na|ura\ rusnce undsrAmc\e135(2joHhs
Federal corrsmmrun Tne Drscralrnary Aulhenly (DA) ma observe
the ruls av na|uvnI Nance ana naa given me Applrcants an
oppcrlumty to be heard
Trrey were inrormea Mme charges agamsl them and grven amp\e
appomrrury ta deny or axplarn me alleged nrrsconaua. The
Apphcants had thereafler given a datauan wrmsn represencarron
lo the na
DA had eansulered the Applrcancs‘ represamauon and was
sansflad mac me Applraarros ma nor exculpile lhemsrewes rrarn
ma charges It rs me DA and not me caun whc ra to aearaa
whether the oifioers In «nsrr representations rrava axculpated
mzmselves «ram snarges
ll 13 the DA and ml the Court who 15 I0 consldev the ments M the
AppHcaMs‘rep1esenI.af\cns and to make a nnurrrg of (act wnernar
me Appllcams have srreeessvuny axeunparau lhemsewes fmmlhe
charges
4. Vague cturgu
ms Issue was raised be\aled\y and was never pan or me
grounds scazau In me Statement pursuanl In Order 53 R00 It
was sinrnarry nal rarsea rn the Appllcanls amdavul In support‘ it re
me law lnal no ground may be relled upon by an Applicam
excepl muse grounds sel nut In the Statement
Havlng perused ms charges, nu ma .lc's vlew, they were clear
and lmamblguous
OUR DECISION
[G] We would proceed lo pmnolmce our dsclslmls in respecl o1AppaaI
Nos 119 and 110 and the graunds lor me same as follows.
[7] The mam grlevanc: expressed by me presenl Appellans whlch ls
slmllal to me olherAppeHanLs‘ lo cur mlnas, mems serlous cunsldersflarl
ls ln regard |u me DA’s alleged lallme to lumlsn mlal ducumanls lo me
Appellanx who contended man me am lallure was pveludlcinl lo me
exerclse of ms ngma pmpeliy aelena the charys pvelemacl agalrlsl mm.
[:1 ll would be useml lo slate bnelly me Respnndents‘ poslllan
regardlng the validfly and pmprlely :71 me dlsclpllnary prauess agalrlstlhe
Appellant ll was ourllerldad for the Raspormenls that R.1‘s rrleellrlg was
wnductad an 2310 2015 ln me exerclse pl powevs delegalad by |he
Pulice Fnroe Commisslon through P.U (E) 441/2000 dated 14 12 2000,
the Dlsclpllrlary Aulhorlly [‘DA‘] had lully corlslderai that Appellanfs
represenvalion meliculously and was Satlsfleti that me Appellant um um
exculpale mmsell fram me dlsclpllnary charges preferred agamsz hlm
dated 25 03 2019
IN mlmwfllanvsxxzlmzvml
'NnI2 Sum mm. WW he used M mm u. nllmruflly MIN; dun-mm VII .mm mm
[9] Tlierelpre, in the exercise at powers delegated by me Felice Fume
commission la (he DA es almve, the DA decided that «lie Appellant was
guilty uf all me said five (5) charges and imposed tire punisrtmenl cl
dismissal tor the 1-‘, 2”‘, and 4'" charges pursuant to Regulation 37(g) ai
rne 1993 Regulahuns
no] we are net incllned re accede to trie position taken by me
Respandenlsi particularly in regard tn the natural iustrce point advanced
by lrie Appellant rlulwflhstandlrlg the lac: lnal rrie disciplinary proceeding
against lire Appellant nad complied witrr the procedure laid dawn in me
Regulallnns in our considered view, it was erroneously demanded that,
as tne prescribed procedure lied been adopted, lnere was rip questlon of
denial cl natural lusliea or procedural irriprcpriary riaying arisen we are
eenylnced trial me lens as a whole paint is me eoritrary
ml The tmusr cl tne Appellanrs emnpiaim was met witnaut iris
REPORT received by Asi= RAZALI am Aau SAMAH and me cc‘rv
iecuvdlng lrorri rrie cmeer wrie recorded irie applicants srateniem, the
applicant, huwevsr proceeded with riis reply on me rnrea la) cnarges er
the npnwenution, Vol he was given Merit/-one (21) days 10 veply or
show cause to, rrie eriargee prelerred against riin.
[12] our attention was dmwn re a ludgrrient of the court cl Appeal
[‘COA'] in a case squarely in palm‘ Mohd Zulhul hln unlid zullralli V
sururrenlsye Pesukan Felts [2015] 2 ML! a1 p as wriere tne relevant
part allrre iudgmenl pemnem ta lrie issue at narid slates as follows
in vmuiwfltanvakxzlsdzviw
wane s.ii.i lldnvlhll will as used M yaw Die nilylnallly MVM5 dun-vlnrrl vn aFlLlNG Wflxl
[13]
‘u was erroneous on me pan pr me deponem to have avenee that
me SPRM was WIBNS to produce the statement due to the
reslnclnuns rmpoaea by sub—s 29|4)a11he Malaysvan Am.-pormprion
Comrmssmns A|:1200§ There was no impediment to (he disclosure
being made wnh me consant or an -.-mieer enne onmmnssuon onhe
rank at oammlssloners and above There was no me! even perrrg
made In ublam Alex‘s statement (mm the SPRM This was a
Malena! preacn or nafum prance arnpe Alex was Ihe eernplarnanr
and the appenam was charged wrm a uraerplvrary awerree pr
mcewxng a bribe rmrn Alex (sea para 15)
There was a deal breach of natural ruauae commmed py the firs!
respondent In (he firs! charge, me appeuam was anegee la have
reserved RM5,000 bribery lmm Alex The money waa purportedly
given tome appeuanmrrppgn pne Kupera\ Abdm Ranmarr hm Abdul
Kadir In omer for Ihe appeuaru to prepare an effeciwe defence
aga.na1 ma cnarge, me appellant needed to have aigm oi me
aHegaI|un made agimsl rum and «p nave lhe opporlunily lo ream
each and every erarernern mar rnrgnn rmpuaace mm m me wanna
(see para 16) '
Furlher at para 4 that
‘ mus stage we need to remind nursarvee ultha power anne cowl
m pmrcrel revrew involvmg aisuplrnary pmoeearnge as stated in me
case or Amen bin Ahdulllh v Kama Polls Megan [1997] 1 MLJ
25:5, [1997] CLJ 257 1cApAbau\ Malak Ahmad JCA [as he then was)
stared that. at p 27:‘ para a-
it is settled law trial in iudieial review oy way ol I eemararl
application, ttie court is only eoncerned wi|h lne declslan making
process and not witti the decision it is not an appeal rroni lne
declslnrl niade pute review oltne manner in wtiroti I| was made and
i| IS not trie cnul1‘s mllctlurl Io curlsidsr wnettier on llie ments olttie
lacts ol tne case‘ me said decision was fair and reasonaole
[5] witn the aooye principles in mind as guidance, we proceeoed to
consider ttie two issues raised by learned counsel lor lrie appellant
lor our determination First, ine non-supply ct nialenal document.
mat is, me statement made by ttie complainant named Alex @ Lil
Fan Hoo (Alexi, by trie nret nesponoent wnicn tied made it diliicuil
lcr ltie appellant to deleno ninisell in respect oi the met charge in
oreson oi ttie principles cl natural iuaioe in layour mine appellant
second. lrie act or oondcnation by the respondents wtien «tie
appellant was promoted to assistant police commissioner anei ttie
appellam was alleged to be involved in taking bribe tticugli a triiro
narly “
The 'non»supply ol documents’ by tile Respondents had
oreacneo the Rule cl natural iuetioe:
[14] Granted that a disciplinary proceeding cannot be equated to a trial
wnere tne strict rules at me law or evidence would apply The DA is also
at liberty lo gamer inlurnialidn by any available means and ltorn sources
deemed nt However, tne DA is under a duly to always give a lair
opporlunrly to ttrose wrio are parties to «lie proceeding; to correct or
conlradicl any relevant steiteniem lnat implicates or is preiuoicial to them
9
in vmulwrfllanvskxzmzvmi
wane s.ii.i ...ip.i will he used m yaw Die nllnlrullly MIN; dnunvlnril vta .ritnio WM!
[see Shamniah bimi Ahmad shun v Public servicos Corrinilulon
Mnlaysiu [1990] 3 MLJ 364 (SC) per Jamun sanan, son (as he men
was)].
[15] llcannut begairisaid that being Vumished mm imponam documents
relevani (U the charges that an offiuer IS lacing is Vital to the exercise 01
his "gm to be heard as was stressed in v'
snnmaniaya Parkhldiviahn Awlm, Mnlnytla [2015] 9 cu m s 141.
ran an Sapenliaiiiam v
The appeiiani had also complained that he was nai given any
documam at an by me PSC notwithstanding that specific mquesi
was made 70? muse reievirif dacumems inciuding Ihe reparts that
were reiied upon by me PS0 in liming man a prima iaaie case had
been proved Bgilinsl him. The right to documents related to the
disciplinary pmoaeainga is ciosely linked to the right to an orai
healing Eolh are imponam eiemema in Mfiilirigthe nghtla be heard
Ia be aflorded in me ufficer corioemsd In View cf the serious
charges levelied against me appellant‘ which uiiimaiery resuned in
him being dismissed «mm ma service, ihe appeiiani oughllu have
been suppiiad win an the relevant aocumancs and reports requasiad
by ' pinicuiarly since |he discipiiriary authority had reiied on those
documents in decide that a prime Lacie case had been proved
against me appellim. (0 enable mm In make an efleciive and
meamngiui deleriee In me charges “
[See also Aug Sena wan v Surimanilyl PDRM a. Avior [2002] 1
CLJ at p 493.]
in
| 1,862 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-22C-44-10/2017 | PLAINTIF SPIRAL PRISTINE SDN BHD DEFENDAN Sime Darby Property Berhad | -Defendant is allowed to recall SP9 and SP10 for further cross-examination which is confined to the Rectification Cost. | 14/11/2023 | YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fc665a24-d3d1-47b8-8dcf-089196215eb7&Inline=true |
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-43-10/2017
BETWEEN
1. OOI CHENG HUAT @ OOI PENG HUAT (NRIC. No.: 540105-02-5317)
(Suing in his own name and as the Executor and Trustee of the
Estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong, deceased)
2. BRYAN PATRICK OOI SZE-YUEN (NRIC. No.: 890827-10-5765)
3. SHAWN PHILIP OOI SZE-YUWN (NRIC. No.: 911125-10-5613) … PLAINTIFFS
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-44-10/2017
BETWEEN
SPIRAL PRISTINE SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 775532-T) … PLAINTIFF
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-45-10/2017
BETWEEN
SHAIFUL HAMIDI BIN BASIRDIN (NRIC. No.: 750513-08-6309) … PLAINTIFF
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
14/11/2023 14:25:02
BA-22C-44-10/2017 Kand. 142
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-46-10/2017
BETWEEN
ROSLI BIN MUSA (NRIC. No.: 620521-10-5789) … PLAINTIFF
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-47-10/2017
BETWEEN
1. NITT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 867883-M)
2. SUSILAWATI BINTI AHMAD (NRIC. No.: 700702-10-5016) … PLAINTIFFS
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT
NO: BA-22C-49-11/2018
BETWEEN
1. ALBERT CHAI MIN CHUNG (NRIC. No.: 730120-13-5159)
2. ADELE LEONG BON YIEN (NRIC. No.: 730915-13-5144) … PLAINTIFFS
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
JUDGMENT
(Defendant’s application to recall plaintiffs’ expert witnesses after completion
of trial)
A. Introduction
1. This judgment discusses the court’s discretionary power to -
(1) allow a party under s 138(4) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA) to recall
the opposing party’s expert witnesses for further cross-examination
after the completion of a trial; and
(2) allow the party to reopen the party’s case after trial has been
completed solely for the purpose of the recall.
B. Background
2. In the above six suits (6 Suits), purchasers (Plaintiffs) of six bungalows
built and sold (6 Bungalows) by the defendant company (Defendant),
have claimed that the Defendant has breached various provisions of six
Sale and Purchase Agreements of the 6 Bungalows entered into by the
Plaintiffs and Defendant.
3. By consent of parties, the 6 Suits have been tried together (Trial).
4. At the Trial -
(1) the Plaintiffs had called, among others, the following two architects
to testify -
(a) Encik Mushahar bin Mohamed Suki (SP9); and
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
(b) Encik Adifazli bin Ahmad (SP10);
(2) on 21.7.2020, 22.7.2020 and 27.7.2020, SP9 and SP10 had been
called by the Plaintiffs’ learned counsel, Mr. Colin Andrew Pereira,
to testify regarding the defects in the 6 Bungalows [Alleged Defects
(6 Bungalows)]. The Defendant’s learned counsel, Mr. Rohan
Arasoo A/L Jeyabalah, then cross-examined SP9 and SP10 on the
Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows);
(3) on 27.7.2020 -
(a) after Mr. Pereira’s re-examination of SP9 and SP10, he applied
to court for their release as witnesses subject to recall by the
Plaintiffs because subsequent to 27.7.2020, he wanted to
conduct further examination-in-chief of SP9 and SP10
regarding the type of timber used in the construction of the 6
Bungalows (Timber Issue); and
(b) the court then released SP9 and SP10 subject to recall by the
Plaintiffs’ learned counsel;
(4) on 10.4.2021 -
(a) Mr. Pereira recalled SP9 and SP10 for further examination-in-
chief regarding the Timber Issue;
(b) SP9 and SP10 were further cross-examined by Mr. Rohan on
the Timber Issue; and
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
(c) after further re-examination of SP9 and SP10 by Mr. Pereira,
the court released SP9 and SP10 as witnesses without any
condition [Court’s Unconditional Release (SP9 and SP10)];
and
(5) on 17.2.2020, Mr. Rohan informed the court that the Defendant had
closed the Defendant’s case [Close (Defence Case)]. Hence, the
Trial was concluded on 17.2.2020.
C. Defendant’s six applications to recall SP9 and SP10 for further
cross-examination
5. On 17.3.2022, the Defendant filed six applications in the 6 Suits
(Defendant’s 6 Applications) for, among others, leave of court to recall
SP9 and SP10 for further cross-examination regarding the cost for the
Plaintiffs to rectify the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) [Rectification
Cost (6 Bungalows)].
6. Mr. Pereira had strenuously resisted the Defendant’s 6 Applications on
the following grounds:
(1) before SP9 and SP10 gave their expert opinions on 21.7.2020, SP9
and SP10 had affirmed affidavits [Affidavits (SP9 and SP10)] under
O 40A of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC). The Affidavits (SP9 and
SP10) contained, among others, the expert views of SP9 and SP10
on Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows). The Defendant’s solicitors had
been served with the Affidavits (SP9 and SP10) and had prior actual
notice of the expert opinions of SP9 and SP10 regarding
Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows). Consequently, on 27.7.2020 Mr.
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
Rohan should have cross-examined SP9 and SP10 on Rectification
Cost (6 Bungalows);
(2) SP9 and SP10 had been recalled by Mr. Pereira on 10.4.2021 for
further examination-in-chief on the Timber Issue. Hence, on
10.4.2021 Mr. Rohan had a second opportunity to conduct further
cross-examination of SP9 and SP10 regarding Rectification Cost (6
Bungalows);
(3) if the Defendant’s 6 Applications were allowed by the court, the
Plaintiffs would be irreparably prejudiced because the Plaintiffs had
already closed their case;
(4) the Defendant’s 6 Applications had been filed after the Close
(Defence Case), namely after the completion of the Trial. It was
therefore too late for the court to allow the Defendant’s 6
Applications at this juncture; and
(5) five of the 6 Suits were filed in 2017 while one suit was instituted in
2018. If the court allowed the Defendant’s 6 Applications, there
would be a further delay in the disposal of the 6 Suits.
Mr. Pereira has cited a host of cases to oppose the Defendant’s 6
Applications.
7. The following evidence had been adduced in support of the Defendant’s
6 Applications:
(1) the solicitors for the Plaintiffs and Defendant had previously agreed
for Mr. Rohan to reserve further cross-examination of SP9 and
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
SP10 with regard to the Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows) [Parties’
Agreement (Further Cross-Examination of SP9 and SP10)]; and
(2) the Parties’ Agreement (Further Cross-Examination of SP9 and
SP10) was evidenced by way of an exchange of “WhatsApp”
messages between the Plaintiffs’ then solicitor (Ms. Tan Wee Jiun)
and Ms. Pan Yee Teng (who assists Mr. Rohan in these 6 Suits)
(WhatsApp Messages).
D. Court’s discretion to allow recall of witness and reopening of
party’s case
8. The relevant parts of ss 135, 136(1) and 138(4) EA are reproduced
below:
“s 135 Order of production and examination of witnesses
The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be
regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil
and criminal procedure respectively, and in the absence of any such
law by the discretion of the court.
s 136 Court to decide as to admissibility of evidence
(1) When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the
court may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what
manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the court
shall admit the evidence if it thinks that the fact, if proved, would be
relevant, and not otherwise.
s 138 Order of examinations and direction of re-examination
…
(4) The court may in all cases permit a witness to be recalled
either for further examination-in-chief or for further cross-examination,
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
and if it does so, the parties have the right of further cross-
examination and re-examination respectively.”
(emphasis added).
9. I am of the following view regarding the court’s discretionary power to
allow a party to recall a witness and to re-open the party’s case solely for
the purpose of the recall:
(1) it is clear from the employment of the directory term “may” in s
138(4) EA that the court has a discretion to allow any party (X) to
recall any witness (Y) who has previously testified at a trial for one
of the following two purposes -
(a) X’s further examination-in-chief of Y; or
(b) X’s further cross-examination of Y
[Court’s Discretionary Power (X’s Recall of Y)].
It is decided by Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA (as she then was) in the
Court of Appeal case of Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng,
Henry v Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd & Ors and other appeals
[2020] MLJU 57, at [107] and [108], as follows -
“[107] Section 138 [EA] empowers the Court to permit in all
cases, a witness to be recalled either for further examination-in-
chief or for further cross-examination. It is a discretionary
power. Where the Court exercises discretion in favour of
recalling any witness, the parties have the right to further cross-
examination and re-examination respectively.
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[108] In Evidence: Practice and Procedure by Augustine
Paul [Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd, Third edition, 2003, page
1069], it was reminded that such discretion must be exercised
judicially. Strong or cogent reasons must be given and there
must be every opportunity or sufficient opportunity afforded to
affected parties, to respond by way of cross-examination or
rebuttal evidence. Arulanandom J in Ong Yoke Eng & Anor v
Lim Ah Yew [1982] 1 MLJ 226, 227, cautioned that “although
under ordinary circumstances it may not be necessary or
permissible to allow a witness once examined and dismissed by
a party to be recalled for it is expected that if the advocate will
interrogate him on all material points touching his case,
unforeseen situations may develop and there may be also
inadvertent omissions. In such a case the Court may at its
discretion allow a witness to be recalled, but surprise or
prejudice to the other party should be guarded against.” We
agree with this dicta; that there must be fair play in the
determination of a claim and in the pursuit of justice and the
Court must guard against surprise or prejudice. The discretion
on recall is not limited to particular witnesses, it is in fact,
available in “all cases”, regardless whether the witness being
recalled was a party to the claim or simply as a witness.”
(emphasis added);
(2) s 138(4) EA is silent on how the Court’s Discretionary Power (X’s
Recall of Y) should be exercised. I cannot claim to explain all the
decided cases which have allowed or dismissed X’s application to
recall Y (X’s Application). Nor am I able to reconcile all these
cases. It suffices for me to state that from the view point of the stare
decisis doctrine, a court’s written judgment on the exercise or non-
exercise of the Court’s Discretionary Power (X’s Recall of Y) is
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
necessarily dependent on the particular facts of the case in question
and the judgment cannot therefore constitute a binding legal
precedent. A decided case on the application or non-application of
the Court’s Discretionary Power (X’s Recall of Y) can only provide
valuable guidance to litigants and learned counsel regarding the
court’s approach (not as a rule of law) in a particular factual
situation;
(3) according to Arulanandom J in the High Court in Ong Yoke Eng &
Anor v Lim Ah Yew [1982] 1 MLJ 226, at 227 -
“In civil proceedings, it is in the discretion of the court of first
instance to recall a witness or call further witnesses after his
case is closed. Although under ordinary circumstances it may
not be necessary or permissible to allow a witness once
examined and dismissed by a party to be recalled for it is
expected that the advocate will interrogate him on all material
points touching his case, unforeseen situations may develop
and there may be also inadvertent omissions. In such a case the
court may at its discretion allow a witness to be recalled, but
surprise or prejudice to the other party should be guarded
against. The objection by the defendant to the application was
however not on these anticipated grounds. Nevertheless on
allowing the application the court granted liberty to the
defendant to cross-examine the recalled witness and further
witnesses and call evidence in rebuttal.”
(emphasis added).
The above judgment has been affirmed by our Court of Appeal
in the following two cases -
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
(a) Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) held as follows in Tan
Kah Khiam v Liew Chin Chuan & Anor [2007] 2 MLJ 445, at
[8], [18] and [19] -
“[8] In my judgment, the better view is that
expressed in Ong Yoke Eng. A trial judge must be given a
wide discretion on matters relating to evidence. After all,
the [EA] itself places the matter of relevance and therefore
admissibility upon the court for it provides as follows in s
136(1): …
…
[18] One last point. Counsel for the defendants made
a sustained submission on the discretion of a judge to
permit a party to recall a witness after the close of his case.
He reads to us Shedden v Patrick (1869) LR 1 HL Sc 470
and Pernas Trading Sdn Bhd v Senali Construction Works
Sdn Bhd [1991] 2 CLJ 1587 which are authorities for the
proposition that the court must be slow to permit the recall
of a witness after the cases of both parties have concluded.
I accept, of course that the power to permit the recall of a
witness is in the discretion of the court as provided by s
138(4) [EA] which reads: …
[19] … In any event, the principle as to the recall of
witnesses is the same in both civil and criminal cases. And
all I really need do is to quote from the judgment of Ali J
(as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v Boo Chew Hia
[1963] MLJ 33:
“The law permits a witness to be recalled
whenever it is essential to the just decision of the
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
case. Merely recalling a witness is not in itself an
irregularity.”
(emphasis added); and
(b) Theow Say Kow, at [108];
(4) X bears the burden to persuade the trial court to allow X’s
Application because -
(a) X’s learned counsel has previously examined-in-chief or cross-
examined Y (Y’s Previous Examination-In-Chief/Cross-
Examination). X must therefore provide a “strong” or “cogent”
reason for X’s recall of Y [X’s Reason (Recall of Y)] - Theow
Say Kow, at [108]; and
(b) in an adversarial legal system, X should not be allowed to have
a “second bite at the cherry”. This consideration should be
outweighed by the need for the court to achieve justice - please
refer to sub-paragraph (5)(a) below;
(5) the following matters should be considered by the trial court in
deciding X’s Application -
(a) whether it is in the interest of justice for the trial court to allow
X’s Application based on X’s Reason (Recall of Y). This should
be the primary consideration. In this regard -
(i) X’s Reason (Recall of Y) should allude to the proposed
evidence to be adduced through Y’s recall [Proposed
Evidence (Y)]; and
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(ii) the trial court should then decide whether the Proposed
Evidence (Y) is capable of assisting the trial court to
decide the dispute in a just manner. Unless it is clear that
the Proposed Evidence (Y) cannot assist the trial court to
decide justly the controversy in the dispute, it is better for
the trial court to err on the side of caution and allow X’s
Application. In this manner, there is no ground for X to
appeal to the appellate court against the trial court’s refusal
of X’s Application and there is therefore no risk of a retrial
being ordered by the appellate court (Risk of Retrial) {as
had happened in Tan Kah Khiam, at [20]}.
At first blush, it seems that if X’s Application is allowed by the
trial court [Trial Court’s Favourable Decision (X’s
Application)], this may prolong the trial and increase costs for
the parties. In other words, the Trial Court’s Favourable
Decision (X’s Application) may give the impression that the suit
has not been expeditiously and economically disposed of. Upon
careful consideration, if the Trial Court’s Favourable Decision
(X’s Application) is arrived at after an application of the
approach proposed in the above sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii)
(Proposed Approach), ie., the Proposed Evidence (Y) is
capable of assisting the trial court to decide the suit in a just
manner, the Proposed Approach has the following advantages -
(a)(i) the Risk of Retrial does not arise at all;
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
(a)(ii) limited judicial resources are not wasted if a retrial is
ordered by an appellate court and parties need not
waste valuable time, effort and costs to conduct a
retrial; and
(a)(iii) with X’s recall of Y and the trial court’s decision after
trial, parties may appeal thereafter against the trial
court’s decision. In this sense, there is finality in
litigation;
(b) if the Proposed Evidence (Y) is capable of assisting the trial
court to decide the dispute in a just manner, the court should
allow X’s Application even if there was an “inadvertent
omission” on the part of X and/or X’s learned counsel in the
conduct of Y’s Previous Examination-In-Chief/Cross-
Examination. This is clear from the following cases -
(i) Ong Yoke Eng, at p. 227;
(ii) in the Court of Appeal case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v
Prorak Sdn Bhd [2000] 1 MLJ 479, at 484 (TNB’s Case),
Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) has decided as
follows -
“Whenever possible, where there is no risk of sacrifice
of principle in the name of justice or at the altar of
convenience, we do our best to ensure that a lay client
does not suffer because of the mistake of his legal
advisers. We do so in the interests of justice. When
we act, we always bear in mind what Lord Denning
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
said in Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 All ER
119, at p 121:
We never allow a client to suffer for the
mistake of his counsel if we can possibly
help it. We will always seek to rectify it as
far as we can. We will correct it whenever
we are able to do so without injustice to the
other side. Sometimes the error has
seriously affected the course of the
evidence, in which case we can at best
order a new trial.”
(emphasis added); and
(iii) according to Tan Kah Khiam, at [10] -
“[10] … It is a long standing principle that the object
of courts is to decide the rights of the parties in
litigation and not to punish for mistakes made in the
conduct of a case unless the circumstances be
exceptional. That principle was expressed in the
following way by Bowen LJ in Cropper v Smith (1884)
26 Ch D 700 at p 710:
“Now, I think it is a well established principle
that the object of Courts is to decide the
rights of the parties, and not to punish them
for mistakes they make in the conduct of
their cases by deciding otherwise than in
accordance with their rights. Speaking for
myself, and in conformity with what I have
heard laid down by the other division of the
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
Court of Appeal and by myself as a member
of it, I know of no kind of error or mistake
which, if not fraudulent or intended to
overreach, the Court ought not to correct, if
it can be done without injustice to the other
party. Courts do not exist for the sake of
discipline, but for the sake of deciding
matters in controversy, ... ”
(emphasis added).
The Court of Appeal in Tan Kah Khiam, at [11], has
affirmed the above part of the judgment in TNB’s Case as
reproduced in the above sub-paragraph (5)(b)(ii);
(c) whether there was an unforeseeable matter which X and/or X’s
learned counsel could not have raised in Y’s Previous
Examination-In-Chief/Cross-Examination - Ong Yoke Eng, at p.
227;
(d) whether there was evidence which only came into being after
Y’s Previous Examination-In-Chief/Cross-Examination; and
(e) whether X and/or X’s learned counsel had now obtained
evidence which was not available to X and/or X’s learned
counsel at the time of Y’s Previous Examination-In-Chief/Cross-
Examination and such evidence could not have been made
available to X and/or X’s learned counsel with reasonable
diligence on the part of X and/or X’s learned counsel at the time
of Y’s Previous Examination-In-Chief/Cross-Examination;
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
(f) whether X’s recall of Y would prejudice the opposing party (Z) -
Ong Yoke Eng, at p. 227. Z may not be prejudiced by X’s recall
of Y because -
(i) s 138(4) EA itself provides that Z has a right of further
cross-examination or further re-examination, as the case
may be, after X’s recall of Y;
(ii) in the interest of justice, the court may allow Z to call a new
witness or recall a witness who has previously testified, to
rebut Y’s evidence given pursuant to X’s recall of Y
(Rebuttal Witness) - Ong Yoke Eng, at p. 227;
(iii) Z and Z’s learned counsel should be given sufficient time
to prepare for -
(f)(i) Y’s recall; and
(f)(ii) Z’s calling of the Rebuttal Witness (if any); and
(iv) X should pay costs to Z because Z should be compensated
for the costs which will be incurred by Z due to X’s recall of
Y and Z’s calling of the Rebuttal Witness (if any); and
(g) whether there is a delay in making X’s Application (X’s Delay)
and if “yes” -
(i) is there a reasonable explanation for X’s Delay?; and
(ii) whether X’s Delay has caused prejudice to Z and if so, can
Z be compensated in costs by X for such a prejudice?;
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
(h) whether X and/or Z has/have closed their case - this will be
discussed in detail in sub-paragraph (6) below; and
(i) the circumstances discussed in the above sub-paragraphs (a)
to (h), needless to say, cannot be exhaustive;
(6) with regard to the court’s discretionary power to allow a party to
reopen the party’s case [Court’s Discretionary Power (Reopening
of Party’s Case)] -
(a) there are three possible bases for the Court’s Discretionary
Power (Reopening of Party’s Case) as follows -
(i) in Tan Kah Khiam, at [8], the Court of Appeal has relied
on s 136(1) EA as the basis of the Court’s Discretionary
Power (Reopening of Party’s Case);
(ii) I am of the diffident view that s 135 EA provides for the
Court’s Discretionary Power (Reopening of Party’s Case).
Section 135 EA provides that the “order in which witnesses
are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law
and practice for the time being relating to civil … procedure
respectively, and in the absence of any such law by the
discretion of the court”. RC do not provide for the Court’s
Discretionary Power (Reopening of Party’s Case). Hence,
the court has a discretion under s 135 EA to allow a party
to reopen the party’s case; and
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
(iii) when the Court’s Discretionary Power (X’s Recall of Y) is
exercised in favour of allowing X’s Application, the court
has an implied power under s 138(4) EA read with s 40(1)
of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (IA) to allow X
and/or Z to reopen their cases - please refer to sub-
paragraph (6)(c) below;
(b) as to how the Court’s Discretionary Power (Reopening of
Party’s Case) should be exercised, it is decided in Tan Kah
Khiam, at [6], [9], [10] and [14], as follows -
“[6] … For temporally speaking, whether the trial
judge may exercise his discretion to permit the reopening
of a party's case will very much depend on the stage at
which the application is made. It may be more likely that
discretion may be exercised at the stage where the
application is made immediately after a party closes his
case. But it may be less likely that discretion will be
favourably exercised where the application is made after
the defendants have closed their case and just before the
trial judge is about to pronounce his judgment. In the
spectrum of factual possibilities that exist between each of
these two extremes the exercise of discretion would, in my
judgment, very much depend as to where the justice of the
case lies having regard to the peculiar facts and
circumstances before the court.
…
[9] The view I have to make is supported by the
decision in TD Canada Trust v McMaster et al [2003] BCD
(Civ) 16394, where Garson J said:
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
In Dudas v Munroe [1993] BCJ 2035 (SC) (QL),
Braidwood J (as he then was) summarised the
law concerning the court's discretion to re-open
a trial before judgment is entered as follows:
In deciding whether or not to re-open a
case, the governing considerations are
first, would a miscarriage of justice
probably occur without a re-hearing;
and second, would a re-hearing
probably produce a change of result?.
The discretion to re-open a trial before
judgment is entered is an unfettered
discretion but one that should be used
sparingly (Sykes v Sykes (1995) 6 BCLR
(3d) 296 (CA)) and has as its purpose
the correction of what would otherwise
be a miscarriage of justice (Kemp v
Wittenberg, 1999 BCJ 810 (SC)).
[10] Again in Lubrizol Corp v Imperial Oil Ltd 62
ACWS (3d) 902, the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada
(Stone, Linden and McDonald JJA) when dealing with the
point under discussion said (in the joint judgment of Stone
and Linden JJA):
Save in exceptional circumstances, a litigant who
has had a full opportunity of adducing evidence
at trial will not be permitted to reopen his case so
as to allow new evidence to be introduced after
the judgment at trial. [Becker Milk Co Ltd et al v
Consumers' Gas Co (1974) 2 OR (2d) 554 (CA) ]. It
has been well observed that as under our
adversary system of justice, 'what witnesses are
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
called and what questions they are asked is a
matter left to counsel' and it is counsel who
'makes decisions, both strategic and tactical, as
to what approach will be taken… counsel cannot
later complain about the absence of evidence at
trial.' [International Corona Resources Ltd v LAC
Minerals Ltd (1988) 66 OR (2d) 610.
…
[14] … Here we can look at all the facts and see how
a reasonable tribunal would have acted in their face. And
there is no question that a reasonable tribunal would have
rejected the defendants' illogical suggestion and
proceeded to deal with the plaintiff's application to reopen
his case at the time before the defendants began their
defence. A reasonable tribunal would have had the
interests of justice as the overriding consideration in its
mind and taken into consideration the principle that as far
as is possible a litigant should not be punished for the
error of his or her counsel. In that state of affairs, a
reasonable tribunal armed with all the relevant material that
was before the trial judge would have permitted the plaintiff
to reopen his case. Especially so as the defendants would
have suffered no prejudice in real terms by the grant of the
application. Also time and costs would have been saved.
And the trial could have proceeded with smoothly.”
(emphasis added).
It is clear from Tan Kah Khiam that whether the Court’s
Discretionary Power (Reopening of Party’s Case) will be
invoked or otherwise, depends on the “interests of justice as the
overriding consideration”; and
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
(c) Tan Kah Khiam does not concern an application to recall a
witness under s 138(4) EA.
According to s 2(1)(b) IA, Part I IA applies to EA because the
EA has been revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968.
Section 40(1) IA is in Part I IA and provides as follows -
“s 40 Implied powers
(1) Where a written law confers a power on any
person to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all
such powers shall be understood to be also given as are
reasonably necessary to enable the person to do or
enforce the doing of the act or thing.”
(emphasis added).
If the court decides to exercise its discretion under s 138(4) EA
to allow X to recall Y and at the same time if the court also
allows Z to recall the Rebuttal Witness [please see the above
sub-paragraph (5)(f)(ii)], even if both X and Z have closed their
case, by reason of s 40(1) IA, the court may allow -
(i) X to reopen X’s case for the sole purpose of recalling Y;
and
(ii) Z to reopen Z’s case so as to enable Z to call the Rebuttal
Witness
- which is “reasonably necessary” for X’s recall of Y and for
Z to call the Rebuttal Witness.
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
If the Court’s Discretionary Power (Reopening of Party’s Case)
is not implied under s 138(4) EA read with s 40(1) IA -
(c)(i) this will render redundant the court’s discretionary
power pursuant to s 138(4) EA to allow X’s Recall of Y
after the close of X’s case;
(c)(ii) such an outcome is contrary to the phrase “all cases”
in s 138(4) EA; and
(c)(iii) this may cause an injustice to X if X has a good
reason to recall Y - please refer to the above sub-
paragraphs (5)(a) to (e);
(7) if X’s Application is made after the completion of a trial, the Court’s
Discretionary Power (X’s Recall of Y) and Court’s Discretionary
Power (Reopening of Party’s Case) may be exercised in favour of
X’s Application if -
(a) it is just for the court to do so - please refer to the above sub-
paragraphs (5)(a) and (6)(b); and
(b) there is no prejudice to Z [please see the above sub-paragraph
(5)(f)] and Z may be allowed in the interest of justice to call the
Rebuttal Witness [please refer to the above sub-paragraph
(5)(f)(ii)];
(8) the fact that Y has been unconditionally released as a witness by
the court, does not fetter the exercise of the Court’s Discretionary
Power (X’s Recall of Y) and Court’s Discretionary Power
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
(Reopening of Party’s Case). This is because if Y has been released
as a witness by the court subject to recall [Court’s Conditional
Release (Y)], X can simply recall Y based on the Court’s Conditional
Release (Y) and X need not apply to court under s 138(4) EA for
leave to recall Y and to reopen X’s case. Accordingly, I cannot
accept Mr. Pereira’s reliance on the Court’s Unconditional Release
(SP9 and SP10) as a ground to oppose the Defendant’s 6
Applications; and
(9) the Court’s Discretionary Power (X’s Recall of Y) and Court’s
Discretionary Power (Reopening of Party’s Case) cease upon the
delivery of the court’s decision on the merits of the trial.
E. Should court allow Defendant’s 6 Applications?
10. Firstly, the WhatsApp Messages are admissible as evidence in court
proceedings - please refer to Syarikat Faiza Sdn Bhd & Anor v Faiz
Rice Sdn Bhd & Anor and another case [2019] 7 MLJ 175, at [23(1)].
11. Secondly, I attach great weight to the WhatsApp Messages because -
(1) the WhatsApp Messages constituted contemporaneous
documentary evidence; and
(2) the Plaintiffs’ solicitors could not deny the truth of the contents of the
WhatsApp Messages.
12. In view of the WhatsApp Messages, the existence of the Parties’
Agreement (Further Cross-Examination of SP9 and SP10) has been
proven by the Defendant.
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
13. I have no hesitation to decide that the Defendant has discharged the
onus to persuade the court to allow the Defendant’s 6 Applications. This
decision is premised on the following evidence and reasons:
(1) if the Defendant’s 6 Applications is dismissed, the Defendant’s
learned counsel would not have the right to challenge the expert
testimonies of SP9 and SP10 regarding the Rectification Cost (6
Bungalows). In such an event, as decided by Raja Azlan Shah CJ
(Malaya) (as His Majesty then was) in the Federal Court case of
Wong Swee Chin v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 212, at 213,
the Defendant would be deemed in law to have accepted the expert
views of SP9 and SP10 on the Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows).
This will cause an injustice to the Defendant in the 6 Suits;
(2) the Plaintiffs are not prejudiced in any manner if the court allows the
Defendant’s 6 Applications because -
(a) in view of the Parties’ Agreement (Further Cross-Examination of
SP9 and SP10), the Plaintiffs were not caught by surprise by
the Defendant’s 6 Applications;
(b) after Mr. Rohan’s further cross-examination of SP9 and SP10
on the Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows), Mr. Pereira has a right
of further re-examination SP9 and SP10 pursuant to s 138(4)
EA; and
(c) as explained in the above sub-paragraph (5)(f)(ii), Mr. Pereira
has a right to call a Rebuttal Witness after Mr. Rohan’s further
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
cross-examination of SP9 and SP10 in respect of the
Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows); and
(3) the doctrine of equitable estoppel has a wide application - please
refer to the Federal Court’s judgment delivered by Gopal Sri Ram
JCA (as he then was) in Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v
Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 4 CLJ 283, at 294.
The Plaintiffs are estopped by the Parties’ Agreement (Further
Cross-Examination of SP9 and SP10) from opposing the
Defendant’s 6 Applications. It is clearly unjust for the Plaintiffs to
resile from the Parties’ Agreement (Further Cross-Examination of
SP9 and SP10) (Plaintiffs’ Inequitable Conduct) and resist the
Defendant’s 6 Applications.
14. All the cases relied on by Mr. Pereira can be easily distinguished due to
the existence of the Parties’ Agreement (Further Cross-Examination of
SP9 and SP10) in support of the Defendant’s 6 Applications.
F. Costs
15. As explained in the above sub-paragraph 9(5)(f)(iv), if the court allows a
defendant’s application to recall a witness and to reopen the defendant’s
case after the conclusion of a trial, costs of the application should
ordinarily be borne by the defendant. However, in view of the Plaintiffs’
Inequitable Conduct, for the Defendant’s 6 Applications, I award costs of
RM5,000,00 as costs in the cause of the 6 Suits (subject to allocatur
fee). Such a decision is made pursuant to O 59 r 8(b) RC which reads as
follows:
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
“r 8 The Court in exercising its discretion as to costs shall, to
such extent, if any, as may be appropriate in the circumstances, take
into account -
…
(b) the conduct of all the parties, including conduct before and during the
proceedings; ”
(emphasis added).
G. Court’s decision
16. Premised on the evidence and reasons explained in the above
paragraphs 10 to 13, the Defendant’s 6 Applications are allowed with the
following orders:
(1) the Defendant is allowed to recall SP9 and SP10 for further cross-
examination which is confined to the Rectification Cost (6
Bungalows);
(2) the Defendant is granted leave to reopen the Defendant’s case for
the sole purpose as stated in the above sub-paragraph (1); and
(3) costs of the Defendant’s 6 Applications is provided in the above
paragraph 14.
WONG KIAN KHEONG
Judge
Court of Appeal, Malaysia
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 2023
Counsel for Plaintiffs Mr. Colin Andrew Pereira & Mr. Gary Wong Kin Wai
(in 6 Suits): (Messrs Goh Wong Pereira)
Counsel for Defendant Mr. Rohan Arasoo A/L Jeyabalah
(in 6 Suits): Ms. Amy Hiew Kar Yi & Ms. Pan Yan Teng
(Messrs Harold & Lam Partnership)
S/N JFpm/NHTuEeNzwiRliFetw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 40,182 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 | PERAYU Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN METALGLAZ TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD | TATACARA SIVIL: Rayuan dari Mahkamah Rendah ke Mahkamah Tinggi – Perbicaraan penuh di Mahkamah Majistret – Isu tuntutan keberhutangan berjumlah RM95,400.00 – Sama ada Mahkamah Majistret melakukan kekhilafan dalam membuat penilaian kehakiman kepada fakta dan peruntukan undang-undang? – Dapatan fakta oleh Mahkamah Majistret bahawa Defendan ada memesan dan meminta perkhidmatan Plaintif; Plaintif tidak menyempurnakan perkhidmatan tersebut dan Defendan telah menerima Perkhidmatan tersebut; Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju mengenai perkara bayaran dan Defendan tidak menerima Invois adalah khilaf – Pada peringkat rayuan, Mahkamah Tinggi perlu mengusik kekhilafan Mahkamah Majistret. | 14/11/2023 | YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=361024ca-f36a-4176-b1b2-70265fa3bf9c&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
(DALAM BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN)
ANTARA
HITTI ALUMINIUM SDN BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT: 637410-H) − PERAYU
DAN
METALGLAZ TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT: 714055-K) − RESPONDEN
(Dalam perkara mengenai Mahkamah Majistret di Shah Alam)
Writ No. BA-A72NCVC-1059-07/2020
Antara
Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd
(No. Syarikat: 637410-H) − Plaintif
Dan
Metalglaz Technology (M) Sdn Bhd
(No. Syarikat: 714055-K) − Defendan)
[Keputusan oleh Puan Fatina Amyra binti Abdul Jalil, Majistret,
Mahkamah Majistret di Shah Alam
yang diberikan pada 30 November 2022]
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
14/11/2023 14:23:55
BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 Kand. 25
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Pengenalan
[1] Ini ialah kes mengenai tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan di
Mahkamah Majistret, Shah Alam bagi bayaran kerja arkitek berjumlah
RM95,400.00 setakat 31-3-2022.
[2] Perbicaraan penuh diadakan di hadapan Puan Majistret (selepas ini
disebut “Pn Majistret yang bijaksana”).
[3] Pn Majistret yang bijaksana menolak keseluruhan tuntutan Plaintif.
[4] Tidak berpuas hati dengan keseluruhan keputusan Pn Majistret
yang bijaksana, Plaintif merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi.
[5] Pada 26-6-2023, saya telah membenarkan rayuan oleh Plaintif
dengan kos. Keputusan Pn Majistret yang bijaksana diketepikan.
[6] Defendan tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi,
kini merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan.
[7] Dalam alasan penghakiman ini, Mahkamah menyebut pihak-pihak
sebagaimana mereka di Mahkamah Majisret.
Latar belakang fakta
[8] Plaintif dan Defendan mempunyai hubungan perniagaan di mana
sepanjang 2 tahun iaitu tahun 2015 dan 2016, atas permintaan
DefendanPlaintif telah melakukan kerja arkitek iaitu lakaran, cutting list
drawing, dan nasihat konsultasi kepada Defendan berkenaan dengan
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
projek Defendan iaitu MRT S8 Bandar Kajang.
[9] Dalam perbicaraan, dokumen-dokumen yang dirujuk adalah
sebagaimana Part B Ikatan Dokumen Bersama.
[10] Cara kerja yang dilakukan antara Plaintif dan Defendan ialah
melalui hantaran e-mel dan percakapan telefon. Saksi Plaintif, Lim Yoon
Keong, Pengurus Projek Plaintif (SP-1) dalam pemeriksaan balas
menyatakan bahawa cara kerja ini dilakukannya dan seorang lagi pekerja
Plaintif dan pekerja Defendan. SP-1 mengakui bahawa tiada apa-apa
dokumen di hadapan Mahkamah untuk menunjukkan bahawa Defendan
telah membuat pesanan atau permintaan secara bertulis kepada Plaintif.
Urusan antara mereka ialah melalui komunikasi lisan dan forward emails.
[11] Pekerja Defendan bernama En. Mohd Fadzli Bin Mas’ud, Pelukis
Pelan (SP-3) berada di pejabat Plaintif semasa kerja shop drawing dan
selepas En. Fazli selesai, En. Fazli menyerahkan kepada pekerja Plaintif
(En. Fakhruddin) untuk menghasilkan cutting list dan seterusnya dihantar
kepada supplier untuk kerja fabrication.
[12] Keberadaan pekerja Defendan untuk berkerja di pejabat Plaintif
disahkan oleh saksi Defendan sendiri iaitu En. Ng Wai Choong, Pengarah
Defendan (SD-1).
[13] Keterangan Plaintif menyatakan bahawa hubungan dan komunikasi
untuk melaksanakan kerja antara Plaintif dan Defendan termasuk hadir
dalam mesyuarat dan penyediaan perkhidmatan bagi projek S8 MRT
Bandar Kajang adalah dibuat mengikut spesifikasi dan kualiti yang
dikehendaki oleh Defendan.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[14] Saksi Plaintif dalam keterangannya telah menyatakan bahawa kerja
yang dilakukan oleh Plaintif dan Defendan dibuat secara
perbincangan/mesyuarat sehingga dapat dimuktamadkan dan
kemudiannya dihantar kepada supplier in China to make production.
[15] Keterangan saksi Defendan (SD-1) dalam pemeriksaan balas juga
mengakui bahawa pihak Defendan telah “seconded” En. Mohd Fadzli
(SP-3) untuk bekerja di pejabat Plaintif dan di bawah pengawasan pekerja
kanan Plaintif. SD-1 mengakui ketiadaan apa-apa perjanjian untuk
membuktikan permintaan yang dibuat oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif
selain daripada hanya melalui “mouth talking only”. Hubungan kerja begini
sudah terjalin antara Plaintif dan Defendan dan wujud kepercayaan antara
mereka.
[16] Berdasarkan itu, Plaintif memplidkan dalam tuntutannya bahawa
pihak Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa wujud kontrak antara
Plaintif dan Defendan.
[17] Peruntukan seksyen 103 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan keputusan
Yang Arif Gunalan Muniandy, Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru (Y.A. ketika
itu) dalam kes CITC (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Agricode Sdn Bhd & Other
Case [2015] 1 LNS 142 adalah dirujuk dan dipetik oleh peguam cara
terpelajar Plaintif sebagai hujahan untuk membuktikan bahawa terdapat
perjanjian di antara Plaintif dengan Defendan.
[18] Berdasarkan keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah bicara, fakta
bahawa Plaintif telah menyempurnakan kerja sebagaimana permintaan
Defendan adalah diakui oleh pekerja Defendan yang dipanggil menjadi
saksi Plaintif bahawa pekerja Plaintif ialah orang yang melakukan kerja
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
lakaran (cutting list drawing).
Versi fakta Defendan
[19] Keterangan Defendan melalui pembelaan, keterangan lisan dan
keterangan dokumentar menyatakan perkara yang berikut:
(a) Defendan tiada pengetahuan mengenai pernyataan Plaintif
yang menyediakan lakaran dan melakukan kerja-kerja arkitek
untuk Defendan.
(b) Defendan menyatakan bahawa kerja-kerja arkitek hanya
boleh disediakan/dilakukan oleh orang/syarikat yang
berkelayakan (“qualified person”) yang telah didaftarkan di
bawah Akta Arkitek 1967 (“registered person”).
(c) sepanjang pengetahuan Defendan, Plaintif bukanlah syarikat
yang berkelayakan dan/atau Plaintif tidak didaftarkan di
bawah Akta Arkitek 1967.
(d) Defendan tidak pernah memesan dan/atau meminta Plaintif
untuk melakukan sebarang kerja-kerja arkitek sepertimana
yang didakwa oleh Plaintif.
(e) Defendan menegaskan bahawa tiada apa-apa kerja arkitek
yang disediakan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
(f) Defendan selanjutnya menyatakan bahawa pengataan
Plaintif bahawa Defendan akan membayar kepada Plaintif ke
atas kerja-kerja yang dilakukan atas harga-harga yang
ditetapkan oleh Plaintif adalah langsung tidak masuk akal.
(g) adalah mustahil bagi Defendan bersetuju untuk membayar
bagi kerja-kerja Arkitek yang didakwa tersebut berdasarkan
harga-harga yang ditetapkan oleh Plaintif sendiri tanpa
persetujuan terdahulu Defendan. Ia adalah suatu kebiasaan
di dalam perniagaan (“business norm”) bahawa harga
perkhidmatan haruslah dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua pihak
dahulu sebelum transaksi tersebut dilaksanakan.
(h) sekiranya dakawan-dakwaan Plaintif mengenai penyediaan
kerja-kerja Arkitek yang didakwa tersebut adalah benar (yang
mana dinafikan), sudah tentu Plaintif akan memplidkan
dengan lebih terperinci mengenai pelantikan Plaintif oleh
Defendan. Sebagai contohnya, cara pelantikan (sama ada
melalui surat pelantikan atau sebaliknya); tarikh sebenar
(“exact date”) Defendan melantik Plaintif; skop kerja; dan fi
Plaintif.
(i) Defendan tidak pernah menerima invois bertarikh 31-3-2020
tersebut dan hanya mengetahui tentang invois tersebut pada
24-8-2020 apabila sesalinan invois tersebut diserahkan
kepada peguam cara Defendan menurut perintah bertarikh
18-8-2020 oleh Mahkamah Majistret.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(j) Plaintif mendakwa bahawa kerja-kerja Arkitek yang didakwa
tersebut telah disediakan kepada Defendan sepanjang tahun
2015 sehingga 2016. Manakala, invois yang kononnya telah
diisukan/diserahkan kepada Defendan (yang mana dinafikan)
adalah bertarikh 31-3-2020 iaitu lebih kurang 4 tahun selepas
kerja-kerja Arkitek yang didakwa tersebut diselesaikan.
Sekiranya tuntutan Plaintif adalah benar (yang mana
dinafikan), sudah tentu invois akan diisukan dalam tempoh
masa yang munasabah selepas kerja-kerja Arkitek yang
didakwa tersebut diselesaikan, dan bukan selepas 4 tahun.
[20] Defendan memplidkan bahawa –
• kegagalan Plaintif untuk memplidkan fakta yang dinyatakan di
atas menunjukkan bahawa dakwaan-dakwaan Plaintif
hanyalah pengataan kosong.
• tuntutan Plaintif adalah berniat jahat (“bad faith”), tidak
berasas dan merupakan suatu pemikiran semula
(“afterthought”) kerana pada hakikatnya, Defendan tidak
pernah meminta dan/atau menerima sebarang perkhidmatan
daripada Plaintif.
• tuntutan Plaintif ini merupakan suatu tindakan balas
(“retaliation”) terhadap penghakiman terus yang diperolehi
oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif di dalam Mahkamah Sesyen
Shah Alam Guaman No.: BA-B52C-1-01/2020
(“Penghakiman Terus”); dan adalah suatu penyalahgunaan
proses Mahkamah untuk mengenakan tekanan yang tidak
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
wajar (“exerting undue pressure”) terhadap Defendan dan
menggunakan tindakan ini sebagai pengaruh (“leverage”)
untuk tidak menyelesaikan jumlah penghakiman di bawah
Penghakiman Terus tersebut.
[21] Justeru itu, Defendan memohon seperti berikut –
(a) tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan ditolak;
(b) kos; dan
(c) apa-apa relief yang Mahkamah ini fikirkan sesuai dan adil.
Jawapan kepada pembelaan:
[22] Mahkamah ini telah membaca perkara yang dibangkitkan oleh
Defendan vide Jawapan kepada pembelaan, di mana Plaintif menjawab
seperti yang berikut:
(a) perkara Sijil Arkitek: tuntutan ini berkenaan dengan kerja atau
perkhidmatan yang disediakan oleh Plaintif terutama
kepakaran Plaintif dalam bidang kerja aluminium. Ini
termasuklah kerja lakaran untuk memasukkan atau
memasang sesuatu barang aluminium ke dalam sesuatu
bangunan sebagai contoh tingkap atau pintu dsbnya. Kerja-
kerja inilah yang diminta oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif.
Plaintif tidak memerlukan Sijil Arkitek untuk membuat kerja-
kerja sedemikian.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(b) perkara harga yang ditetapkan Plaintif: sebagai pemberi
perkhidmatan atau penjual, Plaintif menetapkan harga ke atas
perkhidmatan yang diberinya. Perbincangan dengan
Defendan diadakan yang akhirnya dipersetujui oleh kedua-
duanya.
(c) perkara tarikh melakukan kerja oleh Plaintif: pada setiap
lakaran dan kerja yang dihantar kepada Defendan ada
dicatatkan tarikh kerja dibuat. Dokumen mengenainya akan
dirujuk dalam perbicaraan.
(d) perkara kelewatan mengeluarkan invois bagi pembayaran:
hubungan perniagaan yang lama antara Plaintif dan Defendan
dan banyak transaksi berlaku untuk beberapa projek yang
berlainan antara kedua-duanya adalah punca Plaintif
meletakkan kepercayaan kepada Defendan. Plaintif telah
melaksanakan kerja yang diminta Defendan maka Defendan
bertanggungan untuk membayar kepada Plaintif.
(e) perkara Penghakiman Terus yang memihak kepada
Defendan: pelaksanaan Penghakiman Terus adalah tidak
berkaitan dengan tuntutan Plaintif ini. Plaintif telah membayar
Defendan bagi Penghakiman Terus tersebut. Tuntutan Plaintif
di sini ialah mengenai keberhutangan Defendan kepada
Plaintif.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
Sama ada terdapat kekhilafan dalam keputusan Pn Majistret yang
bijaksana?
Isu yang dikenal pasti oleh Mahkamah Majistret:
[23] Mahkamah Majistret setelah memperhalusi isu yang dikemukakan
oleh pihak-pihak dan mendapati isu untuk diputuskan oleh Mahkamah
adalah seperti yang berikut:
(a) sama ada Defendan ada memesan dan meminta Plaintif
untuk menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut untuk projek
Defendan MRT S8 Bandar Kajang.
(b) sama ada Plaintif telah menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan
tersebut dan Defendan telah menerima Perkhidmatan
tersebut (lakaran, drawing dan nasihat konsultansi) untuk
projek S8 dari 2015 hingga 2016.
(c) sama ada Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju bahawa
setelah Plaintif menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut,
Defendan akan membayar untuk Perkhidmatan tersebut.
(d) sama ada Defendan telah menerima Invois tersebut.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
Prinsip Undang-Undang yang digunapakai oleh Pn Majistret:
[24] Beban pembuktian terletak pada pihak yang mendakwa atau yang
mengatakan kewujudan sesuatu fakta. Ini telah diperuntukkan di bawah
seksyen 101, 102 dan 103 Akta Keterangan 1950 (Evidence Act 1950 /Act
56).
[25] Pemakaian prinsip beban pembuktian ini telah dijelaskan dalam kes
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 CLJ di mana
Mahkamah menetapkan seperti berikut:
“Under s. 101(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, whoever desires the
court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on
the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist. In other words, the Plaintif must prove such facts as the
Plaintiffs desires the court to give judgment as to its right to claim
against the Defendant or the Defendant’s liability to pay the Plaintiff.
The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff: s 101(2). In order to succeed
here, the Plaintiff must prove its claim affirmatively.”.
Dapatan Mahkamah Majistret (Mahkamah bicara):
Isu (a): Sama ada Defendan ada memesan dan meminta Plaintif untuk
menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut untuk projek Defendan
MRT S8 Bandar Kajang?
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
[26] Berdasarkan pernyataan tuntutan, Defendan telah
meminta/memesan untuk Plaintif menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan
tersebut untuk Defendan. Walau bagaimanapun, semasa perbicaraan,
tiada sebarang bukti dokumentari seperti Pesanan Lisan daripada Plaintif.
Ini turut disokong dengan keterangan daripada SP-1.
[27] Mahkamah Majistret bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan bahawa
sekiranya terdapat Pesanan Lisan, sudah pasti Plaintif akan menunjukkan
kepada Mahkamah mengenai pelantikan Plaintif oleh Defendan untuk
membuktikan kes Plaintif. Contohnya seperti –
(a) tarikh sebenar (exact date) Defendan melantik Plaintif untuk
melakukan Perkhidmatan tersebut;
(b) skop kerja; dan
(c) fi Plaintif.
[28] Oleh itu, bagi isu (a), memandangkan tiada bukti dikemukakan di
Mahkamah, Mahkamah Majistret berpandangan Defendan tidak
memesan dan meminta Plaintif untuk menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan
tersebut untuk projek Defendan MRT S8 Bandar Kajang.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
Isu (b): Sama ada Plaintif telah menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan
tersebut dan Defendan telah menerima Perkhidmatan tersebut
(lakaran, drawing dan nasihat konsultansi) untuk projek S8 dari
2015 hingga 2016?
[29] Semasa perbicaraan, tiada bukti dikemukakan di Mahkamah untuk
menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif telah menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan
tersebut kepada Defendan. SP-1 dalam keterangannya di Mahkamah
memaklumkan bahawa En. Fakhruddin telah menyempurnakan
Perkhidmatan tersebut untuk Defendan tetapi Fakhruddin tidak dipanggil
sebagai saksi di Mahkamah.
[30] Memandangkan En. Fakhruddin tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi di
Mahkamah, tiada bukti dapat ditunjukkan bahawa Plaintif telah
menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut kepada Defendan dan Encik
Fakhruddin juga tidak dapat mengesahkan bahawa Defendan telah
menerima Perkhidmatan tersebut.
[31] Menurut keterangan SP-1, Plaintif secara amnya selepas
penyediaan lakaran akan, secara kebiasaannya, mendapat pengesahan
daripada pelanggannya mengenai lakaran-lakaran yang disediakan
sebelum pengeluaran. Namun, Plaintif tidak meminta apa-apa
pengesahan daripada Defendan mengenai Cutting List Drawing tersebut
sebelum pengeluaran/production.
[32] Tiada bukti dokumentari dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah oleh
Plaintif untuk menunjukkan yang Plaintif telah menyempurnakan
Perkhidmatan tersebut.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[33] Mahkamah Majistret merujuk kepada kes yang dipetik oleh peguam
cara terpelajar Defendan iaitu kes Quantum Synergy Sdn Bhd v Sin
Kean Boon Metal Industries Sdn Bhd [2004] MLJU 340, Mahkamah
Tinggi memutuskan bahawa:
“Whilst in the affidavit in support the Managing Director of the
Plaintiff had averred that he was deposing to the truth of the
contents of the affidavit based on documents in his possession,
it is surprising therefore that having made such an assertion, he
had failed to annex such documents or delivery orders or show
proof of any acknowledgment of receipt of those goods by the
Defendant. Such an absence gives rise to the assumption that
there are no such delivery orders in existence. Whatever delivery
orders there are in the affidavit, do not however bear the
signature nor the chop of the Defendant as having received the
goods. The space for the signature and the chop on the delivery
order is blank. The basic rule of law is that the person alleging
must prove. The burden of proof of the existence of the debt is
with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has proven that a sum of
RM17,549.84 is due, merely through the admission by the
Defendant.”.
[34] Oleh itu, bagi isu (b), Mahkamah Majistret berpandangan bahawa
Plaintif telah gagal menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut dan oleh itu
Defendan juga tidak menerima Perkhidmatan tersebut.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Isu (c): Sama ada Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju bahawa setelah
Plaintif menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut, Defendan
akan membayar untuk Perkhidmatan tersebut?
[35] Berdasarkan keterangan SP-1, SP-1 menyatakan bahawa
sekiranya invois dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan untuk sesuatu
jumlah pembayaran yang hendak dibayar oleh Defendan dan sekiranya
Defendan tidak membantah invois tersebut, Defendan akan membayar
jumlah tersebut.
[36] Mahkamah Majistret berpandangan bahawa tiada apa-apa
bantahan daripada Defendan ini tidak boleh dianggap sebagai
penerimaan oleh Defendan. Mahkamah Majistret merujuk kepada kes
yang dipetik oleh peguam cara terpelajar Defendan iaitu kes Chan Yuet
Chun @ Chan Oi Lin v Martego Sdn Bhd [1996] MLJU 573, Mahkamah
memutuskan bahawa −
“This requirement or condition by the Plaintiff for the acceptance
of the terms in P3 is clear and unambiguous. Neither the
Defendants nor DW2, on behalf of the Defendants, agreed to
those arbitrary terms. Acceptance must be absolute and
unqualified and, in the manner, prescribed by the offeror, see
Section 7(a), and (b) of the Contracts Act 1950. It is necessary
therefore for me to determine whether there was in this case a
concluded agreement between the parties as alleged by the
Plaintiff. As I had said earlier this case revolves upon the
elementary principles of offer and acceptance. An acceptance is
only effective if it has been communicated to the offeror. The
offeror cannot bind the offeree by stating that if the offeree does
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
nothing he will be bound to the contract. Silence cannot amount
to acceptance. See Fraser v Everett (1889) 4 Ky 512 and
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869 (supra).”.
[37] SP-1 sendiri telah mengaku bahawa Defendan tidak pernah
bersetuju dengan harga RM95,400.00 yang dikenakan dalam Invois
tersebut. Pn Majistret yang bijaksana merujuk kepada nota keterangan −
“PD: Encik Lim, just to confirm ya, based on your respond
earlier, there is no express confirmation from the
Defendant that they are agreeable to the invoice
amount, correct?
SP-1: Ya.”
[38] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah berpandangan bagi isu (c)
Defendan tidak pernah bersetuju untuk membayar jumlah RM95,400.00
yang dinyatakan dalam Invois tersebut.
Isu (d): Sama ada Defendan telah menerima Invois tersebut?
[39] Tiada bukti dokumentari dikemukakan oleh Plaintif untuk
menunjukkan bahawa Invois tersebut diserahkan kepada Defendan.
[40] Bagi isu (d), Mahkamah Majistret membuat rujukan kepada Invois
tersebut dan mendapati memang tiada akuterima oleh Defendan. Tiada
tandatangan untuk menunjukkan Invois tersebut diterima oleh Defendan.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
Kesimpulan selepas perbicaraan penuh:
[41] Berdasarkan keterangan dan dokumen-dokumen yang
dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan, Mahkamah Majistret, atas imbangan
kebarangkalian, mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan
tuntutan mereka dan Mahkamah dengan ini menolak tuntutan Plaintif
dengan kos sebanyak RM3,000.00 dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada
Defendan.
[42] Mahkamah berpandangan Plaintif telah gagal untuk melepaskan
beban pembuktian berdasarkan Seksyen 101 dan 103 Akta Keterangan
1950. Tidak terdapat sebarang kontrak antara Plaintif dan Defendan
mengenai Perkhidmatan tersebut.
Analisa dan Dapatan Mahkamah Tinggi
[43] Mahkamah telah meneliti rayuan ini dan mendengar hujahan-
hujahan pihak-pihak.
[44] Keputusan Pn Majistret diakaskan atas alasan bahawa dalam
mencapai dapatan fakta yang dikemukakan, Mahkamah Majistret hanya
memfokuskan bahawa ketiadaan kontrak/perjanjian bertulis, ketiadaan
dokumen perlantikan Plaintif, isu invois dan isu kelewatan menjadi
tumpuan Mahkamah bicara.
[45] Mahkamah ini mendapati jumlah keberhutangan Defendan kepada
Plaintif sebagaimana tuntutan setakat 31-3-2022 bagi bayaran kerja ialah
berjumlah RM95,400.00.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
[46] Hal perkara lakaran dan kerja aluminium yang dibangkitkan dalam
kausa tindakan ini ialah bagi projek MRT S8 Bandar Kajang. Tiada isu
bahawa kegagalan Plaintif menyiapkan dan menyempurnakan kerja bagi
projek tersebut mengakibatkan bahawa terbengkalainya kerja bagi projek
tersebut.
[47] Pn Majistret juga tidak memberikan apa-apa ulasannya mengenai
hubungan perniagaan yang rapat antara Plaintif dan Defendan di mana
dalam keterangan Plaintif dan Defendan keberadaan pekerja Defendan
yang ditempatkan di pejabat Plaintif adalah suatu perkara yang benar.
[48] Ketiadaan apa-apa perjanjian bertulis tidak boleh diputuskan
bahawa Plaintif tidak menyempurnakan kerja-kerja yang diminta oleh
Defendan. Dalam kes Usahawan Bersama Teknik Sdn Bhd v.
Hyperwave Systems Engineering Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 3076
Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan −
“[39] It is settled law that the act of acceptance may be either in
words or by conduct, or it may be partly by words or partly by
conduct ... and Chitty on Contracts, 31st Edition 92012), Vo. 1,
paras 2-002, 2-003, and 2-09).”.
[49] Pn Majistret tidak merujuk atau mahu menerima keterangan Plaintif
bahawa kerja yang dilakukan oleh Plaintif dihantar kepada Defendan
melalui hantaran e-mel dan komunikasi antara kedua-dua pihak adalah
secara lisan. Mahkamah ini memutuskan dari aspek ini, terdapat
kekhilafan oleh Pn Majistret yang bijaksana mengenai keterangan lisan
dan dokumentar yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif bahawa perkhidmatan
yang diminta oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif adalah wujud dan
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
sebenarnya telah disempurnakan.
[50] Kelakuan kedua-dua pihak dalam melaksanakan kerja yang saling
berkait bagi projek MRT S8 Bandar Kajang adalah menunjukkan bahawa
pihak-pihak telah bekerjasama untuk melaksanakan kerja masing-masing
sehingga berhasilnya kerja tersebut.
[51] Keterangan pekerja Defendan yang dipanggil menjadi saksi Plaintif
iaitu En. Mohd Fadzli (SP-3) yang merupakan orang yang berurusan
sebagai wakil Defendan dengan Plaintif sehingga SP-3 meletakkan
jawatannya pada 16-1-2017 mensahkan bahawa Plaintif ada
menyediakan kerja lakaran, “cutting list drawing:, kerja-kerja architecture
dan nasihat konsultasi sepanjang tahun 2015 hingga tahun 2016 bagi
projek MRT S8 Bandar Kajang. Penyiapan projek MRT S8 Bandar Kajang
yang telah beroperasi jelas menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif telah
menyempurnakan tugas/perkhidmatannya untuk Defendan.
[52] Ketiadaan apa-apa surat perlantikan Plaintif untuk melaksanakan
kerja yang diminta oleh Defendan telah disangkal melalui keterangan
bahawa pekerja Defendan sendiri hanya menyediakan shop drawings dan
kemudiannya Plaintif menyediakan cutting list drawings dan seterusnya
dimajukan kepada “Main Contractor”. Isu surat perlantikan bukan suatu
isu material untuk menafikan kerja/perkhidmatan yang telah diberikan
oleh Plaintif. Kerja lakaran ini sudah pasti memerlukan 2 pihak iaitu
kepakaran Defendan dan kepakaran Plaintif sebelum lakaran lengkap
dikemukakan kepada “Main Contractor”.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
[53] Ketiadaan saksi-saksi dari pihak “Main Contractor” yang berurusan
secara langsung dengan Defendan juga boleh menjadi suatu alasan
kukuh bahawa Defendan gagal membuktikan kesnya.
[54] Ketidakterimaan “barang” oleh Defendan hendaklah dibezakan
dengan erti “barang” dalam terma biasanya. Perkhidmatan yang diberikan
oleh Plaintif adalah berkenaan dengan dokumen-dokumen yang dihantar
secara e-mel kepada Defendan. Keterangan 2 orang saksi Defendan
gagal mematahkan bukti dokumentari dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah
oleh Plaintif untuk menunjukkan Plaintif telah menyempurnakan
Perkhidmatan tersebut.
[55] Tiada apa-apa keterangan dalam perbicaraan untuk membuktikan
bahawa Plaintif gagal menyempurnakan kerjanya dan/atau kerja yang
diberikan itu cacat. Penafian Defendan mengenai penerimaan invois dan
bantahan kepada harga/caj bagi perkhidmatan yang dikenakan oleh
Plaintif tidak boleh menafikan keberhutangan sebanyak RM95,400.00 itu.
[56] Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif memetik keputusan dalam kes MP
Factors Sdn Bhd v. Suangyan Projects Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors [2006] 1 LNS
358, di mana Y.A Vincent Ng Kim Khoay, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur
(Y.A Hakim ketika itu) memutuskan −
“It is undisputed fact that after being served with the notice to
repurchase, the Defendants did not at any time raise any protest
that the amount demanded is incorrect or that no amount is due
and payable to the Plaintiff under the agreement. Thus, by the
Defendants’ silence they are estopped from now raising this
challenge as the Plaintiff was lulled into the belief that the
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
Defendants did not intend to challenge the exixtence of a
demand to repurchase the debt, or the correctness of the amount
owed by the Defendants under the Factoring Agreement.”.
[57] Berkenaan dengan “perjanjian” yang telah dimasuki oleh Plaintif
dan Defendan, saya memetik perenggan darpada Chitty’s on Contract
seperti yang berikut:
“Agreement is not a mental state, but an act, and as an act, is a
matter of inference from conduct. The parties are to be judged
not by what in their minds but by what they have said or written
or done.”.
[58] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa keterangan lisan oleh SP-1 ada
kebenarannya iaitu –
“Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju bahawa Plaintif setelah
membuat dan memenuhi kehendak Defendan, Defendan akan
membayar kepada Plaintif ke atas kerja-kerja yang dilakukan
atas harga-harga yang ditetapkan oleh Plaintif dan Defendan
tahu bahawa kerja-kerja yang dilakukan tersebut bukanlah
secara percuma oleh Plaintif.
Defendan telah menerima invois HASB/INV/20/0156 berjumlah
RM95,400.00 yang bertarikh 31-3-2020 daripada Plaintif, yang
dihantar secara normal pos dan Defendan tidak pernah
mempertikaikan dan berjanji untuk melunaskan segala bayaran
kepada Plaintif.”.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
[59] Mahkamah ini mendapati Defendan telah menggunakan
perkhidmatan Plaintif melalui “outsource” bagi projek MRT S8 Bandar
Kajang, maka keengganan Defendan untuk membayar hasil
kerja/perkhidmatan Plaintif tanpa justifikasi yang kukuh adalah helah
Defendan untuk enggan membayar jumlah yang hanya RM95,400.00.
[60] Walaupun, tempoh Plaintif mula menuntut hutangnya dengan
Defendan selepas 4 tahun, isu ini tidak menjadi suatu sebab untuk
menafikan hak Plaintif. Penjelasan SP-1 dalam pemeriksaan balas
bahawa Plaintif memerlukan masa untuk mengumpul dokumen bagi
tujuan tindakan undang-undang adalah suatu alasan yang munasabah.
[61] Pertikaian mengenai harga/caj yang dikenakan oleh Plaintif bagi
perkhidmatannya kepada Defendan dibangkitkan sebagai suatu harga
yang ditetapkan tanpa pengesahan dan persetujuan Defendan.
Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa perkhidmatan yang diberikan tanpa
suatu pun dokumen perjanjian, maka kedua-dua pihak telah beralih
kepada persetujuan, pengesahan dan perjanjian secara lisan semata-
mata. Tiada apa-apa keterangan daripada Defendan untuk menyangkal
keterangan bahawa perkhidmatan oleh Plaintif telah diterima oleh
Defendan tetapi keterangan Defendan ialah untuk menyatakan
“Defendan tidak meminta perkhidmatan Plaintif”.
[62] Berkenaan dengan kes Defendan terhadap Plaintif sehingga
Mahkamah Sesyen membenarkan penghakiman terus yang memihak
kepada Defendan, Mahkamah ini bersetuju bahawa apa-apa tindakan
undang-undang antara Defendan v. Plaintif dan Plaintif v. Defendan
hendaklah diperhalusi oleh Pn Majistret yang bijaksana dan bukan
semata-mata bersetuju dengan pengataan Defendan bahawa “tuntutan
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
Plaintif adalah berniat jahat (“bad faith”), tidak berasas dan merupakan
suatu pemikiran semula (“afterthought”) kerana pada hakikatnya,
Defendan tidak pernah meminta dan/atau menerima sebarang
perkhidmatan daripada Plaintif.”.
[63] Dalam alasan penghakiman Pn Majistret yang bijaksana hanya
merujuk dan memetik nas undang-undang kes yang dihujahkan oleh
peguam cara terpelajar Defendan. Mahkamah ini telah membaca hujahan
Plaintif selepas perbicaraan dan mendapati keputusan kes yang berikut
adalah dipetik oleh peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif untuk menyokong kes
mereka, antaranya, iaitu –
• MP Factors Sdn Bhd v. Suangyan Projects Sdn Bhd & 3
Ors (supra).
• Cold Chain Network (M) Sdn Bhd v. sime Darby Foods
and Beverages Marketing Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 LNS 137 di
mana Y.A Prasad Sandosham Abraham J, Mahkamah Tinggi
Shah Alam (Yang Arif ketika itu) memutuskan “With regards
to the plea in paragraph 7.1 of the defence of the Defendant,
having perused through the evidence I find there is no
evidence to suggest the Defendant sustomers did not receive
the goods sent by the Plaintiff.”.
[64] Adakah nas undang-undang yang dipetik oleh peguam cara
terpelajar Plaintif tidak berkaitan atau gagal menyokong kes Plaintif? Jika
begitu pendapat Pn Majistret yang bijaksana, dapatan fakta mengenai e-
mel yang dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan tidak boleh diabaikan begitu
sahaja.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
Prinsip Campur tangan dan Gangguan Mahkamah pada peringkat
rayuan
[65] Peguam cara terpelajar Defendan memetik nas undang-undang kes
Jade Homes Sdn Bhd v Sivananthan a/l Krishnan [2021] 5 MLJ 349 di
mana adalah undang-undang nyata bahawa keputusan mahkamah
perbicaraan hanya boleh diubah (overturned) oleh mahkamah rayuan
(appellate court) sekiranya keputusan mahkamah perbicaraan adalah
“nyata salah” (plainly wrong). Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam
memutuskan bahawa −
“It is trite law that an appellate court should not interfere with the
factual findings of a trial judge, save and except where the
decision of the trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ where in arriving at
the decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and
was one which no reasonable judge could have reached. If the
decision did not fall within any of the aforesaid category, it is
irrelevant, even if the appellate court thinks that, with whatever
degree of certainty, it considered that it would have reached a
different conclusion from the trial judge…”.
Dan juga keputusan dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee
Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) &
Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa
ujian “nyata salah” bukanlah bertujuan untuk digunakan oleh mahkamah
rayuan sebagai cara untuk mengganti keputusannya sendiri terhadap
dapatan fakta mahkamah perbicaraan –
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
“[76] What is pertinent is that, the ‘plainly wrong’ test is not
intended to be used by an appellate court as a mean to substitute
its own decision for that of the trial court on the facts.”.
[66] Ciri utama bagi sesuatu “appellate intervention” adalah jelas dan
mantap dalam semua peringkat rayuan. Tugas Mahkamah yang
mendengar rayuan ialah untuk memastikan sama ada Mahkamah yang
membicarakan itu mencapai keputusannya berdasarkan keputusan atau
dapatan secara betul mengenai keterangan dan berasaskan kepada
undang-undang.
[67] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v.
Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1 memutuskan –
“[14] In our view, the Court of Appeal in citing these cases had
clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate intervention, ie
to determine whether or not the trial court had arrived at its decision
or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the
established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly
entitled to examine the process of evaluation of the evidence by the
trial court. Clearly, the phrase ‘insufficient judicial appreciation of
evidence’ merely related to such process. This is reflected in the
Court of Appeal’s restatement that a judge who was required to
adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of
fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting
or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him.
The Court of Appeal further reiterated the principle central to
appellate intervention, ie that a decision arrived at by a trial court
without judicial appreciation of the evidence might be set aside on
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
appeal. This is consistent with the established plainly wrong test.”.
[68] Begitu juga dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia v. Global Upline Sdn
Bhd and Another Appeal [2017] 1 MLJ 170 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan
memutuskan bahawa “an appellate court will not intervene unless the trial
court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its conclusion and where
there has been insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence”.
[69] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy
Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang,
deceased) & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1 memutuskan “the principle on which
an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is
‘the plainly wrong test’ principle”.
[70] Prinsip undang-undang mengenai appellate intervention only
justified that on the available evidence, that the SCj is erred (Kes
Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v. Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd
[1993] 2 CLJ 146).
[71] Dua ujian yang dikenal pasti perlu dipenuhi bagi tujuan appellate
intervention adalah “plainly wrong test” and “insufficient judicial
appreciation of evidence test” (the case of Lee Ing Chin @ Lee
Teck Seng & Ors v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97 at
98-99).
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
[72] Dalam kes Ong Leong Ciou & Anor v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd &
Ors And Another Appeal [2019] 3 MLRA 322 at 329, Mahkamah
Rayuan memutuskan bahawa –
“[125] We are mindful of the limited role of the appellate
court in relation to the findings of facts made by the court
of first instance. The general principle is that the
conclusion of a trial judge is a finding of fact on the oral
evidence based on the demeanour and credibility of the
witness before him or her. Generally, such finding ought not
be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it
is plainly wrong. It would not be sufficient to warrant an
appellate interference merely because the appellate court
entertains doubt whether such finding is right.”.
[73] Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng,
Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased &
Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa
–
“... an appellate Court should not interfere with factual
findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the
decision of the trial Judge was plainly wrong or one that no
reasonable Judge could have reached. If it is not, the fact
that the appellate Court may have reached a different
conclusion on the facts, is irrelevant.”.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
[74] Peguam cara terpelajar Defendan menghujahkan bahawa
Mahkamah Tinggi ini pada peringkat rayuan tidak boleh mengubah
dapatn Pn Majistret yang bijaksana yang mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah
gagal mengemukakan sebarang keterangan dokumentari dan/atau
konkrit yang boleh membuktikan dakwaan bahawa Defendan telah
memesan dan/atau meminta Perkhidmatan yang Didakwa tersebut
daripada Plaintif.
[75] Selanjutnya, Peguam cara terpelajar Defendan menghujahkan
bahawa terdapat percanggahan keterangan SP-1 dan SP-3 mengenai
penyedia Cutting List Drawing tersebut tidak boleh diterima oleh
Mahkamah ini. Ini kerana adalah sukar untuk dipercayai dan/atau tidak
masuk akal bahawa SP-3 hanya menyediakan 1 halaman daripada
Cutting List Drawing tersebut manakala halaman-halaman Cutting List
Drawing tersebut yang lain adalah disediakan oleh En Fakhruddin. En
Fakhruddin tidak dipanggil oleh sebagai saksi.
[76] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa dapatan fakta yang khilaf oleh Pn
Majistret yang bijaksana memerlukan Mahkamah Tinggi mengusik
dapatan fakta tersebut.
[77] SP-3 itu adalah saksi material yang merupakan mantan pekerja
Defendan dalam tempoh bagi tuntutan ini. En Fakhruddin ialah pekerja
Plaintif dan bersama-sama dengan SP-1 itu, Plaintif bekerja secara
langsung dengan SP-3.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
[78] Peguam cara terpelajar Defendan menghujahkan bahawa seksyen
114 Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan –
Court may presume existence of certain fact
The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks
likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course
of natural events, human conduct, and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
ILLUSTRATIONS
The court may presume:
… (g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would if
produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
[79] Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa ketiadaan En Fakhruddin
sebagai saksi tidak memprejudiskan tuntutan Plaintif. SP-1 ialah saksi
material yang dapat menyokong keterangan Plaintif mengenai
tuntutannya terhadap Defendan.
[77] Dalam hujahan pada peringkat rayuan, peguam cara Defendan
menghujahkan seperti yang berikut:
“… walaupun SP-1 dalam keterangannya di mahkamah perbicaraan
memaklumkan bahawa Fakhruddin telah menyempurnakan
Perkhidmatan yang Didakwa tersebut untuk Defendan, Fakhruddin
tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi di mahkamah perbicaraan;
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
… memandangkan bahawa Fakhruddin tidak dipanggil sebagai
saksi di mahkamah perbicaraan, tiada bukti dapat ditunjukkan
bahawa Plaintif telah menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan yang
Didakwa tersebut kepada Defendan dan Fakhruddin juga tidak
dapat mengesahkan bahawa Defendan telah menerima
Perkhidmatan yang Didakwa tersebut.
Defendan berhujah bahawa menurut Seksyen 114 Akta Keterangan
1950, Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini harus menganggap bahawa
Plaintif tidak memanggil Fakhruddin sebagai saksi dalam
perbicaraan ini kerana, sebenarnya, Perkhidmatan yang Didakwa
tersebut tidak dilakukan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan.”.
[78] Dalam alasan penghakiman Pn Majistret yang bijaksana menolak
tuntutan Plaintif bukan kerana ketiadaan Fakhruddin sebagai saksi. Tetapi
atas alasan bahawa Plaintif gagal membuktikan perkara yang berkut:
(a) Defendan ada memesan dan meminta Plaintif untuk
menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut untuk projek
Defendan MRT S8 Bandar Kajang.
(b) Plaintif telah menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut dan
Defendan telah menerima Perkhidmatan tersebut (lakaran,
drawing dan nasihat konsultansi) untuk projek S8 dari 2015
hingga 2016.
(c) Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju bahawa setelah Plaintif
menyempurnakan Perkhidmatan tersebut, Defendan akan
membayar untuk Perkhidmatan tersebut.
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
(d) Defendan tidak menerima Invois tersebut.
[79] Keempat-empat isu ini telah didengar semula pada peringkat
rayuan dan berdasarkan alasan yang Mahkamah jelaskan dalam
penghakimannya, iaitu kontrak lisan, hal keadaan hubungan pihak-pihak,
sistem bekerja dan komunikasi pihak-pihak mengenai perkhidmatan
adalah jelas dalam keterangan lisan dan dokumentar.
Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan.
Kesimpulan
[80] Berdasarkan alasan yang saya nyatakan di atas, penghakiman
saya memutuskan bahawa rayuan Plaintif (Perayu) adalah dibenarkan
apabila Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa factual findings of the learned
Magistrate was incorrect.
[81] Pada peringkat rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, saya telah
menjalankan appellate role. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini perlu mengusik
dapatan fakta yang dicapai oleh Pn Majistret yang bijaksana yang secara
langsung juga adalah khilaf di sisi undang-undang.
Bertarikh: 14 November 2023.
RoziBainon
( ROZI BINTI BAINON )
Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman
Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam NCvC12
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
Peguam cara:
Bagi Pihak Plaintif (Perayu):
Siti Zubaidah binti Jemadi
Tetuan Gary Wong & Co., Kuala Lumpur.
Bagi Pihak Defendan (Responden):
Christopher Joseph Wei-Yan Guo
Tetuan Kenny Tan & Co., Kuala Lumpur
S/N yiQQNmrzdkGxsnAmX6O/nA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 45,378 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BL-45A-18-04/2022 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH VIMALAN A/L SEGARAN | - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952- Anggota serbuan masuk kedalam rumah melalui pintu hadapan yang terbuka, dia melihat OKT sedang duduk di atas sofa di ruang tamu- OKT telah mengambil (1) bekas tin dan menyerahkan bekas tin tersebut kepada SP1 berisi ketulan mampat daun kering yang disyaki Ganja - OKT pandu arah ke bilik kedua rumah itu dan SP1 menjumpai (30) paket plastic lutsinar berisi ketulan mampat dedaun kering disyaki dadah jenis Ganja- Samada OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang ditemui- Ketika serbuan dan tangkapan ke atas OKT oleh SP1 dan pasukannya tiada orang lain di rumah itu kecuali OKT sahaja- Turut mendiami rumah tersebut adalah adalah ibu OKT dan adik OKT. Ini disahkan oleh pegawai penyiasat- maklumat yang diterima oleh SP1 hanya merujuk kepada kegiatan mengedar di rumah itu yang dilakukan oleh 1 lelaki India dan ianya mungkin menyamai identiti iaitu adik OKT- Keperluan keterangan sokongan apabila ada orang lain turut mempunyai akses di lokasi kejadian- Samada satu siasatan lengkap dan adil telah dijalankan- Samada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan satu kes prima facie | 14/11/2023 | YA Puan Norliza Binti Othman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f9264798-6072-4109-8cfd-033fc4047ca0&Inline=true |
14/11/2023 08:59:15
BL-45A-18-04/2022 Kand. 44
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N mEcmXJgCUGM/QM/xAR8oA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
aL—a5A—1a—n¢/2022 Kand. 44
1 u / 1 1 /2 oz 2 2
DAAAM IIIAHKAMAN nuesl DI KLANG
DALAM NEGEkI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
PERBICARAAN JENAVAH ND.: BL~45A-IO-M12022
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAVA
LAWAM
VIMALAN A/L SEGARAN
i_E
A. LAIAR BELAKANG
[11 Tarluduh (shah dlluduh dengan «ma :3) penuduhan di hawah
Ssksyan 3§Bt1)(a) Ana Dadah Bamahaya 1952 yang boleh
tflhukum .11 bawah Saksysn 393 (2) Am yang sama.
_
Eahmaa kamu man 2a Dklabev am pm mam km-nng :2 so mu bovlempsl
aw Ma 15 Jnhn Bssav am :3‘ mu. m flahm flaarah Klung dn dawn: Negavt
Salanwr um sum rem. amzpau mervgodnr dadsh bemahaya ma.
Cannams hem! bum 355 19 gvlm dun dlngan nu ksmuvemh nmalukan salu
kssmahun as bawah Seksym 39511) La) Akla Dadah Eemahaya 1952 yang
mm. «mum a. mmseuysv \ES{Z)Akt: yang sama
sw micmx./yEuGM!DMh-Awaulx
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
Pmuuumn K-d
-samwa kamupeda 25 Okmbev 2021 Jam Vebih kuvanw 12 an pug‘ hsnamvnl
m No I5Jilsn loser saw 1:, Kflvfit, m aaram dnamh mm m flilim Nag-n
saxanw uamx sum man dvdwnh mmnednr um» brhahlyl ma
Mmamvnemamma banal beam 1572 glam dun duwan wm kamu lush
muman new kesalahan mama Sekxym mm 4.; AH: Dadah
Buhuhava wsz yam: mac. mhukum a. bawdl Sukxyun suarz) Ana yang
samn
Fnrluduhln Kelly
-aamwa mu pm as onoberzau Jam ma kumng 12 3a pew aanampan
a. No 15 Jalan Eesaraalu :3‘ Kapar, an «aim dnevnh Klnng . nhm Nanan
saangw Dan! Emu, ldih dmapem mmosdsr danish bahnhiyl lam:
Canrums beta: nuaw. ms gr-um Gan denuan ixu knmu Idah mavnkukan ma
kamahan duzwrah ssksyen new (a) Mm: Dudnh Bamnhiyl ms: ylwg
wan dmukum a4 bewah Eeksyen :na(2wq,a yang ma
[21 cm max msngaku sawan nan pmnk pandakwaun Ie\ah mamanggll
swims! snam (5; ovang saw hag: msmbukfikan sam kes pnmz
vama |erhadap on.
5. man KES FENDAKWAAN
[31 Berlizsarkan maklumaz yang dlpsmahl pad: 25.10 2021 Jam Iabih
kurung 12 an paw, SP 1 (lnw Muhammad Zuhain bun Md mun
2
N mEcmx1w:uGMmwaAwauA
ma saw n-nhnrwm be used a mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[20] Eeldasarkan kelerangsn-ketenngan mi maka pmak pendakwaan
Rvanghujahkan bahawa semua bavang~barang kss ansawam an
-mas‘ dun nawang plasflc berada dalam ilgaan alau kawa\an OKY
pad: masa yang malarial flan pendakwaan membengmkan
znggzpan dw mwan smy-n :s1(¢) ADE yang mempamnlukkan
‘(an In ullnmcesdlnn: umierwslm or Myrugulmlan rnadv mmvuMor—
:4: anynason Mrnls fwndlonawludlnllll ouuofl/orundovlnls
zmmal Wflnlnq vmntxovl/or cm!-mlng my dangerous drug aha/L mm
m:zorIII“'Y'SP'WIlt btdumodtohavnnunlnpossoulon mum
m.,,.mmmv, Im4AHhc¢onb'aIyI~spmvsd,bcd«ImdI'nh~vcAv\own
In: mum mm am‘
[21] Mahkamah nu dulum membual dapatan beg! lsu mflikan flan
pengelahuan oKr barangmerang kes Ianu Cannabis dan
Malhamphatzrrflns marmuk kspada kepulusan Mahkamah
Persekuluan dldulim Ibr-nlm Mohlmad s Anor v PP mm 4
cm 11:.
-115; m. Llw .: wall sawed the! many on/y mmdy or mum over me my
mugs 5 »n.smn:»cIvI to esraurm wossssm-. mg mum g afmmudx ar
mntml n . socusad had knawfad
gamma mis
in; Q g mm my a aha wldume oi olmumswmal evidence
Mam aflonewfmoulexcfunlvel mama lfcllms an
11
N mzcmxlwuswnwumm
um smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm n. nnmn.u-y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm
mum in w to convflmlt eulon Isl nlone
human (sun (M was uICIv5r| Psan Loan v PPI1D5dI 1 ms w
[22] Pmnk nsndakwaan manghujankan kslerawan adalah mancukupl
unluk manuruukkan on mav\yunya\ mmkan sebenav (actual
posssssiaruatas dadah-dadah yanaanamul amavamnn 'Juues'a:n
baleng plaslik. Mehkamah menaapan danpadz keterangan sak_Ii—
saksw pandakwaan khususnya sr-1 Mada bahan lam dl dalum
hungkusan Masllk selaln Cannabis din Msmamahetarmns sapsm
yang wanalisls mar. sr=2 Keuka ssrbuan dan vangkapan ks alas
om alsh sm dan pasukannya naua uranq lam an rumah nu klcusfl
on sahali. Barang-harsng kss dllumpav oiah 591 d\ mang tamu
Iumah saiapas disamhkan men on dan dw mun kedua se\epas
dlpandu nmh Dish on on bevsda hamplrdungun barang-baring
I23] Pnnak Dembeuaan dldmam msmbawa pemauan Mahksmah kevuda
pambelaan on mandakwa ketarangan bagalmana balang kss
dwlemul lidak hnlsh dwlenmn sebagal kslemngan 1m ndalah kerana
walaupun SP2 sebioal mama: lanakansn man mamhaca ma-
xaca amaran kapada on, namun ianyz max muuenum keperluan
Seksyen 375 ADE. mu admsh xemna sm Hdak meruelasxan
12
sw mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
kapada on kandungan amaran xamnuc darn max dibaca nawam
harms: yang om fahanu lam; Tamil mi mum. anablla kala—kam
amaran I|u dibaca sebanyuk 3 kalv (elspl on «wax member!
sebnrang haspon, Selain llu hak on davam menjawab kepzda
kala-Kata zmaran rm adalah dllinflungw mmmr. sum" 313(2)
me an mam: om mempunyax hak unmk berdiam a
'17s Aflrms:-um orsmmms m ovrdsnoe
{1’INnlwtms1andwI0arMhm9 lo Inc conbflly oolusmedlnanywfltxen law,
- person actuscd cum Mime: In which subsection 10 spam my
not 1» bouvvdlo aruwer my qum/ms relalmy m such we aflsruny
such calmm .s umsam has bean adm(nLvteted (:3 mm-
Mallkamall Rayuan dldamm xes Manama Alkazlq am R-mll
Iawan Pandakwa Ray: mqyu-n J-myth rm w-os(sm-.m-
1a/20:1 merusiaskan kspanlingan kalakala amamn amawan
Saksyen 315 ADE dengan msrujuk kapada kas ugu cnn Wu!
[2015] you 552; ML!!! 1720 yam mun ulsh Paguam Farayu di
dalam Mohlmud Amuiq (supra) di mana Mahkamah Rayuan
msmumskaw.
-m Adnlah om memadnv mluk psvzlwar polvs mmyamn ad:
amaran army." mu». mervyubulpvhfurrovlkatuarv sebum
yang amass».
13
N mzcmxlwuswnwuwam
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
{HI mm mum arnamn yang mm manmkm kshandak Aha
Ialah amanm menllah dllemuknn aumm p=«u:..,..
parkaluan scbenuryflw dtvanam awn my-wm pans,
4w nnmg yrmgn Em him! a... gcmmggm nnumn
AM: nu... mm." xgfl gr: 9;», am gm In any 1
.
I561 Dldalam m Fvunc/: Antovvywmy v Pam Pmucmor /zoos) 2
cu 451, Manksmah Pusekulmsn monyalskan
-u can Movuforv be seen that the satisfaction al the com
on ma ndmlnmrallon um» caution you m the vorvmov
ofaadnmslbtlln/ofastalermmmulnadbeenmada mm
19 was No m.
' my fisd’ .4 u had
mg mwama.
[24] Di damm hes wm, 0KTl\daklasm bamahasa Mulaysla can kaLa4(:|a
amarin dnhicskan dalsm Eahasa Malaysxa nan max diterangkan
kenada on dalam hahasa mum Im terbuku apabfla sm
mecnbaaakan a kall ltauvkala umsran flan on mancflamkan am.
Pstsoalan yang mmnul aualan samada on manmamkan diri
kerana max laham apa yang uimmnun 01271 5»: auaupun on
meflflglmakan haklwl dw man Saksyen 37a ADE unmk
menmamkan am. su=1 kelxka pemanksaan balas bsrselum dangan
14
N mzcmxlwuswnwuwam
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
1251
cadangan peguam on bahawa um dldalam psnyaw sakslnya
alaupun laporun pousnw menyalakan ma afli benanyakan on
samada ma faham amavan yang dxbsrikan Jlka Im benaxu, msku
perbuatan on yang mkmskan menumukkan an mana hamm-
barang Kea bsrada aoalah mempmjudiskannya dan kmarangan im
(idak boxer. aneoinu masuk
Pihsk Dsmbe\aan Juga di da\am menyangkal isu mmkan on man
Ivarhwah mam OKT. tumtmendmm rumah tersebul adalnh idalan
In om’ Iallu Nngamah alp Sanmagam dan amx on Ianu
Maggamara all Ssgaran. Inn dlsahkan um. spa mm pegawaw
penyiasal. lm dmuknkan malulul km pengenalan Naggarwars a/\
Segarsn um) yang menunjukkan a\ama| an dalam kad panqenalan
Mu adalah lokasi kqzdian. Fihak pemhsiaan jugs mengemukakan
sun kelammn Naggantars (Dan) den sull kalamran om (D29) dan
Am mamnukukan mereka aasxan adlk beramk. Naguamara bukan
rekaan penmexaan Dwa adalah waiak yang wwud. OKT te\ah
msmaklumkan kepada spa bahawa adrknys Wagganlarij Iurul
lmggal dlsnu nan lnl dnakui ma?! SP6 mks psmanksazn ba\as.
Hhak pemmaan (shah memberi nuns Alcontam kepada plhak polls
sezwm slasalan bslkenaan wank Naugamana ini
15
sw mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[251
K27!
lmnmya, sebaxk samua on dnangkap, mu flan adik on Mar:
memmlangkan and dan enggan mamheri xenasama spv (Imp.
Zun mun AbdulAzlz)'.1ldaIam nemsnxsaan mama uia msmbua|
pemsflksaan number Iakalun Nzggznlara sslapas msndapalnyu
daripadz Iapman polls on Wzflaupun mun uasacan SP7
msnumuxkan number m amanaman atas nama Numaum, ianya
menumukkan cm telah memaklumkan kepuda plhsk mus
bezkanan new-ya. selam nu. sm mambuat aamakan kad
pangsnalan Nu. n2u7151n1s75 dan dia mengesanken um mlllk
Nagganlsm Adam jelil, Nsgganlars wuwd Gan msmpunyai
mama: an mmah nu hamama-same on dan munya sabamm dia
menghuangkan dvi xsbawk sahajz om’ dimngkap
Pmik pemb-Iaan mm menahujankan maklumal yang dnanma o\eh
SP1 hanya meruiuk kepadz kegialan mengedar m mmah mu yang
dxlakukan ulsh 1 lahakl lnflla can Isnya mungkln menyamai menem
Nnggunlam Vaku ad\k on. Maklumalndak ssinra speslfik msmjuk
kunada on |mapi hanya 1 Imam India yang menwunk/an keguaun
mengsdnr mar: an lokasl keladlan dsn SP1 membuat anggzuan
Vanya ada\ah om. Dalam ksadaan lardapalnya kalemngan ma
Imam mma Iain Iumt nngga\ dx Iumah larsebul ualm Nagganlara,
maka angqapau nu sangat memprejumskan om. siaaanan
we
sw mzcmxlwuswnwumm
-ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. anmmuuy mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm
haruslah dipulankan secars msnyeluruh dan Vanya mast! menuju
kepuda uaaa arang lain yang mempunya: parmlikan alas dadah~
dadah yang d umpawI11mmahIeIsebu1kewaHOKTlab4h-Vebihlag‘
dalam keadaan umuan auaxukan berdasalkan maklumal yang
dmerima blah sm
Mahkamah Pemekuluun asdalam Ihrlhlm Mohanud 1 Anal v PP
1201114 cu 11.‘I{Fl3}Zulke1Ii Makinumn FCJ mamutuskan.-
-mrm.mpenmmm...mmu..pmm m:-matllrepoik-/anmnyp-my
vawwmm-Imvvvmlmwmmamurmumwmmvmmnuauod m.
mum a/mu ..«.m:..,.u..m.. Deseenlnme nacunnnllhomnniuvunn
c...n»m.1..a.:.z....m«..v....,«v;-s-masau Cuvmmnwuwaut-and
mam.
oflmonnuxwunolanmndnrmnnla m ..z
'
MI m
mm
mu. nl Mv-bun rmdln
ncatnenadfiwlha nmnxcvudntlm ..
MM
onIP'DD°'neIvxIl:>lmvsmenoa;twuuIdsrnwAInImIpv¢>u¢mIonnad
rza.an..au¢.y».po.uo«n.uaIumnw».g.omuoummwnm
Mo nvimmnu wmmmnr wu .mm by the pmnnimmv to exmde the
pmmuymz.»nmmwanmmmma/»»am.um.um<.w:a
mm».um..nu-
17
N mzcmxlwuswnwuwam
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[26] Di dalam kes mi, -11 dalam bmk kedua an mans aaaan duumpm an
dalam xsulung maslxk, SP6 msngseahkan kafika pemsnksaan ba\as
fiada bavang psnbadi on dltemul as am (ersebul. walaupun dla
msngakui aaa baju-baju lerdapat dmalam a\mari (11 wk ilu. Bap»
haju in: max dirampas oleh spa dan lidak cflbuatacu pakaw kspads
on um penlmg apabua ad: dakwian ada arm |a\n mun image‘
an rwnah Wu Iailu Naugantara Pmak pendakwaan perlu membawa
katarzngan unluk menmek kemungklnan daduh-dadan nu mHlk
Nangamsra dan lanya hanya ml on saI1a;a Hanya dangan
rlIsnIbua| uflan kasan cap ‘an flan DNA sues paxman, (Ilnm di bwk
«meom dan jugs pada Km 'Juhss" dapal manulak dikwean adanya
penglihshn Naggamara d4 dalam kas im. Walaupun uuzn DNA dan
can ‘an bukanlah salu kepafluan mdmam keskes petmllkan dadnh
|elap\ in m hawa ks perhshan pmak pulls bihaws ada orang lam
luml mampunyix akses .11 Iomx kqadian «empan di mana dadalv
dadah nu dnemui, maka pihak palis may puma" Ielzapl peflu
msngualkan dengan xeaerangan snkangan sspem w. namun im
Ildak benaku uwalam kss mi. Vanya mga s9\aras dengan dapalan
m Abdullan zmwl {supra} unmk menanglds dakwaan bahams
om mun dmmaya dengan nmeiakkan aaaah di Iokasx kspdian,
19
sw mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[291
[30]
kamudian pmak pohs dlmaldumkan akan dadah Iersabul dan
hasunya on ananakap
sennn nu, sssuatu yang msnink dl da\am kes mu adalah apabilz
spa paugx ks mman Mu selenas kapadian, didapeu lumah in: man
mkuncx olsn mu on din msnghllsnqkan um. SP6 kelika
pamenksaan balas max nanu nlengapa man on mangund mmah
dan menghilangkan am‘ Malah sesuaxu yang pellk apabfla
sueotang yam lnlah ungual msinu s5\ama1D cannn, ssbaik sanqa
salah saorang anaknya dmangkap, dun lemh manguncr pmlu rumah
dzn mengnuangxan am keosokan haflnya Ape yang cuba
dlsernbunylksn Meh mu on alau slap: yang dia ingm mung dan
|mdung’I Juga fimbul pslsnalan berkenaen akses temadap run-an
nu sandlli m’ mama Ierdepal mung waln on boleh mambuka dsn
msnauncx mmnh larsebul Dmam keadaan im, unluk mamuluskan
on msmpunya’ ’ kzn mas daanndadnn yang duumpil an mman
nu adalah sualu anpaaan ynng max selamal xerana banyak
parsoalan berkenaan Isu pen! an dzdah mu «max |e|1awab dengan
Vain perkatzaan aria kakxmpangan an dawn kas penflakwaan.
Pmax pendakwaan berganiung kapzda dadah—dadah nu dtserahkan
kepada sm oxen on maka wanya menwkupl unluk menunlukkan
19
syn mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
man an.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m mm n. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm
DKT msmvunval mmkan ausa dadah-dadah nu Nanmn sspem’ yang
dvpenelaskan dv anas kala—ka|a amamn yang dtbacakan kepida
on oleh SP1 Husk mmsnum kepenuan Saksyen 313 maka
kececangan flu max bulah
"ma F-‘Ihak pendakwaan perm
rnsmhukukan bahnwa om msmpunyal kawalan dan jagaan
kepada dadah-dadah yang duumpaw dldalam an '.lu1iss" darn an
dzham nauang pwnsuk dx bllvk kedua. Kawangan dari saksi-sakm
peminkwaan handaldah mengeoualikan aksas pihak keflga ke alas
kzkasl maauan wailu mmah tersebul. aengnn Ialn perkalasn uada
ksmgunn banawa on mempunyai rmhkan anaa barang-barang Kai
uuumpax walaunun rumall lelssbm mm a nu’ men mu dan
amknya. Di dalam kes lnl, sepem yang dmyalakan an alas,
kewuman Nuggnnlsrs bukan sekadar penqhuni ruman, maklumat
yang dmerima oleh SP1 berkaflan ksgia|an mangedar flsdah dl
vumah nu merwuk kapada senmng le\akA mam dan sm
bmnggapan Vanya on. Naggamara dan Ibunya mangnnangkan
am senaxx sahaja on dnangkap dan plnm ruman um berkuncv
apabila spa pergl pad:-1 keesnkan nnnnyn semn flu. «amaparnya
paknlan yang wax dikalahun rmhk mapa (spa Iidak manganmn
pa n flu unmk ujlan acu pakai pads an amupun memhuatapa-
apa ujwan DNA ans pakalan dan mam an mhx -nu) umuk menumukkan
bahawn nanya om sahqa msmpunyai aksas ka hihk nu Adalah
20
an mzcmxlwuswnwumm
-ma saw ...n.mn be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: flan-mm VI] mum pm
[4]
[5]
barsamz cu orsng anggola mdamm ‘Ops Tank‘ «swan menangkap
on an dilam ssbuah man bera\ama| a. Na. 16 Jalan Besar an 13
Kapar,
ozzan K\ang Sslangor seperflmana Kapar Repon
5014/mp»).
Apibfia Nba an Iokasi kejadisn. pasukan serbuan lalah mbahagu an
kapada 3 ialtu pasukan 1 belsama SP1 mambual semuan di dalam
lumah, pasukan 2 membual kawman din kspungan an mum
naaausn Mush dsn pasukan 3 melakukan kawalan dan kapungan
.1. pm helakang rumah Hnsll p-mamanan son an pasukan
serwan ma: mmah larsebul, an dapafi lemapst rampu Jalan dan an
Iuar mmah dhsrangi dangan lamnu. Huang |amu mmah menu:
puga dilerangl Vampu Di kawasan mmah lerdepal behempa ekor
mums berklllaran can bail msngsiskkan anilna menuhsau
kahadvran SP1 dan pesukan samuzn, sm bsrlmdak dangan lama
manyerbu kedulam run-an cersenut.
Apamla SP1 hsrsama anggota selbuan masuk kedalam mmah
melalw pmlu nadupan yang cemuka, ma melihal om sedan; duduk
as alas sofa di ruang |amu nan SP1 la\an menzhan on. sun
memparkenalkan mu sebagaw peqawal kanan pcfls dengan
menunjukkzln kad kuasa Apablla sw berunyakan bullran oKr. dla
3
sw mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
(:1
[311
[ems kagaaalan sws marmaaac dari mm m manyebabkan salu
kelampzngan didalam kes pendakwaan khususnya untuk
memouknxnn elemen mlllkan alas OKT.
on mnmuunyll ponoluhuln kum dadah yang aivampaa;
Eagx isu D-engetahuan on alas uauarmauan yang dimmpas, plhak
pendakwaan merujuk kapada xes Fnnnn am» v FF mm) 1CL.I
717 Pmak penaaxwaan manghujahkzn Iakta bahawa om’
kalihatan aamaa dan Iakut seram pemuaxan on yang menujukkan
kepzma SP1 mmana barang kes bsrada. Mankaman ndak 1
mumomangxan Vsu penamuan hamnu kss hasll pandu amh on
kerana (siah amincangkan dhiwal alasan panghaklman In! Islam
mgln mengkhususksn keplda nngxah laku on mg katakan
um dan oamas Mahkamah Psrsskuman dldalam lbnnlm
Mohamld A Anur[2I711]A 21.1 11: msmmuskan -
‘ml mum. conduct an». mum mum m. man: mp. . mum
[mag M uanxlflnvd such: nnnduahnllnvumamtba %
.. Yunthocnunavln n!
ma ml -ndl lvivtdulrvl w m
i
us-1 Yhnwnrmnmmtdmln Uluwculvdwvlhewuwlcoaetoslvawmdmgy
mu: m. min: .. olknawiodpa 1: mm: mm I my cum Evmbmv Act
nan!
1950 vmmpvwmvxaxfwom
21
am micmx./w:uGMrDMh-Awaulx
-ma Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm a. nvwhufllli mm; flan-mm VI] muNG pm
5. mm Winulllnn mdpmvtm: nuubuauom enndad
In my run ». Muvnrl mm xhvws Dr zmvsrlntn . rmflva or
ummmmymmrummmmrm
r2) Wwoonaudallwfldflx wxinrvyus-mIumvyDUry,AaMVwn
P'0wu4mvmrufnvucv!amlLmilwI;1I7wsd4IIq,:>rmrv/amvwlaawy
rum m. Illwwnrrvlwuvll mum m-dlhvoamvnvfwr/Pwnan
uvoflvnasvimllmwmuathcxuhvnal-n,VPVUu~¢4'w.IsMvvamfl
Vhmwwmwwrwxvnmmuwwdbrwlmmniuuw
mmu-.1, and -mom A M! Piiwuua wlubawuout mum
I247] Ea-Mm «mam. em MAhIEvldsncvAc11fi50,LMvOlnMD mm
nlmmnmmlmlsmhwnrnynnlyuwandsublmzmmmmua Ewdmm
olzamumrslnflvnlvnazlacvundlsmpamnclnnnmanamluvvplltatlm
Ammwm mmarimgfl aim; mg
.mmmmmwmmmmmam
evvrdelmewuvlzumnlmzl.Vnmepmaellcaselmnbengualnulbolhma
mummmmmeag:-amnnmemwmemawwxmmmm
Twtllbowvnrillyhndmltfvmw-vIo¢¢WIemwnmeywwewIP°Iman
tooaaosuznuuflvwmooxruuncan/Iwwhevroadbloekvmvnlhuywivvm
npn-lwanmanmuonnnuanam-um-nmnlnpmbaroaablock no-mm...
ma:bmhmanmAnddIdmlpr17I¥mWn4mov:usD4-Ichusbonawnw All
mnmmnumammmmmmwmmymmknamm:
|baulmsA7asw:uo1mn!mmevaIMa'
[321 DI dalam kas d1 hadanan Mahkamah‘ apatma mmah mdatangi nlsh
beberspa lalakl yam: hdak dlkenafl pans wnktu «sugar: ma|am.
makl Derasaan csmis den lakul adalsh sualu Devasaan biasa
‘instinct sen
pepam yang mpumskan niah kes IbrInIm(su;ar-}
Pfesen/anon‘ can kudaan Inl perm dlvsmmhanaksn dawan
kelerangan sekewlng yang ada. Tiada pemelhalnan dilakukan ks
ztas lumah (ersebul. sm mdalam kslemngannys, dim den pasuksn
sm mzcmxlwuswnwumm
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
[33]
Isms menyemu mmah Iersemn kerana blmbing on melankan am
dun mengnapuskan Daring kss. Kaflka SP1 den pasukan semuan
manyamu mman Ialsabul, plmu ludak belkuncx nan on seam
duduk di runng Lsmu, men nu, Mahkamih memuluskan perasaan
oemas dan lakul yang didakwa alsh sm mmngukknn nkah on Imak
(erjmflah kepadn pengexanuannya alas dadahdadah yang ada di
rumah Mu.
Apa yang dapal dlmmuskan daripada kalsrangan sakzisaksn
pendakwaan adalah on hanya herndn bsmampuan aaaanonaah
mg dllemm dvdamm (ulnar! hevsebut lailu maalam In 'Julvss“ dw
meng (arm: dan bslang plasflk dl bllik Kedua Namun begun, fakta
Im mak msmmkupw unmk mambenkan salu mreuens banavwa OKT
mam ya kamna laldapal kelefangin Ida orang Ialn Iurut
mem>am\ rumah lersebut Hanya karana on mampunyai aksss
kepeda bamng kes uuak memhukllkan dia mernpunyal mlllkan uan
kawslan ms nnrang kes lersebul. Olsh karma plhak pendakwaan
gsgal mambuknkan muikan dan kawa\an om anas dadah-dadah
kzlsehul maka anggapan dmawah Ssksyen may ADE max
lelpakal.
23
syn mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
Nuns s.nn ...m.mn be used m mm n. nwnmun mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm
(:1) Pan: mun, arm: dun mnvat hrtebm on man mllakukan
kmumn mangadar am» uplfli yang dlnynmn dldnlnm
nonuaumn.
[341 Mwllkan adahah sa|u pra syam kepada e\em2n pengedaran‘ Olen
karana plhnk pendskwaan gagal membukfikan mlllkan dan kawalan
mas balang kes maka mak bulsh dwkalzkzn plhak pendakwaan
telah herjaya msmbukukan eleman pangudaran ssiaras dsngan
semen 2 ADE 1952 alau cavan rmangwwudkan anqgzpan dihawah
Seksyen and) Ana .
u. KESIMFULAN
[351 Mallkamall daham membual dapaxan dvakmr Ks: pendakwaan
menuuk dan barpundu xepaaa kevmusan didalam kes s mm A
0rsl‘1911I 2 ML] 15, Hakim Shanna mamuruskan: —
‘ It is the dlw M (M P'°“|4‘lIYIOfl in NW! 019 chaff’ Walnut the aocuaed
».,.m.«m.,.,...m..mm;.»am.mmm....m».4m...:yraxmunu
wy ulwnnv txptarvatron a m mmmm. orlmawtnv what the accused have
am (:7 ..y mm ms mum :1/rdznca In rule that than is . us: for m.
accuxvd m armvel 1.. gum. an ....,,- 1: NM ..:c.....: mm. for
m “gm nut ggnn m Dunc: DI mung gm, mum E .5
mm“ m mm.mm.,:g.v.-.4...c.«m. .mm.m- bum
mmuo... Numamusmlos haw [mm hm m tuna been suggosrod by m.
court: when mung mm m mum oflha M nrrnnacence .2; mu mm.
71!: (nlhwnng pvvnn-plus .,. w; my saundbm wmcogmxsa m pm=4Ice—
(TI The anus ofpvwfnv svemhlna sasevnral Ia the umnusnmen: aim: mvavve
mm ». nccusad he: on ma plvstcubon.
24
N mzcmxlwuswnwuwam
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
12] m. ma.m mm as such as m mu»: a mum mun/rw my
mm.m. um um: wumafllle uccusfl-1‘
4:; m manmaruuuu u is safer mama mu to condemn A mmmn mm
as xuflumld mm mm zaunls £511.11/sdlnslllmpronml/an nary “my
D: m- won am until n It «mad that m. pmsucmnm "must be mm m.
bunlm Mprnafrumum‘ an M1 pmucmlon mmugnom war. /mm maimed
maymrsts was mmsm Wm m. use mm pmsuaman 1 wnllrx duty
ua z-aqua Ind dhchvya in Amman mm clan elm: pmmlm case
The many time mm. due: not rulvlvl m. pmncutran imm pmvlny m.
cm o-yo-m mmnam douhl. The human or pmvmc gum m . mnvwa!
ofiamsixslwuyannmaprnnccunanexnapfhlcnflamuuswflkhwiava
not coneomsd Mrs -
[36] Oluh nu, berdasarkan alasan-a\asan dialas, Mahkamah
memuluskan alas penllalan maksxmum Mas keaemngar»
katarangan yang d-kemukmn olen pmax peoauxwean, Mshklmah
mempan pmlk penaakwaan nagal msnlhuknkan sam kas Dfima
vacie ataa on unluk panuduhan 1, 2 den 3 Olsh nu, Mahkamnh
mslspas dan mervbebaskan on flan ksflga-(mu pemnunan di
bawan seksyan 39B{1j(a)ADE1952.
Barang-baring kns kepuda pwhak penaakwaan unluk dlslmnan
selamal senlnans mesa. tampon rayuan.
25
sw mzcmxlwuswnwumm
mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
Eeflankh 25 okmm 2023
(NORLIZAB ommw)
H M
MAHKAMAH INGGIMALAYA
KLANG
mm mm Pzunnxwuw : wax Fun 7. » mm am mm ma
P61Iha|Th1h mmm. Rayn swam.
Knmnr Pun:-max undarmmd--xg man snamov
mum o, Podmm sum
Banvurun Smlan s.x.n.mn mm Azlz smn
A0612 my. Mum, Sal-NW
uni mun vszmnun mm. swmmu
Posuu-mean dun Pawuumxvu
sum No 1, mm: P.D(Yzw4vr,1EN
Pam!-run BurILSeklyun1fl.
mm P-um Java.
sq:-mar
2s
N mzcmxlwuswnwuwam
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[El
mampenenalkan am sebegul Vvnalan all Segarsn darn menurm
SP1, on keluhalan oemas dan Iakm.
Selemsnvi, SP1 |alah benanyakan kauada on samada ma ada
menywmpan apa—apa barung salah «Jan selslah s»=1 membscakln
xara-kara amlran dibawah Seksysn avauxm ADE 1952 iamu
-44...» ,...,.,.m u-mm" saya Amlukmambelfamamnksoadukamuhahewa
mm mm Iivwlflbkan mt/mraksn aesuatu am! menlawub amen. mm
l¢tI0'l0i4P3l|‘3YSIv9knmukalAkana.1amarIa ssbnaariawdaan kapa-is salu
suntan mm mm, mm awmm social! mmmgan.~, om «swan
mengamw (1) bales Km banmisan “Ju(r9s'(PB) dw penjuru sehmah
km ruanu Iamu mmah dan manysvahkan bakas Iin lersebul kepada
sm. Hasil pemenksaan dldakam nu './Wes‘ nu. SP1 menjnmpal
dadah mm (5) pake1 plasfic Iumna: belisi kstulan mampal daun
xermg (P12 («-5) den (1) pzkelplashc Vutsinar beffil Vermzn dedaun
kanng dedaun kermg yang d\syakIGarIiu1ah zww :39 gram) dan (1)
pam plastic mum bans! bahan kristal dwsyakl dadah jsnis Syabu
(ah . 1n1.1o gram|[P13(1-2}. Pemanssaan mi auakuxan aleh sm
.1: hudnpan on aan sakmeksx pclis.
sw mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[6]
[9]
sanemsnya, SP1 bedanya kepada on samada ads Vagi slmpan
dadah dnampal Ia KT pamu arah ke hlllk kedu: rumlh nu an
mans nrmu bllxk dalam kaadazn tarbuka dan dilerangi lampu on
masuk dahulu ks nmx Isrsehul dsngan dhkuh olen SP1 dan um-
saksl non: yanaIa:n.Du1aIam bilik kedua rm, SP1 memumpai my
paket plaslm lmsmarberisi keman mampal dedsun xenng d\syak\
uaaan Iems Gama (ah: 214.90 gram] (PIE (man) amalam 11)
lzalang bakes Iunsmar males meja kscn telsebul (P1 u) on was Mela
kaoll. on ssndm yang menyeranksn ba\ang masllc Inl kapada
sm. Pemenksaan balang plastik *
"uga duakukan mar. sm dw
hadapan on can saksissksl polls.
SP1 kstnutflan marampas narangoayang kes den menyediakan
msaunan boning lmngkar yang unammngam mehnya dan on
(P21). Pemenksaan Iarwl ma anakukan oxen SP1 dl bilik kedua‘
hllvk ulama. Iandas, daoun many legal map...‘ mang Iamu, bum
ssmbahyang :1. mmah Iersenul den Iidak menlumpal spa-ans
bamng sa\ah lam den had: orang lain an mmah nu kscuah om.
sm dan pasukan kemuman ballk ka IPD Klang Ulara bersama-
same deogan baranq kos nan on. Sspaniang masa baring kas an
da\am kawa\an SP1 dan tidzk dikacau ganggu oleh sesuapa
5
sw mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[10]
[N]
Apama liba an pefabal, SP1 memmbang barang kers umuk
mendapmkan anggaran kasar dan mambual penanaaan bavang
xes SF1ksmudiannya mamhuatlapuran pohs (P6). sw mg: lelah
mambual siuan namdap Wang lunar sabanyak RM1,97S on dan
ma sebuah m|osxka\ jams Yamaha v15zR bemnmhur aw 2940
(Pan (1) . (4).
sm kemudiannya menyerahkan langkapan Gan nammmmng kes
ksoadn pegawaw penyvasal SP6 unsp Muhd Zulkamawn hm
Kamnsanj (F22).
Fads 3.11 2o2< lam Ieom kurung a mu. spa telah menghantar
barang kas ks Jabalan Kwmia Malaysia unluk anahsls. Earang-
berang kes |e\ah dilerima nlsh arm kmua Asulu SP2 [Puan Hamsa
emu HmdmrHarmIndsf) Pads 20 1.21122 Jam lsbxh kurang10 pagw,
SP5 um Azmi hm Ahmad) talah pslgi ke Jahsian Klrma unluk
mangzmbll semula bareng-Darang Kes yang lelsh swap t1I:naH:is
sens laporan klmla (P25). smsxah mu Ixarang kas diswmpan di s|o1
barang has VPD Klanu Ulava
sw mEcmx1w:uGMmw;AwauA
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
c. BEEAN PEMBUKTIAN on AKNIR KES PEMDAKWAAN
[121 Undangmndang auaxan mamap dan jelas bahawa Mahkamah perlu
rnemuluskan ssmaaa mnak Demiakwaan banaya mambukhkan
salu kes pnmala::\etsrhadap0KT dw am: kss psnaaxman sslams
dengan Saksyen 15:: 11> Kanun Pmedur Jnnayah di mana
pemlaian makswmum ates keleulngan saksirsaksl pendakwaan
Peflu annual cleh Mahkamsh. Pnns-p km yenem yann
uxaaxam kes PP v Mand Radzi bin Aha Bak:r[7006]1 cu 457
dan kes Balachandran V pp [2005] 2 ML! 5111.
n. ANALISA DAN DAPAYAN MAHKAMAH nu AKHIR KES
FENDAKWAAN
[191 mupau yang nanu drbukukan nleh Dlhak nanaakwaan bsrkahan
nerluduhan dikzawah s 395(1) (z)Akla ada|ah'
uh Dadah Jams Cannalfls din Mennampnsumine marunakan aaaan
bsmzhaya sapammana yang disenamwkan dw bawah Jadual
Panama Akla nu:
b) on mempunyai pamillkan gm pengeulhuan mu dadahrdadah
lusebut‘
sw mzmxJ,cusmnm.mu.
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
(I)
[14] Bagv mambukfika
c) Pads mass, mum dan lempal lersebul om |elah melakukan
kasahahzn mangedur dauah sepem yang flinyalaksn maalam
psnuduhan
mum lonls Clnnlbll din Muthampllltaminl mlrupikan
mum borhalllya nporllmunn yunu dlunlulknn dlbnwan
JnflIuIPu1ImI Nth nu
, pihak pemiakwaan «em. memanggll ahll
kumna mm pm Hullu bum: mmmr Narmlndor (sv-2) dari
Bahagxan Nannolik Fuss! Anahsws Szms Fmens\k,Jaba1an Kirma
Ma\aysia, PeIaUng Jays aenau Isiah rnangamallsls bamngbarang
kss um dan menge\usrk.an lsporan Mml: (15)dan mengesahkan
bahan-bahan yam: mrampas mu adahah Cannabis dangan beIa|
belsm 355.79 grzm,MamamphsLamIne dengan hem! berslh 76.72
gum dan cannams dengan berat nemn 260.5 gram.
[15] sm |a\ah mengesahkan bahawa Cannabis dan Melhamphe(em\ns
adauah mssnamkan dalam Jadua\ Panama ma Dadah aamanaya.
Eerdasarkan kepada kamlusan dan kepakaran SP2 Mahkamah
menerima kelerangan nenau sabagal swrang ahh kimla yang
berkeuiyaksn urvtuk memaxankan analisa berxauan dengan mdEn|m'
dan kuanmi dadah |eIsahm.
sw micmx./yEuGM!DMh-Awaulx
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
Mahkamah wm msnanma kelerangan SP2 senara pflma lane sepe ’
yang drpuluskun dx aaram kes Tumult! om v-coon 5 1 In! v PP
(2006) 4 cu I72 m man: Mahkamah Rayuan memuluskarr
7251 mum panama ym dltslaykan dslum mm nu ma sway!
mum» povblcarnn ........«n.. W. rm. ;..¢......,... um mu.
.».:.m... ,3 my... gun! ammy mm. Imda nnmg yum] mm-m
warax mm mm. ;..m.....»y. Kanunnyn, sully! kotnungan nu ma.»
drpomayav um: kvmin am pun: ..........;..n.... nan hrpudncl .,.. yang
.:.m.m-.1.:........»;....: -
[16] Mankaman wm manaanau Mada kerzguan msngenaw idamm nadan.
dadah Iarsebul yang wan may-ausvs oleh SP2 searang am: klmia
wng berpengmaman.
(b) on mlmpunyal palnllikan nru pungnlnhunn -km am-I»
uuann lovuhut.
[171 Pmak pendakwaan pavlu mamhuklikan bahawa on mempunym
bukan sekadar pemlllksn Ietepl pengelahuan akan kewujudsn
aaaarmauan Iersebul
[13] Pmak pembehan menghujahkan bahawa pandakwsan gage! unluk
membukflkan Demwkan sane pengenaman om akan dadah
tarsehul dan anggapan pengeuahuan |e\an benaya dlsangkm
N mzcmx./w:uGMrnMr:ARauA
um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[1 9] Pmak Dendakwaan menahulahkan bahatwa slsmen mi isisn benaya
dlbuklikan maiaiui kelerzngan SP1 yang merupakan pegami
semuan yam: ieian menansn om di dalam sebuuh mmih ai Na
16‘ Jalan Essar Ba|u13,Kapardan baring kes ‘
rahkan kspada
SP1 alsh on selspes amamn dl bawah Seksyen anemia) ADE
1952 dibacakan kepada on dan on dilanya adakah dla ada
rrienyimpan nanny semi Kandutgan ui dalam tin ‘Julie! aim
baiang ulaaiik nu aipenxsa oleh sm ai hadavan OKT dan saksi-
saksl pulls dan didapali ai dalamnya mengandungl (5) mike! piasiik
lmsmar banal kelulan mampai dsdauri karing dam in pakel piaslik
Iuisinar berisi Ieraian dedaun kering sana (1) paksi p|as1ik Imsmav
hsnsi ballan iuisiai disyaki dadah janls syélbu Ssmua harang—
aaranu Res lnl dilumpul an aaiam hn “JuIIss'. Selerusflvii has)!
pandu arah on ks kadua. on «aiaii manyarahkan kapada
SP1, saw balzrig piasuk yang ai dalamriya msngandugi (so) pakel
mason imsinnr balls: xoiuian mampai dedaun xenna dlsyaki eania.
Semua uarang-barang kss imlalah dilianlarka Jabatan Kimia unmk
dianalisis ulah SP2 yang merigesahkan ianya merupakan dadah
yang iaiuh an bawah Jadual Panama Akla Dadah Mlrbahaya 1952.
10
sin mzcmxlwiuswnwuwam
-um s.n.i n-vihnrwm be flied M mm .. mm-y MIN: dun-mm VI] .mm mm
| 3,382 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-23NCvC-62-11/2019 | PLAINTIF AVTAR SINGH A/L BHAGWAN SINGH DEFENDAN 1. ) DR MON MYAT OO 2. ) DR. ABDUL MALIK BIN JAMAL BUHARI 3. ) KELANA JAYA MEDICAL CENTRE SDN BHD 4. ) Dr Santtian a/l Kollanthavelu | The plaintiff brought this action in response to the defendants' negligent treatment and care of his late wife ("the deceased").The deceased was brought to the emergency department of the third defendant's hospital after experiencing severe pain and numbness in her left arm. Following that, the deceased was admitted to the care of the third defendant. It has been alleged that the second defendant practised outside the scope of his qualifications and further failed to diagnose the deceased properly because the third defendant's hospital did not possess the proper medical equipment, which led to the deceased being transferred to another hospital. The deceased appeared to have suffered from a 'brain stem stroke'. Almost ten months after the deceased suffered from the stroke, she passed away.There were two issues involved in this case that had to be dealt with: (a) What was the quantum of damages that the second defendant should be held liable for since he conceded liability for the claim? As far as the second defendant was concerned, the only issue involved was the quantum of damages since he had conceded liability to the plaintiff's claim. I would like to point out, however, that when considering the issue of quantum, this would be subject to the fact that the court would also need to consider whether the pre-existing condition of the deceased, who was said to have had atheromatous plaques in the left vertebral artery at the time of the stroke, could have also contributed to the stroke; and (b) Whether the third defendant owed a non-delegable duty to establish a proper system of care at the third defendant’s hospital and ensure that competent medical staff and specialists were employed to care for foreseeable patients such as the deceased?After the conclusion of the trial, the court allowed the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant and simultaneously dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the third defendant. In addition, the third defendant’s claim for indemnity and contributions against the second defendant was also dismissed with no order as to costs. | 14/11/2023 | YA Dato' Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=03bf7eb4-a162-4742-a742-bc461edb9b00&Inline=true |
14/11/2023 12:22:32
WA-23NCvC-62-11/2019 Kand. 150
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tH6/A2KhQkenQrxGHtubAA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
wA—23ucgg,—§,2,—,11/2019 Kand. 150
mmzm 12; -
IN THE HIGH cQ_u31 Q: gALAvA AT KUALA LUMFUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY MALAYSIA
CIVIL sun N0. WA-23NCvC~61-II/201!
BETWEEN
AVTAR SINGH AIL BHAGWAM SINGH
(NRIC Nu 541229.1n—s1:s)
(as Aamnustntor 0! the sum of SALINDER KAUR NP 5 JAGIR
SINGH. Deceased)
...FLA|NY|FF
AND
1. DR. MON MVAT co
[MMC 2. man No: 75cm
2. an. AEDUL MALIK am JAMAL BUHARI
(MMC Rngislnlion M0,: 3417:)
3. KELANA JAVA MEDICAL CENTRE sou BHD
(complny R-ginmlon No.: 4m142.x)
4. DR. sA1'nAN A/L KOLLANTHAVELU
(MMC Rlgislrnlan No.: 43452)
...DEFENDAN1’s
GROUNDS ur .Iun§M§_uT
Preliminary
[1] As a vesun of (ms a-spme. me plamw wssued a s(a\ement ofclalm
agimsl me delendsnls far med\ca\ negligence on (he grounds max
sw ma/Azxnnmnmxsumbu
um smm ...m.mm be used M mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
n... ms:
the delendanls nad treated and cared for ms wlle rlagllgently ll
was In lnls context that he sought compensation fmm the
defendants
[2] It ls lntevesnrlg ta none that me plarnlrlf played VII the 1976 and
1930 Dlymw: games and pamcrpaled ln MG World cups, ll’! 1975
and 1951‘ as a member or me Malaysian national learn Tnrs made
mm a household name ln the world of naclrey Hls clner rnleresls
were coaching hockey at natlonaHevel tournaments and playlng
lennrs regularly As a resull ma lraglc Krlcldenl lhal aocurrad to me.
we, he was forced to leave all of ms InIeres1s Io devma mrnsell
lull—ume la (zklng cave cl her
[:1 One madam salrrrder Kaul and s Jagrr Slngh ("the deceased“).
who ls me wlle ol the plarnnll was arougnl lo the emergency
department cl the lnird delandanrs nasprral aner experlenclrlg
severe paln and numbness ln her lefl arm Folluwlng that me
deceased was admmed to lhe care of me Ihlrd devendarrr II has
been alleged that me seennd delendanl praursad oulslde me
scope ol his qusllficatlorls and lurrner falled Io dlagnase me
deceased properly because me rnrrd delerrdanrs nosprlal dld nut
possess lhe proper medical equlpmenl which led (B the deceased
bemg transferred to KPJ narnerrsara Speclalls1 Huspllal The
deceased appeared to have suffered Worn a ‘brawl stem slrcka‘
Almost len rnonrns after me deceased sufiered lrorrr me stroke.
she passed away
[41 Dunng me course at «me dlsnute I was confronted wmr Mo
pnmary lssues me of wnrm concerned wrrerner (ha lnird
rn mu/Azxnmanurxsumau
“Nana s.n.r nuvlharwlll a. med w my r... aflnlnallly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII aFluNG war
Fngellutii
Vertebral anery ll 18 rare to «mt suen plaques only
concentrated ln a slngle anery when all the other arlenes
were reponed as nealtny
More 50, lne basllar artery gets us olooo supply nonl me lefi
and non: Vertebral artery and hem lnese have to be blocked
to out on blood supply lo me basllar artery ll ll was an
Atnemntalous plaque THIS Basllar anery suoolles tne
bralnslam and its olzcluslon causes damage to the braIrls1em
and cerebellum However based on the Dresenlallnn VI ls
llkely she had an arlevlal blockage ln lna bralrl H1 a slmllar
fashton as the arlerlal blockage ln lne llmb sne suflered tne
on.-wous day most llkaly arlalrlg from me nean
An Arnevornelous plaque ts lne term lot cnolesleml deposlls
over nnte rlavrow lna blood vessel and when tnls rlarmwlng
reaches a eenaln polnl lnen lne lrvler llnlng ruptures and
uedain suoslanees ln lne bland called plaleles clump lheve
causlng a lolal blockage This ls pan or aolng but logically
has la naeoen rather unlfnrmly ln all me vessels, not lust one
or two lsolateo ones I note no plaque reoartea ln lne Basllar
arlery but II was occluded and ln aaamon lt eoesnt make
sense vol one pan oi me artery lo have 30% stenosls on tne
pmxlntal nan and lust a snort dlstance away have 50%
slenosls In aemllon, the same repons say lne rlghl venelaral
arlery was normal meanlng no plaquas. so lo concluoe lhat
the stroke was caused by alhemmalaus dlsease ls
lnaocurale Thls pfeserltanon KS more ln keeping wltlt a elol
origlnttlnq ftom lhe neat: tnal mlgraled awe blocked tna
m lMn/Azxntzlunausnmlau
was Smnl nuvlhnrwlll a. ll... M my l... nflnlnellly Mlhln dnuuvlnrll Vfl .nuns ml
r... u nV xx
aasnar anery and part of me Veil vertebral artery which
caused the semen: slvoke mat evemually led In ber urmmely
demise
The posmauon or! this patient suffering a stroke lrum an
ameromalnus {Hanna :5 also unhkew as Mdm saline: was or
rela(Ive\y young age wnn lew risk [actors (nypernensron and
hypempxdemwaj and even so the nsk facmrs were evidently
wen aornronea as her ather mood vesse\s were neanny as
per me scan repam and would run snow such an
appearance W‘ the contrary were true
Vn terms 0! quahfy and appmunateness M eare Mdm
sannaers Interest womd have been been served had sne
been anendea to by a Cardvologvsl wernng .n tandem mm a
Vascwar Surgeon and that too 171 a far rnbre urgent manner
As K stands the Ueiflng nhysncxan was lramed W Genera!
Medxclne and VI Gaslmentemlogy (dwseases cf Ihe
Gaslrmnlesfinal tract) As a General Physxclan he Wok an
undue nsk by anempcng to manage an Acute lschemlc Llmb
as «ms was omsrae nus realm of specvahzauon '
[27] were was anolher experx wnu ceeunea an nenan al the plammi,
and «ms was PW3 wha Is a Consultant vascular I Endovascular
and General Surgeon It rs a\so rmbonant lo bornt out the! rn ms
expen evrdence he a\so opined «net ‘atheramaleus plaques‘ are
not cause the s1roke wvrmn me Ien vertebra! anery Acoardxng in
mm‘ were were symmorns cf sudden onset M wemxanu pavn‘
numbness‘ bhusrl/vthmsh dwioomurallon ollhe skin and absence oi
rn mu/Azxnmnrrausnmbu
“Nana s.n.r mmhnrwm a. med w my r... mn.u-y mm: m.r.n Vfl mum WM
r... u n! .1)
pulsee In the deceased which snourd nave raised the ararrn icran
imrnedime referral to a vascular specralrst Aceardrnp In rum
lurmer as a resun at me deceased perng anended ta by a
gaslroemercloglst consuhant wnereas sne enpuld nave been
attended to by a vascmar speeransc mslead ne asserted that Ihws
had led Io me deceased being inadequately created, which resmted
In a blood mm vprrrung an the left verlebral anery as a
consequence As he ouwned rn nrs expert report. «he loflowmg re
the exam uansmptmn 0! nis ammon
“The neeeaeed presented wnn the symptoms of sudden
onset 0! Well nand pern nurnpness, bluishlwhiush
dnscalourallcn olskm and abrsem pmsas These were ryprce:
symptoms 0! acme hmb rsenaernra, re sudden decrease In
me arlenal blood new inlo xne affected Inmh due re eeure
OOCWSWOYI ol the suppiymg artery In INS case‘ the rmevam
supwylng anery wcmd be me Vefl irubclavvan artery
Awle limb rsenaernra rs a vascular emergency The
Deceased was reéerred rnappmpnacely sne was retared (0
a gaslroentemlaglsl rns1ead or a vascular speclahsf
The trealment ol acme limb xschaerma Is prompt
allllcoigmalicn on presenlahon even befare the diagnosis of
limb Ischemla VS fuHy estahlvshed by Wliwflgj T7715 is (L)
prevent propaganpn dune occludrng blood dot and malnlim
patenrry of any cu||aIeva\ vesse\s
The Deceased was not treated wnh proper armocagulahnn
rn rnmzrnemeaemw
“Nana sarm mmhnrwm re med m my r... pflmnaflly em. dnuumnl Vfl mum war
hp 11 1:! 1:
Instead. she was only grven Anxtra 2 5mg This dose was
madequale‘ being only a prophylactic dose and not me
treatment dose The Kfealmem dose of Anxtra Ill «ms case
snomu be 5 mg was my Yer those less than 50kg. 7 5 mg
once dafly (0! those bemeen 5010 1DOkg and 16 mg once
daily 70! these more than I00kg
As a result 01 me Inadequate arvtv<:a:gu\ahcn me nccmdmg
mood clol propagmea and «ravenea to we ran verlebral anery
irom wan me sunclawan arlery '
[as] In ccnttast. the expen lor ma third defendant. nwa a Cansmtant
Emergency Physwclan who Is cunanny sarvmg at the Emergency 3.
Trauma Deparlmenl av Hospwkal Kuala Lumpur and the Head ome
Paedvamcs Emergency Depaflmem It HOSDVIEV Tunku Azxzah
Kua\a Lumpun gave 3 diflerenl opwan ale to [his whole matter
Based on ms Iesumony me deceased‘: mmal symptoms mu not
appear Indwcamve of a snake, Iherefare. me delendaNs' achons
were reasoname and would have been m lune wvlh Ihe standard cl
care dwtors (mm other hospitals wmfld pmvvde In other words V!
was reasonable to expect that due to the deceased‘: symmoms,
lurIherIrwes1xgal\on would be required Accordmgly m (ms respact.
aw: was comfortable with ma {allowing findmgs mad: m the
Radlologxsfs Report rifled 22 B 2E|15 wssued by KPJ Damansara
Speuahsl Huspna\
“CT ANGIOGRAPHY
CT Angtegraphy olme neck menus
m Mn/Azxmmnnausnmhu
«mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... .a my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
rm :5 all!
Normal common carmld arterres, rra mturoatron, and me
Internal carom anerls mlaterally
There ls no emence al mucasal Islorl or plaque
Left vertebral artery
1 There are Nllng dafecu seen tn the splrlal pamun of the
len vertebral artery causrng about 30 =2. lumlnal slenosls
2 Theve are son plaques ln (he subolxrpnal pnrllon ar the rev:
vertebral artery causlng alnul so % lumlnal slenosls
The right vertenral artery rs normal
Trrere re peer apacrllcaucrt onrre basllav artery
IMPRESSION
Alheromalous plaques ln the lefl venebval arlery causlng
I rmrd lurrunal slenasrs cl 30% lrr the splrlal partion of me Iefl
vertebral artery
2 severe lumrnel slenaeis all 30 9. ln me suraoocrprlal ponlnn
ol the left venebral artery ‘
[291 In lrgrll or the two aorrrlrctmg nplnlons‘ I nee addressed my yuelcrel
appteclaliun tawares men reesorrrnge and concllmons glven that
lhelr rules were to asslsl me In lomtlng my oplntnn Havlng
addrzssed my mlnd la lrrel errect, I was lrlcllrled lo glve more
r~ rauummmemm
“Nana s.r.r nurlhnrwlll .. UIQG w my r... mrurr-y ml. dnuurlml Vfl arluNa Wm!
v... 11 mg
weight In me experl Iesflmony pmwueu by me plamm rather man
that of the third derendarll
[30] The reason I had come In such a canclusxon I3 due In a few laclurs
man had taken Into cansmeramn These factors Induded lhe ram
that both srwc and PW3 pnmued advanced and aexa-lea veasnns
for mew oonduswons man ‘athevomamus waquas‘ did not cause me
stroke Far EXEMDVG as regards VWL apart from what had already
been discussed \n ma repan dmy exlvacied above PW1 runner
loumed on the Issue 07 more than lhree hours 0! dehy be(weerv
me unset of me stroke and me uans1e« to KPJ Damansara
Spec\alIs1 Hospnal ms was axlremew important because u wauld
have been possible lo! me deceased to be treated much eariver
mm a procedure knawn as momhorysxa wmcn dvsscrves
estabhshed blood clots after snake
[311 on me earl of Pws na arse reached me same cunclusran on me
Issue 0! me delay of three hours from one moment the deceased
was unconscxaus In the moment she was transferred to KFJ
Darnansara Specvlhst Haspnal As a resurl at ms addmonal
analysxs based on me resuns or mm. me c1 inglagraprly and ma
MR arigloqlaphyy K was hand [hm the I91! Verlebrm artery nae
fiHing detects H1 which blood clots were deaected resullmg In pour
blood flow to (he brain and stroke of the bran stem and cerebellum
Angvography IS a menu! Imagrrlg procedure In W1‘|i<:rI I centrist
dye Is mjecled Into me blood vessers in urdar lo wauanee men
strucluve and determine if «here are any sbnornurmes
m Mn/Azxmmnnausnmhu
«mm. sens! ...n.mn be H... m any n. nrW\ruH|Y mm: dnuumnl y. mum v-mar
r... 1: at as
[12] A iunher ubservauon I had was that ow: seemed to rely
wmmetely an (he REGVIIVDQISVS Reports at face value whfle PW1
and PW3 enewyeea me RadIo\ogxs1‘s Reports and made «her own
cencmsmns wmle pomlmg om me reasons wrry they rnrverea item
the Vadl0V0aIs1
[33] In addition. mere wee -nomer procedural matter mat needed a
bnel arscuesron Accnrdmg to lhe mrrd deverrdam, since Ihe Maxnliff
{alled ta call the radiologist and Dr Azrm to challenge their finurnge
lhal atheromaluus waques are cause me stroke, me Nalnlm had
therefore «sued to prove his case Aocemrng to my undersfiandmg‘
n was me exrsung defendants who med to rusmy their poslllon that
errrerorneroue plaques‘ caused me stroke rn order to rusmy nnerr
dalence Tnereaare may snamr: have called me radufloglsl and Dr
Axrm ro eupoen «ms posnlun (See sermon 101 and seclmn 103 of
me Ewdence Am 1950 and Juahtr Sadrkon v Psmadanan
Ksmsjuan Ekanurm Negen Johor [1996] 4 CLJ 1) The pvavnmrs
pasmnn rnmugnour me Inal was that ‘emerornerous plaques’ were
not me cause av me stroke and Iherelore they could nor be blamed
(or me slmke PW1 and PW3 have subsxennerea this davm
Claim agarnsr ms mm delsndant
[341 In the fnmmng secnon. I rrnu arscuss me plairmffs cuarrn egerrrsr
me mrru defendant.
r~ KM:/Azxrraurrarxsnmhu
“Nana s.nn nmhnrwm r. U... m my r... nrW\rr|U|:I mm: dnuumnl vn mum WM
»...mn;s
[351 As se1 form -n we statement of claim‘ me rdumng were me
complaints nmugm by me plainml against me (mm defendanfs
hospnal
(3) Fame In ensure mat me second defendant dud not practice
beyond ms scope of qualifications fralnmg or experience:
(b) Fame (0 adwee we slaw ar persanne\ bclh medwcal and
specialist mat N there Is no speclalisf at me duseipnne
requved for the care and (veafmenl ol Ihe patients such as
the deceased‘ to dnecx such patient to a nospxtal wnn sucn
dlsciphne.
re) Audwed and/or perrmllad crime! me to pass m prepannq
paper works In the process aflransfemng me deceased out
of the nospnnl men one deceased was "1 dear need dl
irnmemaxe medmal (r=almen|‘
(d) Auewed and/or pemmed cruual «me to pass hy aflowing the
deceased to be adnuned to me thud delendanfs hesp1(a\
when vn fact there are rm duamed speuanue In treat me
deceased.
(B) AHGWBG andlor permuted Crucial tlme to pass by alkzwlnu the
deceased 10 be adnuned I0 me (mm da(endan1’s haspxtm
when m fact me hospllll lacks the nraper equvpment Io
exarmne. Iran and diagnose the deceased. correctly and
immedwalsiy.
m Mn/Azxmaunauxsnmnu
«mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. U... w my n. nnnnnn mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum em
p... u or as
[36] As a resun ov me abnve «ne pliintfll nmher aHeged that by
acuenung the deceased mm me mad aefendanfs Iwsp«a\ mstead
ol veiemng the deceased lo another may eqmpped ndepnal «p
conduct the necessary less, we second and third devendanxs
made a deersrpn pased more on men commevc\a\ interests man
(mm a medrcal Interest pevspectwe
[371 Based on me above complaints me p\aIn\Ifi argued tha\ me «nrd
davendanc owed a noruielegatfle dury 0| care cp establish a proper
care system at me-r hospllm and In emplny eornpecanc medical
slafl and apeeraliacs var ioreeeeama patients such as that or me
deceased
[33] Moreover, in order to demensme me validity or! ma argument. me
marnnu provided a Ivsl cf deans and rncrdems that ne claimed
denronsxrated haw me mum aevendam had «awed to perform as
nan-delegable dmy towards the deceased The pla-mm prvvlded
me vauowrng derarxs to help me understand what was at me cure of
me dispute
(a) Based on me evidence or nwz, ma manager 0! pperauons
(M the lhvd defendant‘ there was no competent med|ca\
SDEOXBIXSC In the hcspwal Df the (mrd defendant m the form 07
enner a neuroupgrsr or a neurpsurpepn ava-lame to (real Ihe
deceased In pamwlal when ma daeeasad had a ssxzurs m
the ha5D7l:\ on the iflamoon M 22 B 2015 wmcn was the day
(allowing ner adnnaeron
m mu/Azxnmnnausnmhu
“Nana a.n.r mmhnrwm be p... a my r... anan.u-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum WM
vaguuous
tn; Aecorarng to me evidence pruwded by nwz. me «mm
de4ertdam‘s nosonat did not possess tne necessary
eqwplvlervl for the purpose of magnostng cne deceased
trrmugn lhe tears of noppter Ultrasound‘ CT Anglogram and
ECHO Cavdlowram and «ms was mrther oernonstrateu by Ihe
73:1 that the deceased was ananged In be taken In Hnspflil
Ara Damansara for the purpose at uneergmng Chase tests
nwt, being he seeono defenflam appeared to confirm
mess has as weH
(C) tn order to aernonstrate me senousness or the relevant tesr
oanrmnnng me emergency smranon «seed by the deoeaaedr
the plamllfl‘ argued 0!?! WW‘ appeared (0 confirm that the
firs: test that Dr Azrm candudsd UDDVI the admtsstan of the
deceased at KPJ narnansars soeetaurar Hespuau was
cunducllng an Mm soan on me deceased
[39] There has been a wen-esxabltsnea law on me tssue or non-
de\egable duty as a result cf a tuctgmeru of Raus snanv C.) m the
case 0! Dr Kok Choong serrg 5 Anor v Soo cherry Ln! 4. Another
Appea/ [mm s MLRA 367
[40] According to the waters oreaentea tn nus case trre
respondent/olaintm (“Ina pallenf‘) underwent an uperallon at the
sewnd anpeuartt/second defendanfs husDRa\ ("the hosprlal") lar
me rerrrovat of a turno In rus ten lmaarm. In wntcrr the operstrorr
was pertorrneo by me firs! appellantlfirst dafenflam (“the doctor‘)
Fouowrng trre operillant ms respondenllphilnufl suffered «rarn parrr
numbness and weakness In the area of ms ten forearm where
ru Mn/Azxnraurrarxsnmhu
«war. amt mmhnrwm a. med w my r... uflmruflly em. dnuumnl Vfl .nuua Wm!
n... g at as
defendant owed a "nan—delegaI7\e duly‘ to the deceased Another
rssue that needed ta be addressed was me quantum or damages
that the second deiendam should be held Mable for smce he
conceded llabmy car «he claim. nowever, some mterverung tenors
on me pen of the deeeesed needed to be cmswdered before a
dedsion could oe made
[51 My cundusxon «snowing me evamatuan or an the testimony end
evwdenue pvesenled dunng the tnal was that l had allowed the
mavrmffs clam agamst the second de4endem end sxmukaneausw
dwsmxssed the p\avrIt\fl‘s dalm agamst the third defendant In
addmen the thud defendants clam: [or Indemnity and wntnbullons
against me second devendenn was also dxsmxssed win: no order es
tn msts
[51 Having oeen dlss led win my decision .n dwsmwsslng ms euann
against the third dedendant the plavmfl has since med = name!
apoeaw against such a demsvan It \s ndw nrne (av me to aromas my
qmunds of judgment tar making the decwsions that I made .n the
manna! (hat I did
An ovorvitw at In: mm of mu cln
[7] As me deoeaseds nusoend the walnut! brought «ms emon under
senxans 7 and s 01 me CNII Law A51 1956 as me adm Istrator of
the deoaaseds estate under me Grant M Ladies of Adnnmsnauon
gramed by me Kua\a Lurnpuv Hwgh com on 13 9 2015
m KM:/Azxnuunuuxsumxsu
«we. e.nn nmhnrwm e. o... m my me ennnnn mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max
Page 2: alas
surgery was perlnrnree After a senes of oornplarnls py lne palrenl
abmll lrre pain‘ lne ooclor rererrea rnrn lo a hand and
rnlerosurgeon speoiallsl al a dlflerenl nosprlal Upon orapnosrs lne
pallsm was sam to have last scrn pr 90 percenr or ms lell rnedran
nerve as a result cf me surgery lo remove lne lurnp ll was
lnerelore necessary «or lne pallenr lo undergo anplner surgery.
called mlcmsconlc reconslruorlon, uslng a nerve gran lrom lne
pallenfs lefi leg rn oroer lo lreal the slluallorl Tne paflent then
sueo me epcror ror medlcal rlegllgerloe and me nospllal ler lailinp
lp drscnarge rls non-delegaale duty lowsros lne pallem peoause
the huspllal had farleo lo pvovlde a sale and relraple syslern ler me
lrealrnenr as well as relernal or me palrenl la a proper speclallsl
Generally‘ lne pallenrs clalm or rrreeroal neglrpenoe was allowed
and me nosprlal was lpuno to he yroanpusly llable for me donors
negllgarloe The epclpr arro lne lrpspnel appealed one at me
rssues rnar lne Court a1AppeaI declded was lnal the npspllal owed
the plarrmll a nonpelegaple duly or care «or me srrnple reason «nan
as a neallh care seryrce provlder lo lne pubhc. ll had a
resppnsrprlny lo ensure lne pallerlt was kept sale ll was nweven
polnled our by me Court of Appeal man a nnrldslsgabla duly
snould be caken lnro aooeunl only to me exrenl me: n would be [am
just and reasonable In lne errcurnslanees af eaen lndlvldual case
upon lurlner appeal me Federal cpurr was laced wnh lne malor
rssues at vmemer lne doclllne pl non-delegable duty ol care, as
has been aocepred by me UK supreme Court ln Wood/and v
Swlmmlllg Teeorrers Assoclalrpn and olrrers [2014] AC 537.
applies In Mslaysla ano lf so. wlrelrrer ll applres to pnyare huspltals
as a resull of me lornpus canaucl pl rrledlcal dpuprs HI Irelllrlg
r~ nmzxnomoasmw
“None Smnl nurlhnrwm a. UIQG M my r... nrwlrrnflly mm: dnuuvlnrrl Vfl .nune war
up 1: all:
[new paueme when they are primlsvng at me hosmral as
Indepemiem contradors
[41] Yaklng mm cansmerenun me pnnanle of a nmH1e\egab1e duty 0!
care which Is a cause of action mdependenl at vlcanous llabllmy
and can we m snuamne wheve there 15 no vlcanuus I-ammy. ws
appncame as me Malayswan snuancn, Raus Shari! 01 made the
«enema; remafxs at pp 334 and 3:35 M Hus Lomsmps
ubservillons and analysis anhe xngremenls oflhls docvlne as M21!
as we specific eppncammy
“[36] The name or a non—fleIeqal7\e my" 'n essence. a pcsmve
duly up enwre men reasnnzme e Is taken wewea m us proper
conteld thus nan-de\egah\e aunes are not an anomexy m me law
of negligence w-mom a common base hm fmmded on
esxablwhed ccuoepls moled \n we genera! pnnapies at me Vaw a!
negligence nsell An aesumpnpn ol Iesponsmmly may he mlerved
«mm me ueanen at a special um er a specie! amecedent
relalionsmp belween mm and me :\z|man| The assumption av
vesponmhmly gives nse m a pasmve duly lo prom: me uaimem
mm mm, and «om: me rauonale my wmpomng a more melons
duly cl cave an Ihe aavenauu nmea, me camp: of mumpuon
ofruparmbnlny n bun puma as the urmymq ms |ru| may
sew: In explam nmn Lord Summons ms: and ncond camou-
04 case: use J Murphy‘ “Junmcau lounflalmns a! common law
nun~de\eg:hle auues‘ m JW Neyars ex an. Emergmg Iuuas -n Tun
Law (oxrom Han‘ 2007))
1371 The defining Ventures. mcludmg me clamanfs vurnerammy or
dzpendenoe and me devenuanrs mum at custody we: me
sm Mn/Azxmmnnausnmpu
«mm. Snr1|\nunhnrw\HI>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum vmm
p... as ma
dalmanl. are famon we\l—mcogmsed |a require a hlghu standard
er care Wheve a pamcular oomunanan of such vamrs (as
menmea by Lara sumpnon) exms, the slandard L11 tare is
exoepuonauy heightened so that me reqmvemenl L2! reasonahle
cane Is not mel s\mp\y hy aelegaung me vuncnon to a competent
wnlmdor, mu by Ensuring max due care Is exemsea m me
periormanoe M mzl lunchon by whomaver xs appointed to do so
Hawevev, Ibflnly lov beach of a mrmewegeene duly dues nan
ammml |u smct lmmhly my any .-wry or aemage uuseu m me
pmormanee er mat Iunchan we may I: flrschlrged as long as
veasnnable care ws mm by me domain (use Roe v Mmmry ul
Hoawh 1195412 as 65)
[391 Non-aevagme aunm have been enuneausry cmswdered as
a ‘kmd o1 vlcalmus Iiammy' and adcmed as pan of me lesl |o
determine mcanous nan-Iny m some cases This is a
msooncepilan The two uomnes are smuxar m ellecl. n ma! mey
nom reeun m Ila xy being Imposed an a party (me rmenaam; for
me mpuy caused (L: a mum qme p\amM0 as a ream: ov me
negligence al anolner pany um mnleasor) However n bears
empnase mal nmmeneganue dunes am wcanous Hahmly are
dlslmd m namr: and basis rnevem-er -mpcsee perxonal «army
on me uewenaam (av me breach er ms awn my uwams me
puamm based an the relallnnsmp belween me defenaam and me
plamm, regemnen ul whom the delendam has unguged |o
aenann me hsk Yhe Ianor m-pone vlcaliuun nan
nerenaam fur me Iurllezsnrs breach at any lawavas me plaxm-n,
based on lho mlalvovuhnp M emplwymenl between me defendant
and me lnrlfeasor
an me
sm Mn/Azxmmnnausnmhu
«we. sm.‘ nmhnrwm e. med e may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
zm H
[:9] The duclnne ol nun-flalegahle aunes nu an Independent
Scope 0! appnoauon apart «om me realm nl vicarious lvahxhw A
numbev ov scenanus mwmnace me dlshndlon Non-delegable
dunes. or pasmve guns; to ensure mac reesonaue we ws taken
may exist In snuauons where there xs no vicarious luabnlny cor
Instance where mm s caused as a result ova syscem «aware and
no Individual tundeunr can be wdenlzfied‘ or where nann ws caused
by 2 «mm party to a p\aIn(IlV under the dsVendIm's umody
Com/eue\y. vlunom Iumhly can werale \n «no absenpe at a
nomdelagihle duly. \n can: mere me moment: cl a new
hazard er a vemuon-my ov vulnevamllly av dependence are ahsanl
(og an ampmyee who noglugemly mls . pndeunun whfle drwlng .
vemcll m me ccuvsa nl emp\oYmen|) The M: mxmnas are
wncepluafly and przchcally manner
[40] In lmht ov me above. we see no reason why me dectnne on
nnndelegable duly should nu! wnunue (u be appnea .n Mmayswa‘
and we cons-oer me amama Drmcmles refined m woouram as 2
uselw scamng vuml Nevemehess we hasten to stress mm mm—
delegame dunes wmpase more nnemus oouganons, n \s worth
reneraung me pvovlso m Woodland mu such dunes shomd he
wmpom on\y when u vs «aw jusl and vezsnname In an sn based
an me pamcular wcnnmznces cl me use and devemped
Vnuvmerually Item exenmg c:|egnnes and Lmswslzmly mm
underlying prmclmos wun mu rennnaen we answer me am
quesnon m me Ifl'IrrnI(Iw'
[42] Takmg Into account pom me plalrmfl ano me lhlrd de1end:nls'
avgumoms -n beflanee oouplea mm (ha evidence that was
presenlad during me man and xeepmg me daemon :2! Dr Kak
Choang se»g 4. Anor V Soc cnsng Lm A Another Appeal [2017] 5
sm Mn/Azxmiunausnmnu
«mm. smn ...m.mn .. med m may he onmnnuy om. dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
MLRA (57 m the back of my mmd. I came to the candusnon M31
the Ihlfd defendant am not owe the DVEIMM or the deceased a none
delegame duty of care.
[43] In ralanan to me pnamms argument mat me we de4endam vauea
to ensure (hat the second defendant did not pmmoe oulsme the
scope 01 ms speclalny and max «ms was mnner compounded by
me can that the mud ue4enaanrs huspmal drd not have me relevant
rnemeax aqwpmene m Ireal me deceased in me firs! macs‘ I round
that (here was no evvderlce belove me wmcn showed that the
presence at a neunfloglsl was mandatory ior a medical cemre
such as the thud defendant’: huspRa\ In this regard. I found that
|he Ihlrd defendant‘ bemg i meduurrvsxzed meducal cernre
providing scanuara sameas was not reqmred In have madman
offlwrs who saasiaxma m every aspect cf a speclfic dvsclpllne ms
was furlhev supported by the testimony Of DW2 VI Is wmporlanl 10
keep m mmd man me concept or speclahsanon encompasses a
wvde range av expemse Despite me lacl that a dam: rmgm
spaaaxise .n ms! one area to me excrus-on av mnermsapnnas, na
or she can still be mnsndered a specialist because the term
spemahsl naturally resmns a uomno a smg\e are: olknamedge
or xnomeage in a very hrmled number of areas Hzvmg said max,
reganfless of me second aerenaanrs posmon and without
addressing his conduct dunng Ihal mum: me when laccd win.
we emergency that confronted ma aaaaaaaa on ma aflernoan of
22 5 2015. mere was nmnmg mappmpnale or summer an ma pan
of me mm: never-dam lo emphay such a gamroememlogvsl who was
a\so named as a specwahst m .n«ema< medicine and to place ma
m mu/Azxnmnnausnmhu
«ma amn ...m.mn a. met! a my me nflmnnflly am. dnuumnl Vfl aF\uNG v-max
p... 1£nt33
deceased VI tne cave M such a donor wnrle further tnvesttgatmns
were bemg uunducled
[441 Aside tram true it shauld also be stated that tne same Imdmgs as
narrated above were atse apphcatale eduany to instances mvewrna
the Issue of madequate equipment on the part of the third
devfendantt tn hght at the swdenee presented, It appeared that Ins
deceased was adrnlltad to the (hm: defendant‘; tlospttal VOHDM/tng B
pvaper tnilial aeeeaement natnng been conducted an ner by tne met
defendant Fallawmg the deceased‘: adrmseiwn to the hospital
even flthere was no proper and adequate equtpment on me part of
tne tnlrd defendant, the lac! Further demonstrated that the second
delendant had hken tne necessary steps to refer the deceased 10
Hospital Ara Dimansari tn order to mvesttgate tne matter runner
As a matte! of Vim the outoame wnutd nave been quite different
had tttere nut teen a recerrat to ancther hospital ‘Mtn adequate
eqmprnenl tar vurtner testmg As a reswl, this tact demonstrated
tnet there was indeed a proper system or care being vnvlemanted
ter the WM defendants Impattents at tna| particwar tVDsD\t.e\
[451 I was also aware or an additienat tmpottent fact m wmcn Ihe
ewdenoe about t was clear tn tnts respect when the deceased
was brought to ttte emergency department of true ttnrd detendants
ttpspttet by the ptamtttt the met detendant was correct VII admitting
ner tn the hespttat based on the prenmtnary dtegnoate at the
symptoms mstead ol sending ner Dad( home with some
plescrlptlons or relemng net to anmher hpspttat «or treatment on
ttte same night Upon obeervtng such a sttuatton. I luund that It ts
rn tn:/Azxmtzmrvousnmtau
“Nair smn mmhnrwm a. tn... m vufli t... nnmnnflly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum mat
n... 17 M :3
not uncommon «br other naepms to take the same steps when
vaoed wnn such a srtuanon
[451 As a faHow-up lo max pom! and based on me facts presented to me
1!! ms case‘ il and not appear mac mere was any awdanoe of
oommevma! mlevesls man manvmsd me mad delandanrs nbapmax
lo admn me daaaasad as an m-patwenl because al monevary
aansms There coma be a delay an me pan of me seovnd
defendant m makmg me neeessary re1e<ra\ m we unernobn a! me
next vduawing day. but ndnemaless. on me mgm wn quaanbn when
me deeeased was admmed‘ me «as: remaunad that nawng made a
premmnary magnosus :71 me daeeaaads symptoms me mud
defendant could nal be held name '31 me conduct of ma firm
detend-nc In adnumng ma deceased n: me name: Addmanalty‘ m
showd be noted that me cane agamsl me firm detendanx has been
dropped which Inevwtamy unpnes that [here was no neglugence on
ms pan by Idmmmg ma deceased Instead no Ielamng her to
anmnar no5p\ta\ me: mgm
(471 In Hghl av me: has Iusl been menuened, it Is wmpossxble to he up
me Imrd dersndam in «ms chum since ms plaintiff has wnndrawn
ms claim agamsl ma firs! dawand-nt I (cox ma mew max m order lav
ma lhxrd defendant to be neld Mable, me Hm defendant bemg me
doctor wna admmed me deceased In the xrmd defendant‘:
nbspwax must firs! be held llalfle or at me very waasc, for me
lesumorly Ia be naam firs! In order to g\ean a deeper
undersnandmg av wnan nsppaned that mghl at me emergency
dapamnam bavara ma res! av me uesmmbny bbmd be heard
m Mn/Azxmmanausnmbu
«mm. saw nmhnrwm .. U... a may he nrW\ruH|Y mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
v... :1 .r;;
[43] Moreover, I was vunner suengthsrned nn my concnusmn as I found
that me second denendann nad edmmed respansmrnny lur me
pnarnws cnanm 11 re evident {mm the resrnended statement or
enerrn nrn paragrapns 45 (a) to m) Ihal rne second defendant nad
adnrmed re every aspect or me negligence enarnrs that were made
against mm In this case‘ there was no way nn which the plaimm
cound slnnn pursue nns clanm agarnsz the third dedendant due re me
lacl that (he second dekndant. wna enune bole vespornsrbnnnty Var
hns nagnngenoe based on hns awn specific concession‘ was the me
wne must be nend accuunlabne for all me rneqlngence cammntled
[49] Furmer 10 that I had also rened on me (arms at the Resndem
Consultant Agveemernl dated 17 mus ee weln as the pdsnrdn of
the second devendanx, who was an rndependem mntraclor at me
Inme on me Incnflenl and nne lestlmnny eaneernrng ms rel-acrdnsnrp
wnlh me thnvd deiendenx As far as lhns aspect of me case was
cnrneerrnedn the secnnd defendant admmed man he was an
rndependenx eenlracmr and nm are agent, servant or
vepresernlalnve anhe mrrd devendarn. mus he wound be personally
nenne far any ens er negnrgence or nmlssnon that he cnmmnfted in
permrmrng nrs prdvessrdnan dunes at me rrospneel M the «urn:
defendant Taknng «ms into account and eembrnnng nt wnlh enn rne
above lacks. nt wound appearlhal the mrrd den‘endan| wound not be
Ilabne in the manner nndncalsd by me pnannm
[50] Besides that my findnrngs nndncaled that the lhlrd defendanfs staff
dnd not neglect I0 rnennor xne damaged‘: cnminmn at any perm
durlrng her stay it me (hnrd defendanfs haspnlan Accordnng to the
eninreen rnregracren notes malrntanned by the lhnrd deferndanfs
rn KM:/Azxnaunarxsnmhu
“Nun: snnan nuvnhnrwnnn rs. med w my r... uflnnnnnnly mm: dnuuvnnnl Vfl arnum v-man
e... um as
ndspttal. ll appeared that lha debeased was attended to
lmmedlalely wneneyer the pletntnr pressed the ‘call bell‘ lor
assrstarroe As pen oltne nurslng care provrded to the deceased.
her vttal slfirls were also regularly checked and ner wndlllurl was
properly recorded by the nurses In addilllm whenever the
deceased drsplayed symptoms, aporoonste ectrons were taken ta
address tnent W a tlnlely manner There was also a proper
arnbulsnee arrangement tor the deeeased to be transported to KPJ
Darnansare Speclallsl rlospttal Evldence turther showed that the
third detendanl also made a relerral to Hosoltal Ala namahsara
wtthout delay
[51] ln rny revlew ol ell subrnlsslons made by the plalntlfl and thtrd
delendanl, I came In the cnncluslon that l\ would not be (all. rust or
reasonable for the thlrd detendant to be sublected to a non-
delegable duty of care lrl lrght at the clrcumslanues surroundrng the
rnetdenl whlch have been thdroughly analysed above Addttronallyt
thls was lurther supported by the «act that I was not in a poslllon la
rrnpose an the mlrd detendant the oblroatibn to seeahd-guess
every step taken by [half resrdent doctors who shauld rather be
lelt an merr own to treat, care and manage peltehts wlthln the
confines and standards of the Malayslan Medlcal ceunctl (“MMC“)
As a matter ollact, ll gees wlthcut sayrng that lhts rs not a blanket
statement that can be applled across all cases‘ but mlhert tx is
sornethtng that needs to be treated on e case»by-case basls
because every srluatran IS tndeoehdenlly unrque when sontethtng
occurs aflev the hospttel has taken the necessary reasonable care,
as I have taund In (hrs ease the lrabtlrty should rest solely wlth the
doctor
IN ruuuxmumsmw
«war. Sahel nmlhnrwlll a. med M my r... bflnlhnllly sun. dnuuvlnhl Vfl .nuue v-mxl
meaaam
[52] It shamd be noted mac m the present case. mere were no on-paint
subrmssrons coneemmg the Issue of vlcanuus habvhly specmcauy
raised by me pnammr As rar as ye appeared, 1he plammr was only
trying ta hammev home the pawn manne mud uevenaam needed to
he wmpased won a nomdelegsbla du(y of care based on the pawn:
man me plalrmff had rauseu m paragraph 35 above It Is therefore
conduded that as a resml of xhese findmgs, (‘here was a\so no
vlcanous lxabwlny on the pafl of the lfwd defendant
Concluliuu
[53] As a resun of me vmumgs above me plamms danm against me
secund deiendam was allawed mm cosls of RM4o.ooo oo sumeu
Io anucamr and me p\a\rmlYs dawn agamsl me mum defendanls
was msnussed mm costs of RMao,aoo no subject also «a allocalur
The mum aevenaann s clawm (or Indemnny and wnlrmunons agamsc
me seeana delendant was a\so msmxsseu wnhcut any ovder on
costs as a resume of me flndmgs I had reached regavding me «mm
defendant
[54] In addlllon due In me fact man 4 had aneaay made a mmg mm
regard to me sewnd ue4enaams posmnn me terms upon wmcn I
had anowea me plamurrs quantum claim against me second
defendant were as follows
(a) Speclm damages at RM2a4 52409 far me Iouawmg nems
wllh Interest ol 2 5% per annum ca\cu\ated Iron! 22 5 2016 to
15 a 2023
m mu/Azxnmanuuxsurmsu
ma. am nmhnrwm be LAIQ4 m may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max
»...4..m
[e] The firs! defendant, meanwme. was wurkmg as a man. medxcai
eraser an me mghvl me deceased was brought to the mud
defendants hospllal As me iuthonsed medxcal officer (or the third
defendant, me firs! ds4endam had attended, exammed and
dvagnosed me deeessed before she was admined la the lhnrd
delendsnfs hospxlav It s Vnlpunant in Male, however. mat the
DVEHICIW wmmrew his claim against the firs! defendant on
2M12o22
[9] Dunng the course of me hospllalvsallon oi the deceased‘ the
secund dalendanl was me mam donor who amended. axammed,
magnosed and Iveated me deceased He was a general physwcvan
(Gaslroenleru|ug\sI and Hepalologwsl) pracnsmg at me third
defendant's nospllil
[10] The third defender‘! was i( EH malenal lvmes the cwnev and
manage! or a private ndspnau known as Kelana Jay: Memes?
cemre sdn Bhd mums‘; Ihat was pnmanly responsmne lor
running me mm nemdanrs rmspnav, mdudmg pvaviding nurses.
medwca} and surgical servxces‘ and nad also ndused doctors rrem a
vanely o1 dscupnnes under lhe Resxdant Consultant Agreements
that had been svgned belwsen the [mid defendant and Ihese
uaciors
[11] In me ease dune cdnnn devendanz, he was a reedenn done: at me
«mm deaendanrs ndspnax and on me night m quesmn he was
bemg engaged by (he second defendant as a locum tenens (0
amend ed me sesend de«endancs panems we me secdnd
defendant was way from me ndspnax The idunn deeendanx was
m KM:/Azxnuunuusumxsu
«we. s.nn ...n.mn s. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y em. dnuumnl wa mum v-ms!
1:... 3: a as
m The sum of RM4371 no bemg meducar lass var KJMC.
(H) The sum or RM2oe,41e 55 being mcdwcav fees for KFJ
Damansara‘
(ml The sum of RMZ61 an bemg med\ca\ lees lor Cheras
Rehahmcauan Hospital‘
cw) me sum 01 RMLo2s 02 bemg the Dust cl puvchaslng e
wneewchav and other memcal eqmpmenn
(V) The sum u1RM1D,GDG 00 hr beveavemsnl‘
(w) The sum 0! RM2,550 42 lav luneral expenses, and
M) The sum av RMm,ooo on being me cost of engagmg
me two experts wnness and other mudemal
msnursemenns
an) Genera! damages av RM1oo,oaa 00 mm mteresl cl 5% per
annum calculated «am 0211 2519 to 19.5 2023
(ch Interest on magmem aem at me rate of 5% per annum «rum
wa 9 2oz: up lo we date at payment
[55] In ovder to justify me above compensauon, I found lhal all of me
medical bIl\s had been duly reoexmed as pro»: av payments In
addmon ID Wm R was a\so;us1IfIed In that \ dud not fund In Qavour O7
m Mn/Azxmmnnausnmhu
«mm. Snr1|\nunhnrw\HI>e U... m my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
p... aa la! :3
the second defendant In relaflan (O the exlslenoe cf 'athemmamus
plaques‘ as alleged by me seoono delenoam The olanns lor me
005! 07 Dulchaslng I whealchalr and other medlcal equlpmenl were
also Dmvell by the olalmrll Tne second defendant was also klnd
enough lo propose lo me me arnounx that they fell would be fair
and reasonable lo be avmvded lormneral exoanses, bafeavsment
and me oos1 ol engaging me Me exoen wllnesses as a result or
such ilerns belrlg allowed
[56] l had also allowed some onne medlcal bills whlch ware oalo by me
msuranoe, as me ooslndn afi me law IS clear that a payment lrorn
an Insurer snould nut lrnoinge on me plalmlffs olalnl In any way
lsee Dr Kak Chaollg Sang 5 Ana! V Soo clreag Llrl 5 Anolner
Appeal [2017] 5 MLRA 357 and salmon 7(3) m of me Cwll Law Act
1956)
[571 As regards lne general damages, l found me arnounl ol
RMIOOJJOD on was jusllfied glven that me deceased was
hedrldderl for :Kmns1 (en rrlonlns pvlur lo ner passmg away as a
rasull ol me blaln elem :1rl;ke There was also a jusnfable basls
lor awaldlng me amount o1 RWDQ000 oo ln lne canlexl or me
damages awarded VI a slmllar ease or Dam‘ Stanley lsaaes (suing
Dy nlrrrsalr and as me admlrllslralar M the estate 4)! Ta‘ Puan
suzanrle Tnornas deceased) v The sovarnmonl ol Malaysia 5.
DIS [2019] B MLJ 331 ln wluen ma lolal arnounl ol general
damages awarded In «no deeealad was Rllmc oou no as a result
ol a rnasslve snake lnal cauaeo damage lo me eereaelluln. and ol
lms arnounl RM100 mm on was awarded lor pan and sullenng
r~ lHn/Azxnrmarrausnmou
“Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm a. UIQG M my me onnlnallly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .nuna vtmxl
rmusms
[55] In aaumon, I lwnd mm more was naming outrageous about the
Vans that have been plasenled (a me whrch would warrant me
rmposmorr of aggtavated damages m ems case
’
[RAJA AHMAD MOHZANUDDIN SHAH]
Judlcval Commissioner
Hrgru Courl oi Kua\a Lumpur
Daled 18'” August 2023
Far me Plarrrm - Messrs Nekoa
Raw Nekoo 5. sew. Nacmappan
For me 2"‘ Delendanl » Messrs Axum‘ Tunku Fank s Wong
Amos srew vm Jmen 3. Tan Pun vr
For me 3'“ Defendant - Messrs Chan Ban Eng & co
Goh Lee Dmg & Faz\eeza m Azlr
For me 4” Daendant
Messrs P s Ranjan a. co
Manmahan s Drullen & Ahcia Crun
r~ mu/Azxnuuruuusumou
«mo sorm nmhnrwm o. med m my r... mrmu-y mm: dnuumnl vu murm v-max
v... 5 evil
respanathle tor attendmg, exarntntngt dtagnostng and treaong the
deceased samettme between the time when the deceased was
first admttted to the thtrd defendant‘: haspttal unlll the second
detendant became My Involved In the deceaseds cave and
treatment The ptatntm had arsd wtthdrawn NS ctatnt against the
tourtn detendant an 20 t 2023
[(2] Burma the evemng of 2t 3 mm. sarnettme between 7 so am and
500 pm, the deceased was dctng some hnuse ehcres when.
suddenty, she expenenced severe pain and numbness In her rett
arnt The deceased was then taken to a chmc tn Kelana Jaya by
the ptamttrt As seen as the doctor saw the wndntdn or the
deceased‘ he recotnrnended to the nlatrtml that the deceased be
taken tntrnedtately k: the ctesest ncsmtal tor runher treatment
[13] As a result‘ they made their way to the emergency department of
the thtrd defendant‘: hosntlal at about 530 pm where alter
wrnplatntng about the deceased's symptoms to the first deéendarltt
the deceased was adnutted amund 1030 pm atter some tests
were earned out
[14] On the ntght at the deceased's admtssmn tn the hespttal, the
deceased was attended to by the tdunh detendant He dtrected
that some tests he canted out the tduewtng rndrntng as weu as that
some medteattons be adrntntstered to the deceased
[15] It was dnty the next day‘ an the mcnnng or noon of 22 s 2016‘ that
the second detendant attended to the deceased It was deemed
that tn vtew cf the tact that spectfic lesls could not be earned cut
rn mu/Azxhuunuuxsututsu
«we. a.n.t nunhnrwm be mad .a my t... sham-y enn. dnuunnnl VII muhc Wm!
vueialn
it me nnspnal at the mud defendant one second delendsnl men
deelded ta refer lhe deceased to Hospnal Ara Darnansava fdr lesls
ls be earned out me ldlldwlng mumlngr wrllcn was 23 5 2015
[16] Somellme around 3 pm, me deceased ddmplarned abaul leellng
glddlrless ll was ac rnis (lme that lne deeeaseds eyeballs suddenly
relllng and sne became unresporlslve ll was lherl arranged lor lna
deeeased In be sent unrnediaxely In KPJ Damarlsara Speclallst
Hdspnal anne request nuns plainml, ldrlunner emmlnallon by a
neurdlddlsr The original plan by me sedond defendant was to send
me deceased lo Hospllal Ara Damansara
[171 As me dedeased was belnq rrealed al KPJ narnansara spacrallsl
Huspllal she was unable to move her arms or legs It was ndled
that she could not respond I0 any H the quesllons posed to her
Her nnly response was \o make nolsas as lnougn she was trylng la
respond IO what was belrlg said
[18] From the (line 04 her aumlsslarl DH 22 B 2015‘ the deceased had
been ln KPJ Dsmansara Speclallsl Hospllll umll 09 102016 On
15102016. the deceased was re-admmed re KPJ narnansera
Speclallst nospnal where sne remalrled unnl 10112016 on
10 11 2016. the deceased was Imnsferrad lo Cheras Rehabllflallfin
l-lesprral «er renadllllalien lrealnrsrn sne was dlscharged lrenr Ihe
ndspnal on 23122015 rnere was no lmprovemenf In me
edndnldn ol lne deceased upon ner d-senarga lro-n cneraa
Rehahllnallon Huspvtal rne deeeased remained paralysed urllll
her dealn on 19521117 The cause or dealn was ‘Dram srern
slroke‘
rn mu/Azxrnzlunanrsnmlsu
“Nana s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll a. d... M my r... dflmnallly mm: dnuuvlnnl wa arlum war
a... was
Issues to ha daumrined by me own
[19] In hue wan what wle aaud eamer‘ «here were two rssues mvolved rn
«ms case that had in be dean mm more a final deersron wmd be
made by me cuurl an them
1:) What was me quantum or damnges lhal me aemnu
defendant enema be held name car since he aaneeaed
hlblhty far we alarm As tar as me piamlrff waa concerned.
we only Issue Involvad was me quamum 01 aemagee ernce
ma second delsndanl nan conceded vraarmy re me plarnmre
dalm I would like re pom! out, however‘ mar whan
eansiuerrng me Issue of quaruum, mre wouhi he sub;e:.1In
me last man are own would alee need lo cansraar wrremer
me pre~exreung sandman of me aeceasea, who was sara to
have had ‘ameromamus p\aquei' m me Inf! varlubral artery
at me hm: oflhe smxe, mum have also aarrmaucea to me
awake, and
4:») Whether me mrra deflendanl awea a non-deiegnme duly lo
establish a prepur system of care It me mun defendanh
rrasanax and ensure that aumpenem meareal man and
saecrelreu were amployed to care In! loreseeibb aauems
such as me deceased’
(2:21 In Irne mm muse Ihove rseuea ro be men, I have proceeded re
make my aecreron. wmch re encaplmaled wmhln paragraph 5
Ibovs, an we 5 202:
m Mn/Azxmmanarxsnmau
“Nana sanaw mmhnrwm a. U... a may r... mrur-r mm. dnuumnl Vfl mum war
n...-am
courrs analysis and declslon
C/arm agarnst ms second aerendant
[21] The firsi point 10 Mule 13 that the second defendant had admitted
Ilabllfly dunng the trial H1 regard to the dam: made agamst hlm
nesprre rne eoneeseran of Irermy, the award of quantum did not
anse automahcafly The leason 50! (his was that as both the
second and own defendants argued rnere was a preexrsurrg
lacior Involving the dewasecfa health condmun m the sense (hill
the presence of 'ameromalaus plaques‘ rn me We“ venebral enery
contributed la the stroke
[22} A man cf mree expen wnrresses tesnfied an (M5 reeue Two
expens lestmed on behalf of me pVaimIN while one expen reerrfiea
an benawanhemrrd defendant As a menu cf DW3's teecrnrerry In
support of the cm deienaanr the lhvrd defendant argued that
DW3‘s ceecrmony strongly supponea (he ooneuusron met me
deoeaseds stroke was meet hkely caused by her mgr. blood
presure and nrgn cho\es1sro1 Therefore. acxxzrdmg Io me (Md
deiendarrr, me wainllff had ¢aHsd to discharge ms burden to prove
causanan between the «rum aeterrusnre aueged breeen of duty
and rne stroke the deceased sufleved
[23] Lnkewrse. me sawnd defendant rehed an we argument in
cnallengrng quantum
[241 As var «hrs perucurar rssue, lhe seoand and lmrd defendams
appeared to have reared heavfly on a rnearcex reparr that une ur
rn xnn/Azxnaunarxsnmxau
“Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... nrwhrnflly enn. dnuumnl VII .nune WM
[until
Azmv Abdul Rasmd More Dr Am“ a consunam nsumlaqnsl who
healed the deceased when she was transferred to KPJ
Damansara Specxahsl Hospnal was of me npvmun that based on
the tests oanducled. the deceased was suffenng from
athemmatous maquesz wmcn aHeged|y conlnbuled In her stroke
In the firs! place Here Is a reprodu ' of Dr Azrni’s relexmnl
revun on ems manev which Is oamamaa In ms med\r:a\ report dated
9 5 2019
“Urgern MRI bram showed she had a masswe Dram sham
and pasleuur circulation ischaemic s1roks mvolvmg muluple
aveas Ie Bram stem. lad: cereaenum left OocIp\la\ Lobe and
lefl Thahmxc Inlarcnon MRA Dram shawed ooclusnon
(breakage; 0! me Basuar and Vertebral Manes (mamr
vessels «a me Posterior amunauan nf me bram) most likely
«mm Alherosclerallc plaque “
125] In «ms matter‘ I had me appommny m anaxyss aH three repons and
(esumames of me expens My focus as \ worked an ms ueusmn
confirmed in be on me law regardmg sxpen upmluns and how wt
applied in these current suu
u .s nouewanhy ma: Manamau ANN Mu vusov JCA had exmamed
ns as I carried an wnh my flndmgs
Lhe posman regammg axpen opmmns m ms case nlMa1mkan sun
Blvd v sarclaya Bank PLC [2017] e MLRA ass as follows
“[35] We are in agmemenl wm. lhese principles and m our view. a
judge who Is nn| an expen mmsew, snow defer m expert apmmn
unlen man smense is obviously msvsnsmne and 15 am
m Mn/Azxmzmnausnmhu
«ma saw mmhnrwm a. met! a my a. nrW\ruH|Y am. dnuumnl Vfl mum am
mar in are:
suppnrled by me nasrc hols of one case Where «here are
carmrumg expert wnrurrs, me mane rs of course enmied In bung
In bear ms own jumclzl apprem n of me marrer, and choose
are over me omer, hm wnere mere rs omy one experr oprmorr, he
should not as 5 Me meet me: onrmon mrrrrgm wrmour pmlmously
cunsroerrrrg wrremer rr rs nbvlausw mdelenslble and urrsupponea
by me basrc lacks M me case Such a Dnnmnle rs in acooui mm
are pnnclple ma! me mun rs me final amuu, as sraxea m Dr
snermrugerr-«run v Penanmy Suhambanm Pillar [1997] 1
MLRA r
» me prrncipax omen or experl emence rs xu assrsr me
ooun xo «arm rrs own ommon. An exven shuuld give ms
reasons we mun rs me fmalz1bi|er‘ nu| me expens or
wnnesses we learned wage smula have eensraecea me
reasoning gwen lay me expen and mm mar Issvslance
arrive sr me wndusion In fzmng la do 54:: me we.-srrrea wage
had auaresrea ms lunclmn we learned junge rs enuued re
men: me evraerree bul VIM belove eormuermg men
amdenca
[25] Durrng me course or ms evruence, PW1, a consukam
neurosurgeon who was Dvavldlng expen evraerrce lnr me plamlm,
sam me: he was 0! me oplnmn that me stmke was not caused by
‘alneromatous p\aques' rn me Veil vertebral errery Regardmg me
same, ne came to are following conclusions
‘The vanaus angmgram (anery scans) report grves me
rmpressrerr mere were Isolated plaques seen In me lefl
sm mu/Azxnmaryarxsnmeu
“Nana s.r.r mmhnrwm .. u... w my r... mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max
| 4,314 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-24NCvC-1125-03/2023 | PEMOHON Putri Juneita Zaina-tul Maknu Binti Johari | This is an ex parte application in respect of a piece of property held under Grant 10102/M3/3/12 Lot No. 16791, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Wilayah Persekutuan, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan (“Property”). | 14/11/2023 | YA Dato' Ahmad Shahrir B. Mohd Salleh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=cf102d6b-e5a2-4dac-9b5c-362bea51dad1&Inline=true |
14/11/2023 14:16:21
WA-24NCvC-1125-03/2023 Kand. 9
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ay0Qz6LlrE2bXDYr6lHa0Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
w.\—2mcvc—1125—o3/2023 Kand. 9
1:1/11/2023 Jams-2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA
DRIGINATXNG SUMMONS NO wA—24Ncvc—1 12503/2023
Vn me mailer overam 10102/M3/3/12 Lot No.
15791, Muklm secapak, Daerah Wllayah
Persakuluan. Negeri wuayan Pemekuluan
(Property):
And
m me mane! M sermon 417 and 420 ov me
Ni|Iona\ Land Code 2u2n (Vssmng omen;
And
m the mat1erolOrde( 7 ru\e 2 crime Rmes oi
omm zmz‘
And
\n (he mane! M Order 92 rule 4 al the Rules 01
Conn 2012.
PUTRI JUNEITA ZAINAJUL
MAKNU awn JOHARI APPLICANT
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 1)
Inlroducfion
[I] nus an ex pane appliwlian m respect oi a place oi
property held under Gram 101U2lM3/3/I2 Lot No 15791. Muklm
Selevak, Dnarah Wfllyah Parsekuluan, Nsgen Wslayah
Persekuman (“Fmpeny'). Pursuanl to the ex pane applucalmn,
the appncam sougm xo have me Registrar ol Land Titles, Kuala
Lumpur m ragislav her name as Inc uwnu of |he Properly Mar
pemsmg me apphcanon and me affidaml In-suuparl and
sansmenng me subrmsslons at me learned counsel‘ 1 dismissed
the apphcahon
m Iwnzmwvzzbxuvmwana
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
arm rrremx omen
[21 The lens are gathered from the alfidawl Ilvsupport. The
Prvpmy rs regrsrerea under me nama clone Tg Nafisah bm|i Tg
Menrnooa Menyraaesrr (‘T5 Nafisah“| on 20 as 2008‘ T9
Nafisah executed e Dedaratiun ofTrus1('TrusI“)
[3] Pursuant lo the ‘rrusr, Tg Narfisah declared um she nerd
me Prapeny as a Iruslee 1artheloHowmg persons 1“Benefio4anss
of |he Trust“) IH aqua! snares
(a) me eppnoerrw/s sharelr
(bl Nuor Nnznen blrm Tuan HusseIn(Vz snare). and
(c) Feren Heyene bvnll Yuan Hussein (V. snare).
[4] Pursuant m the Trust, Tg Nafisah else declared that sne
wrn nensver or rmease rne Properly |u (he aenencienes of rne
Trusl at thaw request or mica! mm the Pmpeny es the
Beneficiaries at me Trust sneu urea vi wrilmg and execute all
documenls In give eflecl lo the lransler or dseung
On 03 02 2023. T9 Nafisah passed on before
Iznng me Trust, M of nne dale ulme present eppncenon.
there was no application made by anyone to be BPDDVIVIBG as the
adm ' tmtorof me were of Ty Nafisah. Upon discussions wmh
zne Beneficianes oi the nusr. n was agreed —
(a) char the sppncenr to he so¥e!y Iespansvble in email! e
vesting order \n respect of the Property.
(b) that me eppncenuo be regrsrered aslhe sole registered
nwner of me Property,
(c) that the apphcanl sneu ermeeuour m sen the Property
an we market value. and
(.1) ma! me eppncanr sneu arsuinure the pmceeds of sale
n1 me Property arnungs1 me Beneficlarres :71 the Trust
m equal snares afler deduclmg all dams rn relalson
Iherelo.
ru IWQzsUrE2nxuvrn\HanQ
«mu. serm nmhnrwm re med m my r... nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl vn mum WM
[e] on me basis cf inase Yaclors, rna applicant pmcaedad to
make me present ax pane applimlion Esseniiaiiy, me applicant
was seeking car an order to have me Registrar of Land mos,
Kuala Lumpur vest and regisier her name is me nrwner or me
Property
For ease oi reference‘ in prayers are reproduced In ris original
language In verbatim as ioiiews:
“1. Pendaflar Hakmilik Tanah Kuala Lumpur nendakiarr
mendaftarkan nima Pemohon di atzs sebagai
pemmk ke alas Hananah.
2 Penaaiiar Hakmilik Tanah Kuala Lumpur heimaklah
mengambil nndakan/elek lsmsdap perkara Psrinlah
Mahkamah im apanria diserahkan sesairnan Parimah
Mahkamah Vang Muiia im,
3 K05 pennonenan dilanggung oien Pernohcn
A Lairuain rem yang Mahkamah fikir sesuai, adii dan
benrranieai "
Analysis and iirrdirrga
m It is a weiieai-aiisneo principle mat ‘in ongrneirng
process requiring an inlilulsmenl mus! siaie mm sumoreni
pamcuiarny, eimer in ris neauing or body. me sraiuie oi mles oi
Court unuer which me com is being moved, ernerwise it In
embarrassing pleading and may he slmck cm uniess sooner
amends ‘ (see: per Gepai Sn Ram JCA in Cheaw Chew
Klmun v. Abdul Johlll Abdul Rlhmln [1995] 4 cu 127 CA‘
[1995] 1 MLJ 457: [1995] 1 MLRA 679: [1995] 1 AMR 759).
m The apuiroam nurwrled In make me oreaeni ippiicahon
in reiranoe oi secnons 417 and 420 at me Nalianal Land Code
('NLC‘) Pureueni Ia seclinn 417 or me NLC, me powers
convened on in Own or a Judge is oonsequem upon any
iudgment or oroer given or made in any proceedings reiaiing io
iano. This is clear «ruin a reading oi me siaiuie.
rn IWGzuLirE2bxi:vrciHanQ
“None s.r.i mmhnrwm r. U... w my r... mn.u-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl nriurm Wm!
secmn 417 Mine NLC reads as lollaws
’GInIn| Iullwmy of an com!
417. m nu sum or: Judge maylry muamnsmne Flemslrar
ov any Land Admumslrzlarm do an such Ihmg: as my he nccesiry
gngggxngg valahng In Van and :1 shan be me duly cl me Regnslvar
av Land Admlmllrllor Ia aumply wnn me ordav imumln
42; Whats pur:u.In| In my aids! men by vmue ac znn
sedxon the Regmriror any Land Mnumsmor—
(5) canma lny wlllmmlm .-mung to Want! 0! any
nnanmnax uromer entry an any such mslmmenl, ar
(b) mam any omer amendmem cl or eddmnn m any
such Anshumenl.
na anan nuke (hereon Ins reason (or me cnnaennnan, nmmdmem
or acumen and the dam lharual, nna snau iulhanlnznln ma sums
by ms swgnalwe anu ueal
13) Wheve me Regwsuirurl.aruu Aannnnnauonam amen
my (Ms nacwn Vn nnpam av any land or any anm ul nmzresx
lrvllem. nn shall cause rmlce M n; amnn In be served upon any
person or body nanng a slam prmlsusd ny cavea|a¢foc1mg nne
‘and. snare a inlensl “
[Emphasis addnd]
[0] In ma present appllcahon. «nu applicant was not seeking
INS Cour! to direct the Land Administrator to vesi me Properly \n
the name of me apphaanl pursuant In any judgmeru or order \n
relahon In any pmcaedlngs aflecling any land If in lacllhere was
such a yuagmanmmmer. was n01 referred to m cm mmulernenz
or the afidavil wrsupporl The aclual prermse oi |he appllcalmn
was the Trust \n this regard, \ find that section M7 of the NLC
could not be lhe van basis lor «ms caun m grant me apphnanl
the payers she sought (D7.
[10] Tummg now «.2 sechon 420 av the NLC, I a\so find me
powars of (ms Court under tms provision of me law do not assist
the applwcam wn securing me prayers she aougnncr Secinn 420
of me NLC rexacns lathe requirement lo register any order ollhe
omm veslmg any share or mleresl at any person or body m wand.
4
Sm Iwnzsuuzznxnvmwanq
“Nana snnnw nmhnrwm n. U... a my n. nrW\ruU|y -mm: dnuamnl y. nr\uNa v-max
ll ls nor an snaollno prnvislon allowmg ma applioam lo secure
lrom lnls Calm the rellev she llad sougm 107 on me basls at me
Trusr.
[11] lam rrllrldlul oflhe lalsr oaolslon nflhe com l11ADDeal In
Malayan Bulking Borhad v. cnalrrnon sarowolr Houalng
D¢v¢Iopors'Anocl'nriorl [2014] s cu we CA. [mm] 5 MLJ
159; [2014] 4 MLRA 493‘ [mu] 4 AMR 335‘ whereby n was
ohserved ural a wrong lnmulemerll ls nor a ground to slnke out
an aclion as n is an lrregulanly whlch may be rocmod. Howeverl
n we presonl iwllcallorl the appllcanl narssll ooula rlol sansly
lhls Cowl max sna nas a Valid causelarwhlch mrs com ooulu
granl a rallal. l-lenoa. it ls oarllcularly rnornnoanc on me aopllcanl
lo slala wllh clanly ma orovlslons of ms statue under wnron sne
proposed lo move lms Cnun In exerclse lls powers, 1' at all
VS exacllylhe rrllschlelvmich Hus Lordship lhe late sopal srl Ram
JCA (later FCJ) in show chow Khoon (supra l anernproo Io
averl as he oosorved. vlz —
‘II a ualonaanl ano ma courl should have ro otmduu a dose
an non ol ma supponlng amaw rn oacrl oau ln oroor lo
.1 Imllnl ma oarlrcular lunidlcllun or power lnal ls oarno lrlvokad
:7, an angnaung summons or nlhev mglmlmg oroosss rnar
requlres an lnmularnam, men - Dlnlnllflwill be ar llbanym snlu lrorn
ans ruia lo anomar or lnaaao lmm one saazule lo anomar as ll
plum nlm wlmouuny wsmlng Maalaoevel Ia ms oooononl or In:
court
[12] Uwn clanficallon wlrn lna learned counsel, rr was claar
man me lale Tg Nansah, ma applicant ano ma Eeneficlanes of
ans ‘nus: are Muallma. when prooao mrmor as lo wnalnar mere
was a rlecesslty lor ma appllcam lo ablaln a Fara‘id oe ' ca\e
before sure can properly make any apolloalion ola slrnllar nalurs
m was! mo Properly. we learned oourlssl answsroo in |he
neoawe The learned counsel ralrao haavlly or ramar solely on
me aulhomy 0! TM Foroza xnan 5 ()7: v. Mean Hussain TM
uonarnou MydIn[200E] 1 cu (SVA) 2541 ck [2006] 3 cu ale,
[zoos] 5 MLJ 217, [wool 1 MLRA em, and suornicled \ha1
Courl could allow me avullcaliorl for a vesllrlg order as il has
pvevlously been allowed ln oasl oases.
m lWGz6LlrE2t~.xDvmlHa\‘K2
“Nair Smnl mrvlhnrwlll .. U... M my l... nflnlrullly Mlhln dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl ml
[I3] wrtn respect. t am rrrratrtetd agree trr TM Fomzu Khan’:
(supra) ease the Court er Appear tdrrnd tnat there was a
properly donstrtrrted men or gm rnter vivos wnereas tn me
present applieatron, there was no evidence proflefed rrr tne
alfidavrt tnasulilwrl to demonstrate ttre lacl or any hibah much
ness on tne questrdn drwnetner any man trad rrr tact been vahdly
and Drovefly made or conshluled The Properly rn qrrestrorr
rerrrarrred tn the narne enne tate Tg Nansen but net as e mtstae
[u] u ike in TM Fer-an Kn-rr [supra ), in me present
applrcatidn at the trrne when Tg Naflsah passed on tne Properly
was not regrstered underlhe name MTg Nafisah as a trustee (or
me benefit at tne Eenafictanes of the rnrst. As such, it can be
easrly understood tnat tne veslmg order rn rm Femx: Kn.»
tsrrpra.) was amrrrred neeeuse tne gm inter was (‘Wash’) had
been pertected tnen and regrstered witn the land regrstry. (see
aha Srllmlll orrrer s Grs v. Ahmad Ro$liAzi1lPemadbfr
mm Pesrtkrl Usmul Manlmed, smeu) A Arrer[2dt21 I cu
923. [2012] 3 MLJ 537: [2011] 1 MLRH 901 w rn tne firs! made
tnere was a and rrrbarr, ttre concern as to wtretner tnrs Conn
mum righfly grant the orders saugnt «or by tne apphcanlwwld
rrdt anse
[15] The Farend pnncrmes cannol be vahdly dtsregarded In tne
drstrrnutron av tne estate at a Mrrslrrn. Nthough dlslnbuhon at
estates rs governed under me Probate and Adrnrnrstrauen At:|
1959 rrrespectwe at tne rehgnon 01 me deceased, rt must be
partreuleny ernpnasrzed neretnar tne drerrrhrrtrdrr etttre estate or
a Mrrslrrn rnrrst be sumect to tne Fara rd pnnctmes under the
syan‘a7I Vaw me has been deariy explained rn Lnllhh Amznr
v. Rasmlwlll sherlbun 5 Anor[2007] 5 CLJ 25:5 FD: [2001] 5
ML! 101. [2007] I MLRA 847; [2006] 4 AMR 591. In derwering
ttre tudgment of the apex coun, Hts Ldrdsmp Abdul Harnrd
Monamed FCJ (Inter 0.1) made the touowrng remarks‘
-[say In me use at Vellen at rdrnrnretrenen ragerrr r anr orfly
recerrrrrn ta rmndmnfl estates: an apprrcamrr ts mid: to tn. cwtl
Htgh carrn lurmegmmala \e1IevoIst1m|nB1raImn when me Letter
ovadrnrrrrarratrerr rs nb1amnd,|IIa Admtnmrmnr I5 apmrnted nd rn
case or an aslahz ul a Mustrrn, rne adrnrnrstratdr writ ootarrr Sun
r.r.rd- lmm ma Iysnlh wun Mu: state: Mu are tne
bulvsfiaanss and men respectrve sharui, rn awuvdanoa wrtn
rn Iwnzuttrzzbxuvmwano
“Nate s.n.r mmhnrwm r. .r... m my r... nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII .rrene p-ms!
ieicniie law it irie eeiate CD7II4!|i et iiiiiricwacie property. another
appiieaiicii is riiade In trie civi ttigti cairn ler . veslmg order All
trial in. ciwi rtieti caiiri em iri aiieii .ri -ppiie-iieii r. ml|i bllrlfl
snsned witri all me piucediiiai VSQ|AllEmSlIlSi ire DWI‘ Htgh ceiiit
iii.k.. . vullwg older iri utml-dlnoe wiiri irie -silii ser..e- TNK
second apvhclllwi Ii riot necessary wtiere trie asses |u be
distributed are mavnble aaseta However. (he ldmlrlltllllar sull
ieeiiiies e “Sllil Farltd" ieipiirpese oVdn(rlbu\li7n'
[ta] Simply put, trie rdlimiirig course of ac1lon rniiet be
undertaken byttie applicant iri ttie ease etari estate eta Mus|'
(a) ertiei itian small estate cases, an application ter ttie
nrerit oi letters at administration must be rriade to lrie
civil High oetirt.
(b)
must obtain a ‘Para :1" certificate tram Ihe syarrati
calm. Trie 'Farald" oemlicale specifies wtie ttie
tiariefic ries are as well as determines their respective
sriares iii abcordance wilti lslarriic law.
(ct whete ttte esiale consists el immovable properties, a
sepamte application «or a vesling order is made to trie
CWII l-tigti cairn ln ttiis apphcalborl. ttie rule at ttie civil
High court ia to make a veltllrlg order in aeecrdanca
witti ttie “Fara'id“ oentficale it it is satisfied that trie
procedural iequiieirierits have been complied witri
[111 In the present application, there is a legal neeaaaity ier
Ihe applicant ti: flrsi Gbliln ttie “F.!ra‘id' eertiucate «rem the
Syarfah ceurt cetore mak g itie application tare vesting order
because ttiere was riotti g rtie affldavil ineupport to evidence
a valid riiberi iri laireiir M ltie Beneficlanes of the Trus| having
beeri rriade. Ttie Fari‘ld certineete will determiria me are the
beneticiaries oi trie estate at ttte deceased at well as trier
respective atiaiesiri accerdaiiee witri itie lalarriic law. rlie l=a id
certificate would trtan be the legal basis tar trie applicant In seek
the ieiiets stie tied sdugtit for but riot ttie Trust, it at all.
7
SN lWGz§UrE2hxDVr6iH:DQ
«wet. a.ii.i luvlhnrwm be UIQG a may i... nflflinnflly MVMI dnuavlml VI nFit.INfl Wm!
[15] There was no evudenoe to show me exwslanee of a value!
man or gm inter wvos. Equauy wmponanl would be the status,
pasilmn or rdalionshlp between me appncam and me
Benefxclanes 0! me Trust and me Vate Tg Nafisah Are they the
News oi me me Tg Nafisah |o enuue me appncann in make me
pressm appxmuon as u was? ms fact was not swasm m Ihe
amdavit vhsuppun
[19] The appnmm In seeking in secure a vesnng order hr the
dlslnbuuon M the ssxscs m equal shares before securmg a
Fara'Id oenmcace lmm me syarrah caurtwas m eflecl anempcmg
Io ::m:umven| me Fara‘\d pnncumes. ms to my mum was s shsev
abuse Dfpmcess arm-s own as wen as an attemm lo undermine
the juris n ohhe Syan‘ah cows.
C-:m;luI\on
[20] Havmg heard the submissmns 0! the wsamed oounsec, I
am not sausnsa that mus court was nu ma posman to grant me
apphcanl the Prayers are sought for On ms pvemwse 01 ms
alomsm reasons, 1 msmussea me applicaflon
Dlled :1 Ocmhev 2u23
AHMAD AHRIR MOHD SALLEH
' JUDGE
HIGH COURT or MALAVA
KUALA LUMPUR.
For the spa//cam: Mags! Shshamddin Merican
(Mess-Is. S5//an Aass, Vascol: .4 Sofiah)
m lwnzmwvzzbxuvmwana
«mm. sm.‘ nmhnrwm .. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl muNG Wm!
| 1,112 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
KA-45A-62-11/2022 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Abdul Haffiz Bin Abdul Mutalib | Rayuan terhadap hukuman. OKT mengaku salah atas pertuduhan pilihan bagi kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya di bawah seksyen 12(2) yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(2) ADB 1952. . | 14/11/2023 | YA Puan Evawani Farisyta binti Mohammad | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=41325bbb-c97d-4e0e-bb44-38fba9a8d5f5&Inline=true |
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI ALOR SETAR
DALAM NEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN
PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: KA-45A-62-11/2022
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
ABDUL HAFFIZ BIN ABDUL MUTALIB
(NO. KAD PENGENALAN: 770925-02-5439)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PENDAHULUAN
[1] Orang Kena Tuduh (“OKT”) telah dihadapkan di Mahkamah ini
dengan satu pertuduhan di bawah perenggan 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah
Berbahaya 1952 (“ADB 1952”) yang boleh dihukum di bawah
subseksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. Pertuduhan terhadap OKT
adalah seperti berikut:
“Bahawa kamu pada 18 Mei 2022, jam lebih kurang 08.40 malam, di
kawasan tempat letak kereta di hadapan bangunan kedai, Jalan
Kuala Kedah, Alor Setar, di dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman, telah
mengedar dadah jenis Methamphetamine seberat 55.52 gram. Oleh
yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah
seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum
di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.”.
14/11/2023 17:19:18
KA-45A-62-11/2022 Kand. 29
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
[2] Pada 1.10.2023, susulan daripada permohonan representasi yang
telah dibuat oleh OKT, pihak Pendakwa Raya telah mengemukakan
pertuduhan pilihan di bawah subseksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 yang boleh
dihukum di bawah subseksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama. Pertuduhan
pilihan tersebut adalah seperti berikut:
“Bahawa kamu pada 18 Mei 2022, jam lebih kurang 08.40 malam, di
kawasan tempat letak kereta di hadapan bangunan kedai, Jalan
Kuala Kedah, Alor Setar, di dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman, telah
ada dalam milikan kamu dadah jenis Methamphetamine seberat
55.52 gram. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu
kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan
boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama.”.
[3] Ekoran daripada tawaran pertuduhan pilihan tersebut, OKT telah
membuat pengakuan salah bagi pertuduhan pilihan tersebut dan
setelah proses pengakuan salah OKT selesai, Pendakwa Raya telah
menarik balik pertuduhan asal di bawah perenggan 39B(1)(a) ADB
1952 terhadap OKT.
[4] Setelah Mahkamah ini berpuashati bahawa pengakuan salah OKT
dibuat tanpa bersyarat dan OKT faham kesan dan akibat pengakuan
salahnya, serta setelah mendengar hujahan mitigasi oleh
Peguambela OKT dan hujahan pemberatan hukuman oleh pihak
Pendakwa Raya, Mahkamah ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara
12 tahun bermula daripada tarikh tangkap (18.5.2022) dan 10
sebatan.
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
[5] OKT tidak berpuashati dengan hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh
Mahkamah ini dan telah mengemukakan Notis Rayuan yang difailkan
pada 11.10.2023 melalui pihak penjara. Rayuan OKT adalah
terhadap hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah ini.
FAKTA KES
[6] Bertindak atas maklumat, pada 18.5.2022, jam lebih kurang 8.40
malam, semasa dalam tugasan Ops Tapis, Pengadu (Insp Mohd
Muzamir Ghazali) bersama sepasukan anggota polis dari BSJND
Kota Setar telah menahan seorang lelaki Melayu (OKT) yang
kelihatan mencurigakan di kawasan tempat letak kereta di hadapan
bangunan kedai, Jalan Kuala Kedah, Alor Setar, Kedah.
[7] Pengadu telah memperkenalkan diri sebagai Polis dan seterusnya
menjalankan pemeriksaan tubuh badan OKT dan mendapati satu
beg silang berwarna hitam yang disilangkan di badan OKT. Dengan
disaksikan OKT dan saksi polis, Pengadu telah mengambil beg
tersebut dan memeriksa beg berwarna hitam jenama Calvin Klein
Jeans. Hasil pemeriksaan tersebut, Pengadu telah menemui empat
(4) paket plastic lutsinar pelbagai saiz masing-masing berisi bahan
disyaki dadah jenis Syabu.
[8] Pengadu kemudiannya telah merampas barang-barang kes tersebut
dan menangkap OKT untuk tindakan dan siasatan lanjut. Pengadu
juga telah membuat laporan polis sepertimana Alor Setar/10543/22.
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
SABITAN DAN HUKUMAN
Pengakuan Salah
[9] Sebelum Mahkamah ini menerima pengakuan salah OKT,
Mahkamah ini perlu memastikan bahawa OKT faham kesan dan
akibat pengakuan salahnya berdasarkan kepada kehendak
subseksyen 178(2) KTJ. Di samping itu juga, OKT turut diwakili oleh
Peguambela pada sepanjang prosiding berjalan di hadapan
Mahkamah ini.
[10] Mahkamah ini telah menjelaskan bahawa sekiranya OKT mengaku
salah, OKT boleh dijatuhi hukuman penjara antara 5 hingga 30 tahun
(seumur hidup) dan tidak kurang 10 sebatan, tiada perbicaraan akan
dijalankan dan OKT tidak boleh merayu atas hukuman yang
dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah ini kecuali terhadap takat dan kesahan
(extent and legality) hukuman tersebut.
[11] Setelah Mahkamah ini berpuashati bahawa OKT memahami kesan
dan akibat pengakuan salahnya terhadap pertuduhan pilihan
tersebut, Mahkamah ini telah mensabitkan OKT dan telah
menjatuhkan hukuman sebagaimana dinyatakan di dalam
perenggan 4 di atas.
Hujahan Mitigasi dan Hujahan Pemberatan Hukuman
[12] Dalam hujahan mitigasinya Peguambela OKT telah menghujahkan
perkara-perkara berikut:
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
a) OKT kini berumur 46 tahun, telah bercerai dengan isteri lebih
kurang 5 tahun lalu dan mempunyai 2 orang anak berumur 12
dan 11 tahun. OKT juga merupakan seorang penganggur.
Semasa ditangkap, anak-anak OKT tinggal dengan OKT.
Setelah ditangkap anak-anak dan ibu OKT yang mengidap sakit
tua dan kerap kali ke hospital untuk rawatan, ada di bawah
jagaan adik OKT;
b) OKT mengakui bahawa dia adalah seorang penagih dadah
selama lebih kurang 22 tahun sebelum ditangkap, dan kawan-
kawannya yang telah menyumbang wang kepadanya untuk
mendapatkan bekalan dadah demi kepentingan menghisap
dadah antara mereka. Semasa ditangkap OKT baru sahaja
mendapatkan bekalan dadah daripada seorang bernama Mie;
c) OKT telah insaf dan berjanji tidak akan melibatkan diri dengan
sebarang aktiviti yang berunsur jenayah.
[13] Dalam hujahan pemberatan hukuman, pihak Pendakwa Raya secara
umumnya telah menghujahkan faktor-faktor kepentingan awam
terutamanya dalam kes melibatkan dadah, peningkatan kes-kes
dadah dari hari ke hari dan masih berleluasa, tempoh hukuman
penjara seumur hidup yang telah dipinda daripada 20 tahun kepada
30 tahun, pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah kesalahan berat dan
serius serta menyumbang kepada berlakunya jenayah sekunder.
[14] Pihak Pendakwa Raya seterusnya memohon supaya hukuman berat
dan setimpal dikenakan terhadap OKT sebagai faktor deteren. Pihak
Pendakwa Raya turut menyenaraikan trend hukuman bagi kesalahan
sama sebagaimana dipertuduhkan terhadap OKT dalam hujahan
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
bertulis pemberatan hukuman. Pihak Pendakwa Raya turut
mengesahkan bahawa OKT tiada kesalahan lampau.
Hukuman
[15] 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 (sentence according to law). Di dalam kes Jafa bin Daud
[1981] 1 MLJ 315 telah 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.”
[16] Berpandukan kepada kes Jafa bin Daud (supra), budibicara tersebut
hendaklah berpandukan kepada prinsip undang-undang yang telah
ditetapkan.
[17] 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.
[18] Faktor bahawa OKT telah mengaku salah sebaik sahaja ditawarkan
dengan pertuduhan pilihan dan bahawa OKT kesal dan insaf atas
perbuatannya telah dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah ini. Pengakuan
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
salah OKT telah menjimatkan kos dan masa Mahkamah serta semua
pihak-pihak yang terlibat dengan kes terhadap OKT ini.
Sebagaimana yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di
dalam kes Sau Soo Kim v. Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 134:
“Whether a person is a hardened criminal or not, I feel that a plea of
guilty should be treated as a mitigating factor. It not only saves the
country a great expense of a lengthy trial but also saves time and
inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses.”
[19] Namun begitu, di dalam kes Tia Ah Leng v Public Prosecutor [2004]
4 MLJ 249 telah diputuskan seperti berikut:
“It is true that the general rule is, when imposing a sentence, the
court should take into consideration the fact that an accused
person who has pleaded guilty be given certain credit and
discount, but we are of the view that there are exceptions to this
rule. In our opinion, one of these are the offences under the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952…
…
As can be seen from the above, the Government and the legislature
have taken various steps to curb drug activities and we believe that
the courts should also help to curb these activities by imposing
stringent punishments provided by the law.” [penekanan
ditambah]
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
[20] Seterusnya Mahkamah juga telah mempertimbangkan faktor bahawa
OKT adalah seorang pesalah kali pertama dalam menentukan
hukuman yang wajar dan sesuai terhadap OKT, sebagaimana yang
telah diputuskan di dalam kes Tukiran Bin Taib v Public Prosecutor
[1955] 1 MLJ 24 dan Abdul Karim v Regina [1954] 1 MLJ 86.
[21] Dalam mempertimbangkan hukuman yang sesuai dan munasabah
terhadap OKT juga, Mahkamah ini telah mempertimbangkan dan
memutuskan bahawa faktor kepentingan awam hendaklah
diutamakan dan mengatasi kepentingan-kepentingan peribadi OKT.
Ini kerana kesalahan terhadap OKT melibatkan kesalahan dadah
yang merupakan kesalahan yang berat dan serius. OKT adalah
dianggap bertuah kerana pertuduhan asal pengedaran dadah
berbahaya terhadapnya telah dipinda kepada kesalahan pemilikan
dadah di bawah subseksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 dan dihukum di bawah
subseksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama.
[22] Tambahan pula, di dalam hujahan mitigasi OKT sendiri, OKT
mengakui bahawa beliau merupakan seorang penagih dadah sejak
lebih kurang 22 tahun yang lalu. Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa
OKT adalah antara penagih dadah yang bertuah kerana tidak pernah
ditangkap sebelum ini. Di samping itu juga, fakta ini menunjukkan
OKT sebenarnya tidak insaf dan telah berterusan mendapatkan
bekalan dadah dan menggunakan dadah selama suatu tempoh yang
sangat lama.
[23] Sebagaimana diputuskan di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Loo
Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256:
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
“One of the main considerations in the assessment of sentence is of
course the question of public interest. On this point I need only quote
apassage from the judgment of Hilbery J. in Rex v Kenneth John Ball
35 CrAppR 164 as follows:–
"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. 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 in regard to each crime, but
in regard to each criminal, the court has the right and the duty to
decide whether to be lenient or severe.".” [penekanan ditambah]
[24] Juga di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Fazelan Md Khuzeh [2015] 9 CLJ 221,
Mahkamah Rayuan telah menegaskan bahawa bagi kesalahan
melibatkan dadah berbahaya, kepentingan awam menjadi
pertimbangan utama:
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
“We were of the view that offences involving dangerous drugs
ought not to be treated lightly so as not to trivialise the gravity
of such offences. Public interest is a paramount consideration.
The fact that the respondent is a first offender or that he had pleaded
guilty ought to be weighed against the facts of the case, the
circumstances in the commission of the offence, the type of drugs
involved and the weight of the drugs.” [penekanan ditambah]
[25] Di samping itu juga, Mahkamah ini juga telah mempertimbangkan
faktor bahawa peruntukan undang-undang yang menetapkan
hukuman bagi kesalahan terhadap OKT iaitu hukuman di bawah
subseksyen 39A(2) ADB 1952 ini menetapkan hukuman penjara
untuk suatu tempoh antara 5 hingga 30 tahun (seumur hidup). Dalam
menentukan tempoh hukuman penjara yang bersesuaian,
Mahkamah ini mengambil maklum bahawa kesalahan berkaitan
dadah adalah satu kesalahan yang serius yang boleh dilihat apabila
pindaan tempoh hukuman penjara seumur hidup dipinda oleh
Parlimen sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 3 Akta
Keadilan Jenayah 1953 [Akta 345] daripada tempoh penjara 20 tahun
kepada 30 tahun.
[26] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Tia Ah Leng v. PP supra juga telah
memutuskan seperti berikut:
“The effort of the legislature to curb and deter drugs related
offences is well described by Hashim Yeop A. Sani (as he then
was) in Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102;
[1976] 2 MLJ 256 at p. 257:
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
"In respect of offences under the Dangerous Drugs
Ordinance, 1952, there has been a gradual change in the
attitude of the legislature during the last few years. The
Ordinance has been amended by Parliament a number of
times in 1971 (by Act Al12 of 1972) then in 1973 (by Act A194
of 1973) and then in 1975 (by Act A293 of 1975). At the
moment there is yet another amendment which is awaiting the
Royal Assent. In the legislative exercise in the1973 penalties
attached to the various offences under the law were
enhanced. For the offence of possession of any dangerous
drugs under section 12(2) of the Ordinance, for example, the
penalty was increased from a. maximum of $10,000 fine to a
maximum of $20,000 fine and the maximum imprisonment
was increased from three years to five years. In the legislative
exercise in 1975, among other things, a new provision (new
section 39A) was inserted whereby it is provided that whoever
is convicted of an offence under the Ordinance and the subject
matter of which is heroin or morphine of five grammes or more
in weight shall be liable to imprisonment (with no option of a
fine) for a term not exceeding fourteen years and not less than
three years and he shall also be liable to whipping of not less
than six strokes. According to the Bill which is at the moment
awaiting the Royal Assent another new provision is inserted
creating a new offence of planting or cultivating any plant from
which raw opium, coca leaves, poppy-straw or cannabis may
be obtained. The punishment for the new offence is life
imprisonment and whipping.
It is common sense to say that behind these legislative
exercises was the government's realization albeit gradual, of
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
the problem of drug abuse in this country, the degenerating
effect of the misuse of dangerous drugs and the attendant
dangers it has posed to society itself. The amendments
passed by Parliament therefore reflect the public policy. It
must be presumed that behind the public policy is the
consideration of public interest.
The change in the attitude of the legislature itself during the
last three years reflects the seriousness of the problem. In my
view the courts will not be performing their functions
honestly if the seriousness of the situation is not reflected
in the sentence imposed or if the sentence appears to
defeat the object of the statute. This is not saying that the
courts in the treatment of drug offences should at all
times be severe. Each case has to be determined on its
own merits. But in every case the courts must be realistic
and rational.”. [penekanan ditambah]
[27] Merujuk kepada keputusan di dalam kes Tia Ah Leng (supra) di atas,
walaupun pindaan kepada ADB 1952 yang dinyatakan merujuk
kepada pindaan terdahulu, namun begitu asas yang dipertimbangkan
oleh Mahkamah Rayuan ketika itu adalah bahawa dengan
berlakunya pindaan kepada ADB 1952 yang mana hukuman bagi
beberapa kesalahan telah dinaikkan maka Mahkamah wajar
mengambilkira faktor ini dalam menentukan hukuman yang
bersesuaian. Prinsip yang sama turut terpakai kepada kes OKT ini,
di mana berdasarkan pindaan undang-undang terkini, hukuman bagi
kesalahan di bawah subseksyen 12(2) ADB 1952 yang boleh
dihukum di bawah subseksyen 39A(2) Akta yang sama iaitu
hukuman penjara seumur hidup telah dinaikkan daripada maksima
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20 tahun kepada maksima 30 tahun, melalui pindaan kepada
seksyen 3 Akta Keadilan Jenayah 1953 [Akta 345]. Dalam hal ini,
Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa fakta pindaan undang-undang
terkini yang melibatkan kesalahan dadah wajar dipertimbangkan
dalam menjatuhkan hukuman yang sesuai terhadap OKT.
[28] Dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT ini, Mahkamah ini telah
turut mempertimbangkan faktor deteren terhadap OKT dan juga
terhadap masyarakat umum supaya dapat memberi mesej bahawa
kesalahan memiliki dadah adalah satu kesalahan yang serius dan
tidak boleh diambil mudah oleh masyarakat. Sebagaimana yang
telah diputuskan di dalam kes Leken @ Delem ak Gerik (M) v Public
Prosecutor [2007] 3 MLJ 730 seperti berikut:
“(d) Deterrence sentence is aimed not only to deter the accused
from committing the offence in future but also to deter other people
from committing the offence. The first is referred to as specific
deterrence and the latter as general deterrence.”.
[29] Merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes PP v.
Saifulzainizam Mat Nasir [2021] 1 LNS 1074 yang telah memutuskan
seperti berikut:
“[29] The Respondent also sought to rely on several High Court
decisions where sentences ranging from 7-8 years' imprisonment
were imposed for the same type of offence punishable under S. 39(A)
(2) of the DDA for bigger quantities of dangerous drugs.
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
[30] On these purportedly crucial points, suffice for us to say that the
comparative sentences were from cases that were decided about 8 -
15 years ago. In our view, those cases do not reflect the current trend
of sentencing for the offence of drug possession punishable under S.
39A (2), DDA. We agree with the Learned DPP that considering
the maximum sentence prescribed under the provision, any
sentence of less than 10 years' imprisonment would not be
appropriate and sufficiently reflect the public interest element
and the deterrent factor. It would, on the contrary, send a wrong
message to would be offenders and the public at large that the
Court would, in some instances, deal leniently with drug
offenders charged with serious offences such as that
punishable under S. 39A (2), DDA. As regards the Respondent's
plea pertaining to the difficulties that he would face as a husband and
father of 2 children, it is trite principle that a plea of this nature does
not carry much weight as an accused person ought to have been
aware of his responsibilities and the consequences of his actions
before turning to a life of crime.” [penekanan ditambah]
[30] Merujuk kepada alasan-alasan dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah ini
memutuskan bahawa hukuman penjara 12 tahun (bermula daripada
tarikh tangkap) dan 10 sebatan bagi pertuduhan terhadap OKT
adalah sesuai dan munasabah. Hukuman-hukuman yang telah
dijatuhkan terhadap OKT juga adalah bersandarkan kepada trend
keputusan-keputusan terkini bagi kes-kes pemilikan dadah dan
tidaklah manifestly excessive.
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
KESIMPULAN
[31] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas juga, Mahkamah
ini percaya bahawa hukuman penjara 12 tahun (bermula daripada
tarikh tangkap) dan 10 sebatan yang telah dijatuhkan terhadap OKT
adalah sesuai dan munasabah serta tidaklah manifestly excessive,
selaras dengan peruntukan undang-undang yang berkenaan iaitu
Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] dan Akta Keadilan Jenayah
1953 [Akta 345] serta berlandaskan kepada prinsip undang-undang
berkaitan hukuman yang telah ditetapkan.
Evawani
(Evawani Farisyta binti Mohammad)
Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman
Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah (2)
Alor Setar, Kedah
Bertarikh 14 November 2023.
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya:
Tohirah binti Mohd Fauzi
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
Peguambela OKT:
Murthy a/l Botharajoo
Tetuan B. Murthy & Co.
S/N u1syQX3JDk67RDj7qajV9Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 23,056 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021 | PLAINTIF Online Dynamics (M) Sdn Bhd DEFENDAN TM Net Sdn Bhd | In this suit:1. The plaintiff is seeking from the defendant a supposed total loss of business allegedly income arising under an agreement amounting to RM6,416,674.00 and RM550,000.00 for early termination of staff, cost of operation, interest, and costs. 2. The defendant denies the claim grounded on the premise that there is no legal basis or cause of action as the agreements between parties were lawfully terminated. 3. On 24.08.2023, I found no merits in the plaintiff's suit against the defendant and dismissed it with costs of RM30,000.00 to be paid within 30 days. | 14/11/2023 | YA Puan Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b21c5e74-44d7-4c9e-ae6e-0b74f42e77fe&Inline=true |
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR 5
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA
CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22NCVC-163-03/2021
BETWEEN
ONLINE DYNAMICS (M) SDN BHD 10
(Company No.: 540286-H) …PLAINTIFF
AND
TM NET SDN BHD … DEFENDANT
(Company No:451011-M) 15
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 1)
INTRODUCTION 20
[1] The parties in this suit are duly incorporated Malaysian companies.
In this suit:
1.1 The plaintiff is seeking from the defendant a supposed total loss of
business allegedly income arising under an agreement amounting
to RM6,416,674.00 and RM550,000.00 for early termination of staff, 25
cost of operation, interest, and costs.
1.2 The defendant denies the claim grounded on the premise that there
is no legal basis or cause of action as the agreements between
parties were lawfully terminated. 30
1.3 On 24.08.2023, I found no merits in the plaintiff's suit against the
defendant and dismissed it with costs of RM30,000.00 to be paid
within 30 days.
35
1.4 Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this appeal against my decision, and
these are my reasons:
14/11/2023 16:38:48
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021 Kand. 57
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
2
BRIEF FACTS:
[2] Parties have filed agreed facts (encl.11), and in narrating the brief
facts, I will also refer to documents available before me. In examining the 40
evidence at the trial for the parties, I found as follows:
The parties:
2.1 The first principal agreement for the production, supply and
broadcasting of “The Capital channel on TM IPTV” subject to agreed
terms and conditions, was entered on 10.10.2011 with a contract 45
tenure of three years, expiring on 31.10.2014 (encl.12, BOD B pp 7-
27).
2.2 Grounded in this first principal agreement, the parties entered into a
first supplementary agreement (encl.12, BOD B, pp.28-39) to
extend the scope of services of the plaintiff subject to agreed terms 50
and conditions.
2.3 The two agreements above ran their course and expired naturally
as contracted on 31.10.2014.
[3] Upon the expiry of the first two agreements above: 55
3.1 The parties, on 01.11.2014, entered into a second principal
agreement (encl. 12, BOD B, pp.40-62) for a contract tenure of three
years, expiring on 31.10.2017, to supply a news program under the
defendant Hypp TV platform subject to agreed terms and conditions.
3.2 Likewise, on 08.02.2018, the parties entered a second 60
supplementary agreement (encl. 12, BOD B, pp.66-73) with a
contract tenure targeted to expire on 31.10.2020.
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
3
3.3 The issue with this second supplementary agreement is that the
drafter referred to the first principal and supplementary agreement,
which had already expired naturally on 31.10.2014, more than three 65
years earlier and was no longer of concern between the parties.
I observed that:
(a) The plaintiff unsupported postulation that that the term of the
previous agreement used therein had supposedly extended the
terms of these long-expired agreements. 70
(b) It is my considered judgment to be an erroneous and
misconceived attempt to provide a legitimate foundation for its
action in the present suit. It is disharmonious to the facts leading
to an absurd conclusion (encl12. BOD B pg 64). It cannot be
taken that the second supplementary agreement is 75
supplemental to the first principal agreement that had already
lapsed several years prior, together with the first supplementary
agreement on 31.10.2014.
(c) The drafting of preambles A and B certainly leaves much to be
desired. Hence, it calls for a finding on a term (previous 80
agreements) used in the second supplemental agreement. Did
it concern the second principal agreement (2014) or the first
principal agreement (2011) that had already expired more than
three years prior?
(d) Evidence was given by the plaintiff's director at trial that the 85
second supplementary agreement was premised under the
second principal Agreement in 2014 and not the first principal
agreement in 2011.
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
4
[4] Clause 4 of the second supplementary agreement incorporates the 90
reference to clause 19.3(ii) of the second principal agreement to
allow for an early termination of the agreement by the parties
mutually or unilaterally:
4.1 It gives either party a right to terminate the agreement by giving the 95
other party a sixty-day notice indicating such an intention to
terminate. It is only exercisable after the 1st anniversary of the
second supplementary agreement.
4.2 Under those provisions, the defendant issued a formal notice of 100
termination of the second supplementary agreement on 02.11.201
(encl.12, BOD b, pp.74-75):
(a) The plaintiff claimed the termination was unlawful based on the
defendant’s cost rationalising exercise and strategy to review
the company’s activities. 105
(b) This early termination adversely impacted the financial position
of the plaintiff, who had invested money, human resources,
overheads, and other resources to meet its financial obligations
under the second supplementary agreement (encl.12, BOD B,
pp.66-73). 110
(c) In meeting its monthly financial obligation during the contract
period, the plaintiff had resorted to borrowings from the financial
institution (encl.12, BOD B, pp.76-82).
(d) In meeting its internal monthly financial commitments, it relies
primarily on the execution and running of the agreements with 115
the defendant.
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
5
(e) In such circumstances, it would be unconscionable to allow the
defendant a right to a premature termination of the agreement
after one year of operation.
(f) The plaintiff is entitled to a legitimate expectation that the 120
defendant would honour its part of the bargain in the
agreement.
(g) Consequently, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered prematurely
ending its office tenancy, letting go of all its workers, and still
having to meet its financial obligations with the bank. 125
4.3 The plaintiff adduced no compelling evidence that it protested this
early termination upon service of the termination notice. The plaintiff
had accepted the last payment on 31.12.2018 on its final invoice
with no protest on the early termination of the Agreement. 130
4.4 The plaintiff only protested two (2) years later after the defendant
demanded the refund of the commitment fee paid under the expired
first principal agreement under clause 10.1(iii) of the said
agreement. It remained unpaid till this day. The defendant's 135
counterclaim on this sum had been withdrawn with liberty because
the plaintiff is presently a company in liquidation.
4.5 It then escalated to this suit by the plaintiff claiming an unlawful early
termination of the second supplementary agreement, claiming 140
RM6,416,672.00, amongst others, of the balance twenty-two
months of the contract tenure left in the second supplementary
agreement. The plaintiff also claimed RM550,000.00 for the cost
incurred in terminating the workforce it employed and other
operational expenses. 145
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
6
[5] On 18.03.2021, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the
defendant, claiming as follows:
“a. Jumlah kerugian pendapatan perniagaan dibawah perjanjian
yang masih berbaki 22 bulan sebanyak RM291,667.00 150
sebulan berjumlah RM6,416,674.00
b. Jumlah kos kerugian akibat penamatan pekerja-pekerja,
bakat luar, kontraktor, dan kos-kos operasi lain berkaitan
berjumlah RM550,000.00.
c. Faedah keatas gantirugi khas pada kadar 5% setahun keatas 155
jumlah diperenggan a dan b diatas dari tarikh penyampaian
Writ sehingga tarikh Penghakiman
d. Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun keatas jumlah Penghakiman
dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga penjelasan sepenuhnya.
e. Kos tindakan ini. 160
f. Lain-lain relief yang Mahkamah anggap adil dan sesuai”
[6] In its defence and counterclaim (later withdrawn with liberty), the
defendant took the position that:
(a) The defendant acknowledges: 165
(i) The first principal agreement with the plaintiff (10.10.2011) was for
the production, supply, and broadcast of the Capital Channel on TM
IPTV.
(ii) The first supplementary agreement (01.05.2013) was for the
production, supply, and broadcast of the Capital on TM IPTV. 170
(iii) The first principal agreement contract period was from 01.11.2011 to
31.10.2014 (three years).
(iv) The monthly license fee of RM270,000.00 under the first principal
agreement was due from the defendant to the plaintiff throughout the
contract period, save where it is sooner terminated. A refundable 175
commitment fee of one month of the license fee (RM270,000.00)
was paid to the plaintiff on 15.12.2011 (1 ½ months after executing
the first principal agreement).
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
7
(v) The said commitment fee was to be refunded by a deduction from
the last month of the license fee payable to the plaintiff during the 180
contract period.
(vi) The first principal agreement and the first supplementary agreement
provide for an early termination clause by either party by giving the
other a sixty-day written notice intimating an intention to terminate
the contract (clause 16.3 in the first principal agreement, encl.12, 185
BOD B, pg.21, and clause 2.13 in the first supplementary agreement,
encl.12, BOD B, pg.36).
(vii) The two foregoing agreements lasted throughout its contract period
and naturally expired on 30.10.2014, releasing the parties from its
terms and conditions. 190
(b) Slightly less than a month after the expiry of the first principal
and supplementary agreements, the parties entered into a
second principal agreement on 24.11.2014 (encl.12, BOD B,
pp.40-62) for the production and supply of the news program 195
and the Capital Channel for distribution on Hypp TV. Likewise,
the parties entered into a second supplementary agreement
(encl.12, BOD B, pp.66-73) for the production and supply of
Channel W for distribution on Unifi TV:
(i) The second principal agreement with the plaintiff (24.11.2014) lasted 200
three years, from 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2017. It allows for early
termination by either party by giving the other a sixty-day written
notice intimating an intention to terminate the contract after the 1st
anniversary of the agreement (clause 19.3(ii) (encl.12, BOD B,
pg.54). In this event, the defendant is only obligated to make 205
payment for the contract value or revenue share up to the termination
date on a pro-rated basis (clause 19.5, encl.22, BOD B, pg.55).
(ii) The second supplementary agreement was for three years, from
01.11.2017 until 31.10.2020, which was also subject to an early
termination provision under clause 4, in making reference to the 210
foregoing clause 19.3(ii) of the second principal agreement.
(iii) This second supplementary agreement is in addition to and not in
derogation of the parties' obligations. This second additional
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
8
agreement is supplemental to the second principal agreement that
expired on 31.10.2017. 215
(iv) The first principal and supplemental agreements are separate and
distinct from the second principal and supplementary agreements.
(c) The defendant further contends that:
(i) The drafting of the preamble in the second supplementary 220
agreement was inaccurately drawn up. It caused unnecessary
confusion (see preamble A and B, encl.12, BOD B, pg.64).
My observation:
I examined the preamble and found that the drafting leaves much to
be desired. 225
(ii) The preamble to the second supplementary agreement had
erroneously referred to the first principal agreement (10.10.2011)
that had lapsed naturally on 30.10.2014 (approximately over three
years before the execution of the second supplementary agreement) 230
as the principal agreement of the second supplementary agreement
when in fact it was intended to be referred to the second principal
agreement (encl.12, BOD B pp.40-62).
(iii) The drafter termed the first and second principal agreement as the
previous agreement. However, the drafter in the preamble made no 235
mention of the first supplementary agreement that had also lapsed
naturally with the first principal agreement on 30.10.2014.
(iv) This mix-up is further compounded when the second supplementary
agreement continues to refer to the previous agreement and that all
terms and conditions of the previous agreement shall remain in full 240
force and effect.
(v) It cannot be taken that the second supplementary agreement is
supplemental to the first principal agreement that had already lapsed
several years prior, together with the first supplementary agreement
on 31.10.2014. 245
(vi) The term previous agreement must, in the premise, be taken in its
actual and proper context to refer to the second principal agreement
leading to the second supplementary agreement to make logical
sense.
(vii) The early termination of the second supplementary agreement was 250
subject to Clause 4 of the second supplementary agreement
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
9
(encl.12, BOD B, pg.66) in citing Clause 19.3(ii) of the second
principal agreement.
(viii) There was no alleged extension of the agreements as claimed by the
plaintiff. 255
(d) The second supplementary agreement contains a provision
allowing monitoring of the channel's viewership to ensure that
it produces good-quality programs. Key performance indicators
were specified in Appendix 2 (encl.12, BOD B, pg.73) of the
second supplementary agreement. It was found that the 260
viewership of the channel was not satisfactory throughout the
first anniversary of the second supplementary agreement
tenure.
(e) The defendant elected to go for an early termination of the 265
second supplementary agreement under clause 4, referring to
clause 19.3(ii) of the second principal agreement after its first
anniversary by giving a sixty-day written notice on 02.11.2018.
It was agreed that parties in the second supplementary
agreement could terminate the contract sooner by providing a 270
sixty-day notice to the other.
(f) Concerning the impact of the foregoing termination, the
defendant asserts that:
(i) The defendant is not responsible for the plaintiff's alleged 275
investments and internal operational expenses as they do not
concern the defendant in any way.
(ii) The defendant has paid all its financial obligations arising under the
expired first principal and first supplementary agreements.
(iii) Under the first principal agreement, the plaintiff had defaulted on 280
refunding the commitment fee of RM 270,000.00 paid on 15.12.2011.
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
10
(iv) As required under clause 19.5(iii) of the second principal agreement,
the defendant had made payment up to the date of the termination
on a pro-rated basis (RM309,167.02) on 31.12.2018.
(v) The plaintiff accepted the payment without objection or protest on 285
the early termination. It has neither disputed, replied, nor denied the
notice of termination.
(vi) In the premise, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not entitled
to the relief prayed.
290
[7] The list of witnesses at the trial is as follows: -
(a) Plaintiff’s witness:
(i) SP1 Noor Azman bin Yusof@ Mohd Jusoh
(b) Defendant’s witness: 295
(i) SD1 Abdul Rahman bin Mohammad Ghazali
THE PLAINTIFF’s SUBMISSIONS
[8] The plaintiff submitted as follows: 300
8.1 The learned counsel for the plaintiff informed the Court that the
plaintiff had been wound up via two High Court orders dated
15.02.2022 and 08.03.2022. The Insolvency Department of
Malaysia had granted a written sanction dated 01.03.2023 to pursue
this action against the defendant. 305
8.2 Upon being informed that the plaintiff is in liquidation, the defendant
had withdrawn with liberty its counterclaim on the return of the
commitment fee.
310
8.3 The plaintiff argued that the second supplementary agreement was
supposed to run for three years from 01.11.2017 to 31.10.2020:
(a) The plaintiff was supposed to receive a total revenue of
RM10,500,000.00.
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
11
(b) The plaintiff had performed its duties and responsibilities as 315
required under the second supplementary agreement.
(c) All the previous agreements were extended upon expiry
through three separate agreements, excluding the second
supplementary agreement.
(d) The defendant had wrongly terminated the second 320
supplementary agreement on 02.11.2018 by claiming to
exercise its contractual right under clause 19.3(ii) of the second
principal agreement. The reason accorded for the termination
was:
“Upon further internal deliberation by TM Nets management on cost 325
rationalising exercise and strategy to review the company’s activities in
consent, we hereby exercise our contractual right under clause 19.3(ii) of
the Agreement for the Production and Supply of news program and the
Capital Channel for Distribution on HyppTV dated 24.11.2014 (including
the Supplementary Agreement dated 8.2.2018 (“Agreement”) by giving 330
you the requisite sixty (60) days’ notice to terminate the Agreement. The
notice period shall be calculated from the date of this letter, and the
effective termination date shall be 1 January 2019 (Effective date of
termination).”
335
(e) The plaintiff was encouraged by the continuance of the same
services by entering into allegedly three consecutive separate
agreements and believing that the defendant would continue to
the end of the contract period.
340
(f) The defendant had breached the second supplementary
agreement. The defendant had never issued the plaintiff any
notice of default in rendering its services.
(g) As a consequence of the defendant’s breach, the plaintiff
suffered losses and defaulted on its banking facility. 345
In my observation:
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
12
(i) There is simply no convincing evidence that the defendant had
breached the second supplementary agreement in any way from the
facts during the trial.
(ii) It is misguided to argue that the defendant is liable for the internal 350
expenses, banking issues, and purported investments arising from
the plaintiff's operation. It is too remote and improbable to pass the
buck to the defendant.
8.4 In supporting the position it has taken, the plaintiff, claimed that: 355
(a) Preamble D of the second supplementary agreement
(Enclosure 12, Part B Documents, P’s Bundle, pg.64) clarified
that it refers to the previous agreement, meaning the first
principal and first supplementary agreement.
In my observation: 360
(i) This argument by the plaintiff cannot hold as I had addressed in
paragraph 3.3 (a)-(d) hereof.
(ii) I have also observed it in paragraph [6] (c) (i)-(viii).
(iii) To allow it would make nonsense of the second supplementary
agreement. The Court must construe it in the correct context based 365
on the fact and actual perspective of the case lest it led to an absurd
or irrational conclusion. That legal position is trite: Berjaya Times
Square, FC.
(b) The plaintiff also argued that the agreements are not separate 370
and distinct from. It is a continuation.
In my observation:
(i) There is no compelling evidence from the plaintiff to support this
argument other than conjectures.
(ii) It is inconsistent with the facts before the Court and is a 375
misconceived unsupported postulation that I am inclined not to
believe.
(iii) The agreements are all separate and distinct from each other. The
issue of extension of agreements cannot be supported or
substantiated by the facts at trial. It is a misguided argument by the 380
plaintiff.
(c) The plaintiff took the position that the defendant failed to read
conjunctively clauses 19.3(i) and (ii) of the second principal
agreement in the exercise of its right to terminate. 385
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
13
In my observation:
(i) This argument is misconceived.
(ii) Clause 19.3(i) requires giving 30 days’ notice to rectify purported
breaches in the second supplementary agreement, failing which the
said agreement may be terminated. 390
(iii) While Clause 19.3(ii) states that the party may elect to terminate the
second supplementary agreement after the first anniversary by
giving sixty-day notice. There is no requirement to assign any
reason.
(iv) The two provisions are poles apart. 395
(v) There is clarity about what the parties had signed on to.
(vi) To read it in any other way to angle support for the plaintiff's position
would be inconsistent with the parties' agreement.
(vii) One cannot read an inconsistent intent to a term in the agreement
that was never intended, nor was it there in the first place. 400
(viii) Be it for the Key Performance Index or cost rationalising issue, it
cannot detract from the fact that parties had agreed in Clause 19.3(ii)
that either party may terminate after the first anniversary of the
second supplementary agreement by giving a sixty-day notice.
(ix) The Court will always ensure that parties are bound to their bargains 405
and cannot renege from them.
(d) The plaintiff submitted extensively to address the first principal
agreement (2011) and the first supplementary agreement that
expired in 2014. 410
In my observation:
(i) There is no tangible or cogent definitive evidence was produced to
establish that the two said agreements had been renewed,
extended, or resurrected in any way.
(ii) The Court is only concerned with the alleged unlawful termination of 415
the second supplementary agreement that is presumed to provide
the foundation for this action by the plaintiff. It is my considered
judgment that the plaintiff failed to show compelling evidence to
establish that position other than conjectures.
(iii) I remain unconvinced, and the evidence scale does not tilt in its 420
favour.
8.5 The plaintiff postulated to the Court that the defendant is not entitled
to Clause 19.3(ii) to terminate the second supplementary agreement
and can only terminate because the plaintiff failed to achieve the 425
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
14
agreed KPI in the contract. Before doing so, the defendant must give
the plaintiff thirty days' notice to remedy the poor viewership issue
under Clause 19.3(i). Only then can the defendant terminate.
In my observation:
(i) Grounded on the facts and observations in the foregoing, I can’t quite 430
agree with the plaintiff on this argument.
(ii) It goes against the totality of the evidence before the Court.
8.6 To support its position:
(a) The plaintiff places reliance on the Federal Court decision in 435
Arkitek Tenggara Sdn Bhd v Mid Valley City Sdn Bhd [2007]
6 CLJ 93, FC that espoused the principle of a right to terminate
contained in the agreement.
(b) The plaintiff argued that the second supplementary agreement
did not expressly provide for early termination. 440
(c) The Federal Court decision in Catajaya Sdn Bhd v Shoppoint
Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 2 MLJ 374, FC was also cited that ruled
a termination was not allowed unless expressly provided for
under the agreement.
(d) It was argued that the defendant was wrong in invoking Clause 445
19.3(ii) of the expired second principal agreement to terminate
the second supplementary agreement and for providing an
invalid reason that had occasioned the termination. Though the
agreement did not stipulate that reason for termination ought to
be given, the defendant elected to explain the termination in its 450
notice (02.11.2018) in encl. BOD B, pp.74-75).
In my observation:
(i) I have observed on this point in paragraph 3.3 (a)-(d) and paragraph
[6] (c)(i)-(viii) above and will not repeat it.
(ii) With that finding of fact, the arguments above by the plaintiff would 455
not hold in the premise.
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
15
(iii) Consequently, Arkitek Tenggara Sdn Bhd v Mid Valley City Sdn
Bhd [2007] 6 CLJ 93, FC, would not assist the plaintiff.
8.7 The plaintiff argued that on the totality of the evidence, they had 460
proven the claim on a balance of probability:
(a) The notice of termination (2.11.2018) is invalid.
(b) Invoking Clause 19.3(ii) if the second principal agreement to
terminate the second supplementary agreement is wrong.
(c) The defendant is moved to terminate by reference to the 465
provisions of the second principal agreement to avoid
compensating the plaintiff by reliance on Clause 19.5(v)
(consequences of termination) that provide for payment on a
pro-rated basis up to the date of the termination.
(d) The defendant had breached the second supplementary 470
agreement and is liable to the plaintiff for damages under s.74
(1) Contracts Act 1950. Arkitek Tenggara Sdn Bhd v Mid
Valley City Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 CLJ 93, FC was cited that when
a party sustains loss because of a breach of a contract, so far
as money can do it, he is to be placed in the same position 475
concerning damages, as if the agreement has been performed.
In the circumstances, the P prays for an order in terms of its prayers in the
Statement of Claim with costs.
480
THE DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS (L42, L46)
[9] The defendant submitted as follows:
9.1 SD1, amongst others, gave evidence:
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
16
(a) Confirming that the preambles in the second supplementary
agreement were inaccurate and that it should refer to the 485
second principal agreement.
(b) Terminating the second supplementary agreement was under
Clause 19.3(ii) of the second principal agreement by giving a
sixty-day notice.
(c) As required under clause 19.5(iii) of the second principal 490
agreement, the defendant had made payment up to the date of
the termination on a pro-rated basis on 31.12.2018, which the
plaintiff accepted with no protest to the early termination of the
second supplementary agreement.
(d) The plaintiff did not deny or dispute the agreement's termination 495
notice. Only about two years later, when the defendant issued
a letter of demand on 07.11.2019 for the return of the
commitment fee paid under the first principal agreement did the
plaintiff suddenly dispute the notice of termination of the second
supplementary agreement, leading to the present action. 500
(e) The contract between the parties was not continuous (distinct
and separate from each other), and they were never extended,
as argued by the plaintiff.
9.2 The defendant argues:
(a) The term “previous agreement” in the second supplementary 505
agreement must necessarily refer to the second principal
agreement.
(b) I have addressed this issue in the foregoing paragraph 3.3 (a)-
(d), and paragraph [6] (c) (i)-(viii) hereof.
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
17
(c) The defendant asserted that during the trial, the plaintiff’s 510
witness, SP1 himself, admitted that the drafting of the preamble
was confusing.
(d) The Federal Court ruling in Berjaya Times Squares Sdn Bhd
v M Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 597, FC, was cited,
which, in a nutshell, ruled where the terms of an agreement are 515
ambiguous, the background facts giving rise to the agreement
ought to be examined to ascertain the intention of the parties
concerned and that a commercial contract ought to be
construed in a commercially sensible manner. The Court must
(1) construe an agreement confined itself to the four corners of 520
the document but look at the factual matrix forming the
background to the transaction, (2) include all materials
reasonably available to the parties, (3) it must disregard any
part of the background that is declaratory of subjective intent
only, and (5) the Court should adopt an objective approach 525
when construing the private contract:
“The meaning of the agreement is to be discovered from the words which
they have used and read in the context of the circumstances in which they
made the agreement. The exercise is not one where there are strict rules,
but one where the solution is to be found by considering the language 530
used by the parties against the background of the surrounding
circumstances.”
This position was followed by the Federal Court in SPM
Membrane Switch Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 535
[2016] 1 MLJ 464, FC in holding that the words of each clause
should be construed harmoniously with one another to avoid
leading to ambiguity or absurdity:
[46] This objective approach to interpretation is the ‘ascertainment of the
meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person 540
having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
18
been available to the parties in the situation which they were at the
time of the contract’ (K Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts (5th
Ed, 2011), Sweet and Maxwell, at p 1.03).”
545
(e) The High Court in Daya Cmt Sdn Bhd v Yuk Tung
Construction Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 871, HC, referred to
Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v The Search & Anor [1994] 3
MLJ 127, HC in holding that the test to ascertain whether an
old contract has been extinguished is this: If a new contract is 550
entered into by the parties, whatever its terms, the old contract
is extinguished.
(f) In the circumstances, the first principal agreement and the first
supplementary agreement had expired on 31.10.2014 and,
therefore, been extinguished before the second principal 555
agreement was entered slightly less than a month later, with
dissimilar purposes and independent from the expired first
principal agreement. It would be absurd to associate the
expired agreement in the preambles with defining the term
“previous agreement” for the second supplementary 560
agreement.
(g) SP1, in his email on 10.11.2017 (encl.16, pg.156), agreed that
the second supplementary agreement was constructed as
supplemental to the second principal agreement (2014).
Considering this fact, cognisance must be taken that preamble 565
B of the second supplementary agreement refers to an
agreement dated 24th November 2014 (encl.12, pg. 64). It is an
admitted fact by SP1 that the only contract executed in 2014
was the second principal agreement. DW1 corroborated this.
The Federal Court decision in Wong Yee Boon v Gainvest 570
Builders (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 2 CLJ 727, FC was cited that
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
19
had ruled that to ascertain the intention of the parties, the Court
must read the terms of the contract as a whole. The basic rule
is that effect must be given to the parties' intention. This
requires an objective test and not a subjective approach. It is 575
an objective approach that is needed, and a solution that is both
reasonable and realistic should be found.
9.3 In light of the foregoing, the defendant argues that:
(a) That the defendant validly terminated the second supplementary 580
agreement under Clause 4 of the said agreement in rightfully
referencing Clause 19.3(ii) of the second principal agreement,
which provides for early termination after the first anniversary
of the agreement. It is an agreed term available to both parties
in the agreement by giving a sixty-day notice to the other 585
(acknowledged by SP1 in his evidence).
(b) The defendant cited the Court of Appeal in Seven Seas
Industries Sdn Bhd v Philips Electronic Supplies (M) Sdn
Bhd & Anor [2008] 5 MLJ 157, CA that had said it is a well-590
established principle that where the terms of a contract are
clear and free from ambiguity, the court will not impose any
implied terms. In the present case, clause 19.3(ii) is
unambiguous and should not attract any drama in its
application. 595
(c) This present action by the plaintiff is an afterthought:
(i) Close to two years after the issuance of the notice of termination
(from 02.11.2018 to 23.6.2020), the plaintiff did not dispute or protest
the notice as being unlawful.
(ii) Fourteen days after the defendant issued a letter of demand 600
(07.11.2019) in encl.16, pp.139-142, concerning the return of the
commitment fee, did the plaintiff suddenly object to the termination
when it is within their knowledge of the impending winding up the
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
20
plaintiff by the two High Court order dated 15.02.2022 and
08.03.2022. 605
(iii) This suit by the plaintiff is wholly an afterthought.
(iv) The defendant cited the Court of Appeal in David Wong Hon Leong
v Noorazman bin Adnan [1995] 4 CLJ 155, CA, that found in that
case that the appellant had failed to respond to the letter of 17th
December. If there had never been an agreement as alleged, it is 610
reasonable to expect a prompt and vigorous denial. But, as we have
pointed out, there has yet to be a response from the appellant. This
decision was cited and followed by the Court of Appeal in Jetra Sdn
Bhd v Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd [2007] 3 CLJ 41, CA.
(v) Contrary to the plaintiff's arguments in the present case, Clause 615
19.3(ii) makes no contractual obligation to assign any reason for the
early termination of the agreement. SP1 admitted in his evidence
that after the first anniversary of the second supplementary
agreement, either party may terminate the contract without giving
any reason. 620
(vi) Also contrary to the argument of the plaintiff in claiming that Clause
19.3(i) and (ii) must be read conjunctively. It is a misplaced
argument. Citing the Federal Court in Catajaya Sdn Bhd v
Shoppoint Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 2 MLJ 374, FC that ruled where
the terms of a contract are clear, the Court should not alter the 625
meaning of the terms.
(vii) The Court of Appeal was cited in Parkwell Department Store Sdn
Bhd v ICSD Ventures Sdn Bhd [2020] 9 CLJ 107, CA that held that
in the interpretation of contracts, the general principle is for such
interpretation to be constructive and to afford business efficacy to 630
such provisions.
9.4 The plaintiff:
(a) Cannot claim RM6,416,674.00 being the balance twenty-two
months of the contract period for the second supplementary 635
agreement (January 2019 to October 2020), when it had been
lawfully terminated after the first anniversary under Clause
19.3(ii) of the contract.
(b) The claim for RM550,000 being alleged losses occasioned by
the termination of workers, outside talent, contractors, and 640
other operating costs are too remote and clearly without basis:
Tahan Steel Corporation Sdn Bhd v Bank Islam Malaysia
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
21
Bhd [2011] 1 CLJ 755, HC. The plaintiff failed to produce any
cogent evidence to establish the said amount, and SP1
admitted this in his evidence. The burden lies on the plaintiff to 645
prove its losses before it is allowed. It is axiomatic that a plaintiff
seeking substantial damages must establish the facts and the
quantum of damages before recovering. If proven neither, the
action will fail, or he may be awarded only nominal damages
upon proof of infringement of a right: Popular Industries Ltd v 650
The Eastern Garment Manufacturing Co Sdn Bhd [1990] 2
CLJ (rep) 635, HC.
9.5 There is no breach on the defendant's part concerning the terms of
the second supplementary agreement and its termination. The 655
plaintiff's reliance on the Federal Court’s decision in Arkitek
Tenggara Sdn Bhd v Mid Valley City Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 CLJ 93,
FC does not assist the plaintiff’s case. The agreement between the
parties in the present case did not prescribe any express right of
termination, and thus, no reason would need to be provided by the 660
terminating party:
“The lawfulness or otherwise of the termination of the plaintiff's services by the
defendant would, in the first place, depend on whether the agreement between
them contains a right to terminate. The agreement between the parties does
not prescribe any express right of termination. The question of whether such a 665
term can be implied would depend upon the intention of the parties as collected
from the words of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances. It must
be presumed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the Conditions of Engagement
in the Fourth Schedule. He is bound to adopt them. The defendant was under
the impression that he was entitled to terminate the agreement at any time. This 670
in substance is the right contained in r 7. A right to terminate the agreement on
any ground is, therefore, the obvious but unexpressed intention of the parties,
thereby making it into an implied term. The Conditions of Engagement in the
fourth Schedule also constitute implied terms in order to give business efficacy
to the agreement by virtue of being a custom or practice of the architectural 675
profession. It follows that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant
may be terminated at any time by either party upon reasonable notice being
given (see paras 41–42, 48–49).”
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
22
Consequences are the same for SPM Membrane Switch Sdn Bhd 680
v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor [2016] 1 MLJ 464, FC, and Catajaya
Sdn Bhd v Shoppoint Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 2 MLJ 374, FC about
whether valid reason is needed for termination in the present case
is inapplicable.
685
In the circumstances, it is submitted that the plaintiff has failed to
discharge their burden, and its action must be dismissed with costs.
THE LAW
[10] It is trite in law that all cases are decided on the legal burden of proof 690
being discharged. It is the acid test applied in any particular case.
10.1 Lord Brandon in Rhesa Shipping Co.SA v Edmunds [1985] 1
WLR 948 at 955 said:
“No judge likes to decide cases on the burden of proof if he can legitimately
avoid having to do so. There are cases, however, in which, owing to the 695
unsatisfactory state of the evidence or otherwise, deciding on the burden of
proof is the only just course to take.”
10.2 In Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd [2007]
4 SLR(R) 855 it was said that:
“The Court’s decision in every case will depend on whether the party concerned 700
has satisfied the particular burden and standard of proof imposed on him. Since
the terms ‘proved’, ‘disproved’, and ‘not proved’ are statutory definitions
contained in the Evidence Act (Cap 9), 1997 Rev Ed), the term ‘proof’.
Wherever it appears in the Evidence Act and unless the context otherwise
suggests, means the burden to satisfy the Court of the existence or non-705
existence of some fact, that is, the legal burden of proof”.
10.3 The burden of proof in establishing its case is on the plaintiff. It is
not the Ds' duty to disprove it. The evidentiary burden is trite that
those who allege a fact are duty-bound to prove it (see s.101, 102, 710
and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950).
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
23
10.4 Selvaduray v Chinniah [1939] 1 MLJ 253, 254 (CA) held:
"The burden of proof under section 102 of the Evidence Enactment is upon the 715
person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side and
accordingly, the plaintiff must establish his case. If he fails to do so, it will not
avail him to turn around and say that the defendant has not established his. The
defendant can say it is wholly immaterial whether I prove my case or not. You
have not proved yours". 720
10.5 Johara Bi bt. Abdul Kadir Marican v. Lawrence Lam Kwok Fou
& Anor [1981] 1 MLJ 139, (FC) held:
"It was all a matter of proof and that until and unless the plaintiff has discharged
the onus on her to prove her case on a balance of probabilities, the burden did 725
not shift to the defendant, and no matter if the defendant's case was completely
unbelievable, the claim against him must in these circumstances be dismissed.
With respect, we agree with this judicial approach."
[11] Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 730
CLJ 269, FC. The distilled principles, among others, are:
11.1 Where an agreement is not regulated by statute, parties are at
complete liberty, under the doctrine of freedom of Contract, to agree
on any terms they think fit. 735
11.2 The role of the Court is to interpret the Contract sensibly (a
commercially sensible construction). See Loh Wai Lian v SEA
Housing Corporation Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 LNS 37, PC.
740
11.3 The starting point is for the Court to recognise that in an action for a
breach of Contract, it is for the Court to determine who is the
innocent party and who is the guilty party.
11.4 A contract breaker must pay damages to the innocent party. 745
However, if he has made any payment under a contract (not being
a true deposit for the purchase of movable or immovable property),
the contract breaker is entitled to have that payment set off against
the damages he has to pay. However, he cannot seek to recover
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
24
any benefit he may have conferred upon the innocent party where 750
he is guilty of breach of Contract. Were it otherwise, a contract
breaker could take advantage of his wrong. This is against the
principle and the policy of the law.
11.5 The FC cited Attorney General of Belize v. Belize Telecom 755
Limited [2009] UKPC 11, where when delivering the Advice of the
Board, Lord Hoffmann said:
“The Court has no power to improve upon the instrument which it is called upon
to construe, whether it be a contract, a statute or articles of association. It
cannot introduce terms to make it fairer or more reasonable. It is concerned 760
only to discover what the instrument means. However, that meaning is not
necessarily or always what the authors or parties to the document would have
intended. It is the meaning which the instrument would convey to a reasonable
person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably be
available to the audience to whom the instrument is addressed: see Investors 765
Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1
WLR 896, 912-913. It is this objective meaning which is conventionally called
the intention of the parties, or the intention of Parliament, or the intention of
whatever person or body was or is deemed to have been the author of the
instrument.” 770
11.6 A contract is to be interpreted in accordance with the following
guidelines:
(a) A Court interpreting a private contract is not confined to the four
corners of the document. It is entitled to look at the factual 775
matrix forming the background of the transaction.
(b) The factual matrix that forms the transaction's background
includes all material reasonably available to the parties.
(c) The interpreting Court must disregard any part of the
background that is declaratory of subjective intent only and 780
(d) The Court should adopt an objective approach when
interpreting a private contract.
See Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich
Building Society [1998] 1 All ER 98. As Lord Clyde said in 785
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar
Ali [2001] 2 WLR 735:
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
25
“The knowledge reasonably available to them (that is to say, the parties
to the Contract) must include matters of law as well as matters of fact. The 790
problem is not resolved by asking the parties what they thought they
intended. It is the imputed intention of the parties that the Court is
concerned to ascertain…. The meaning of the agreement is to be
discovered from the words which they have used and read in the context
of the circumstances in which they made the agreement. The exercise is 795
not one where there are strict rules but one where the solution is to be
found by considering the language used by the parties against the
background of the surrounding circumstances”.
800
[12] The Federal Court in Michael C. Solle v United Malayan Banking
Corporation [1986] 1 MLJ 45, FC observed that the principles of
construction to be applied are that the parties' intentions are gathered from
the language used. They are presumed to have intended what they say.
The common universal principle is that an agreement ought to receive that 805
construction, which its language will admit, that will best effectuate the
parties' intention to be collected from the whole agreement. The Courts
are to give effect to the terms of the Contract (if any).
FINDINGS 810
[13] I have examined all-cause papers, the evidence and/or the lack
thereof at the trial, and the parties' respective submissions in canvassing
for their position in the present suit. The general principle in litigation
has always been that a claim is only as good as its evidence. 815
Considering my observation in the totality of the evidence and in particular
in paragraph 3.3 (a)-(d), paragraph [6] (c) (i)-(viii) and my observations in
the parties' respective arguments in paragraphs [9] 9.1-9.5, and [8] 8.1-
8.7 hereof, in addition to and in amplification thereof, it is my considered
determination that: 820
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
26
13.1 In consonance with the principles espoused by the Federal Court in
Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1
CLJ 269, F:
(a) The starting point is for the Court to recognise that in an action 825
for a breach of Contract, it is for the Court to determine who is
the innocent party and who is the guilty party.
(b) A breach of Contract is said to occur when a party to a Contract
expressly or impliedly fails or refuses to perform or fails to
perform satisfactorily one or more of his contractual obligations. 830
(c) By and large, the plaintiff failed to discharge its burden of proof
to establish the claim in its SoC as required under ss 101-103
Evidence Act 1950.
(d) The plaintiff needed to adduce the required compelling
evidence to tilt the scale of evidence in its favour but failed to 835
do so. Besides bare assertions, no convincing evidence was
adduced to establish the allegations against the defendant.
(e) I have perused the Bundles of Documents of parties (L12, L14,
and L16) and considered the respective arguments by the
respective learned counsel, but I can't find such probative 840
materials that can persuade me to find for the plaintiff.
13.2 In the circumstances of the facts of the case, a commercially
sensible construction on the intention of the parties would point to
the term previous agreement as stated in the second 845
supplementary agreement to mean the second principal agreement
(2014) and not to the first principal agreement (2011) that had
already expired more than three years prior. It would be ludicrous to
hold otherwise as it leads to absurdity.
850
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
27
13.3 Consequently, the defendant had every right to exercise its right for
an early termination of the second supplementary agreement under
Clause 4 in referencing Clause 9.3(ii) of the second principal
agreement. In the circumstances, the early termination is legal as it
arises from a term binding the parties in the second supplementary 855
agreement. The arguments by the plaintiff on the issue are
overstretching and too farfetched in the circumstances.
13.4 With the valid termination of the second supplementary agreement,
the issue of damages as claimed by the plaintiff does not arise and
has no legal foundation to stand on. 860
13.5 In clearly failing to prove its claim, I would like to borrow what was
said by the Court of Appeal in Selvaduray v Chinniah [1939] 1
MLJ 253, 254, CA that where the plaintiff fails to prove his case, it
will not avail him to turn around and say that the defendant has not
established his. The defendant can say it is wholly immaterial 865
whether I prove my case or not. You have not proved yours. I would
also like to reiterate what was said in Johara Bi bt. Abdul Kadir
Marican v. Lawrence Lam Kwok Fou & Anor [1981] 1 MLJ 139,
that it was all a matter of proof and that until and unless the plaintiff
has discharged the onus to prove his case on a balance of 870
probabilities, the burden did not shift to the defendant, no matter
how unbelievable the defence might be. The claim against the
defendant must, in these circumstances, be dismissed.
13.6 The legal burden lies on the plaintiff throughout the proceedings to
prove its case, in which case the plaintiff herein had failed: Yui Chin 875
Song & Ors v Lee Ming Chai & Ors [2019] 6 MLJ 417. It is not for
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
28
the Ds to establish their defence in such a circumstance:
Selvaduray v Chinniah [1939] 1 MLJ 253.
[14] The parties:
14.1 Are bound to the terms of their sealed bargains and will not be 880
allowed to renege from them. It is my judgment that the defendant
is within its rights to exercise its rights to terminate the Contract
under Clause 19.3(ii). It is what they have expressly agreed to, as
was said by the Federal Court in Michael C. Solle v United
Malayan Banking Corporation [1986] 1 MLJ 45, FC, that the 885
Courts are to give effect to the terms of the Contract.
14.2 I agree with Chan Whye & Sons Contractors (Suing as a Firm) v
Sarawak Shell Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 68, HC that where the termination
clause is explicit, the Court must not rewrite the Contract or audit the
bargain between the parties but instead hold them to it. See also 890
SPM Membrane Switch Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor
[2016] 1 MLJ 464, FC.
14.3 To reiterate what was said by the Federal Court in Berjaya Times
Square Sdn Bhd v M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 269, FC,
that the starting point is for the Court to recognise that in an action 895
for a breach of Contract, it is for the Court to determine who is the
innocent party and who is the guilty party. In the present case,
anchored from my observation of the facts before me, I find no
breach on the defendant's part. The allegation by the plaintiff in the
premises is wholly misguided. 900
14.4 I am in no doubt and inclined from the greater weight of evidence to
hold against the plaintiff concerning the impugned second
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-22NCvC-163-03/2021
29
supplementary agreement leading to its lawful termination grounded
on the covenants in the said agreement.
905
CONCLUSION
[15] All things considered:
15.1 After appraising the evidence, all the relevant cause- papers and the
written submissions by the respective parties, I find that the plaintiff
had failed to discharge its burden on a balance of probabilities. 910
15.2 Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed against the defendant
with costs of RM30,000.00 (global) to be paid within 30 days from
the date of this order.
915
Dated 14.11.2023.
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ 920
JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF MALAYA
KUALA LUMPUR
925
Counsels:
Mohd Fairuz Bin Abdullah
Messrs. Mohd Najid & Partners
Counsel for the plaintiff 930
Oazair Huneid Tyeb, together with Choy Moon Moon, Nik Aimi Nabilah
Nur Aisyah Ezam (PDK)
Messrs. Shahrizat Rashid & Lee
Counsels for the defendant 935
S/N dF4cstdEnkyubgt09C53/g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 56,391 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-41S-25-10/2022 | PERAYU VASANTA A/L AMARASEKERA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya | The accused was charged with an offence of forgery of a will - under section 467 of the Penal Code - before the Magistrate Court | 14/11/2023 | YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=58a9e045-effe-4f74-b7ab-cb64b193b2c5&Inline=true |
11/01/2024 08:26:31
WA-41S-25-10/2022 Kand. 34
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ReCpWP7vdE3q8tksZOyxQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
w.\—us—25—1n/2022 Kand. 34
11/01/2014 CB:2b'3l
DALAM MAHKAMAN TINGGI MALAVA nl KIIALA LUMPUR
DALAM WILAVAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAVSIA
AVUAN JENAVAN N WA-41N~4 M012 5 M141 :5 0/2012
ANKARA
PENDAKWA RAVA ...PERAV|l
mu
VASANTA A/L AMARASEKERA ...RESPONDEN
RAVUAN arms
VASANTA A/L AIAARASEKERA ...PERAVU
om
RESPONDEN
PENDAKWA RAVA
(Dam Pevkars M.r.um.n M-‘mm rm mm. Lumrmr
uaram wuayan Persekuluan mus Lumvur
K21 Nu wArs$534D-0812018 can Seksyen 307 Kamm Tatacara Jenayah ws
can xxxvm
Fendakwa Rays
Lwu
Vuama a/I Ammsexerau
Jumsusm
[11 vasama a/I Amarasskera, (‘the accused‘) was charged mm an
oflenoe 01 forgery of a wfll under section 1367 al the Penal Code belore
the MagAs|raIe Conn He was found gmy 01 me change and was
canvxcled and sentenced to a one (1) year and six us) months
wmvriscmment rrom lhe date or ssmenae.
1
sw Recvwvivazafilxxzuyxn
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
[21 Belars we. Caun. ma Public Prosecutor appealed agamu (ha
senlsnoe xmposed by me Magwslrala coun whilst lbs accused appealed
agamsl me convucxion and ssnlenee
Tho Chlrqu
[3] The change agamsl the accused reads‘
‘Bahawa kamu pads 13 6 2005, d! anlsra [am 9.00 peg:
senrngga 5.00 petang, bera/amal -1: raruan Amam 5. Ca,
03-15, Pangsapun Impian Kara. Jaran Kg Map, Kuala
Lumpun dalam uaenm Dang wangz, dr da/am Wr/ayah
Psrsekuluan Kuala Lumpur, kamu relah melakukan
pemalsuan landalangsn wssral Lssl Wm and resramem
mandiang Adsmbsvage Ananda Rex Alwrs, (No KP
dBL7327—1l7—5G95) bsrtallkh 13 06 2005 dam Kai-ml ada/ah
dengan ml Ielsh mslakukan kesalahan dr bawah
seksyen 467 Kanun Ksseksaan '
[4] The pmseclmon dauad Ian um wllnssses to gm ewdenoe whilst
lhe accused had rauad 2 uwd) witnesses apan «um mmseu. Io |esUFy
a| me delanzze slag:
arm Facts
[5] The accused was an Advocate a. soucwar
[6] sometime m June 2005, he was appmachad by a lamfly iriend o1
ms, ans Adamberage Amanda Rex and known to the amused as Rex
(‘Rex')who came to ms amce wanlmg (0 makes wvll The accused than
draned me wm
when he knew ma| ma wanar am not an any rrrna srgn or maka ou| me
wm.
[29] ms in mm begs me quesuan of new forgery or me ‘dwshonesl or
haudulenl‘ making our ar signing of ma mu may be pmven
[an] Under 5 45 nflhe Evidence AL1\95Olhe uplman nfa handwnlmg
expen as to the genumeness vfhandwrmng or signatures are expressw
aumrssmle on the grounds that «me. Is a relevanl fact
[31] Sermon 47 oi ma Evmanca Acl ruse provraas rmar aha vor me
aarnrssrbilrry or ma avkience M a wllness nn ma genmneness at
handwrilmg wnere that wllness can be sara to be aazuahlsd wun ma
person s'a|ed In have wrmen me urspureu handwnlmg ur stgnalure
[32] secnon 13 onhe Evidence Act 1950 allows Ihe court or a wuness
to oompanr a msnuled srgnamra arnanawnrrng wrnn rm genuma wrmng
co the aHsged wrner
[33] In Stale (Delhi Adm: seraciorr) v. Pan Rxm AIR [1919]
supreme Court :4 Sarkana J mnsrderad the vanous secmns of the
Indian Evidence An which oomarns plovvsruns sirnuar to tha| of
Malaysia He held as Ionows In remran to me woo! oi the nandwmirrg
ola Person:
' Just as m Englrsh Law, ma Inaran Evidence Ac!
Isnogrums Mo airacr methods alpmwng ma handwnlmg
al a person
(1) By an admrsston oflne person wno wrote it
(2) By lhe evrdance ofsome witness who saw 1! written.
11
IN Reflvwwvuilofilkslhyxu
)"NnI2 s.n.r nnnhnrwm .. used m mm as nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm
rhese are me bus! methods alpmol masa upsrf mm
are lnras other mods: olpmal by ownion Thaysls
m By ma ewdence ola nanawmmg exam {Section 45 ;
on By ma amance of a witness acquamzed with ma
nandwrwng bnna person who .s ssrdto mm wmlsn ma
wnlmg m quashon (Section 47 )
rm) ommon lormsd by ma Coullon mmpanaon made by
Me}! (section 73)
Allthesslhrss cognals mods: ovpraormvcm a plocess
nl campansnn In mode (0 ma comparison 1: mad: by
ma export of ma aiapmaa writing WWI me admvllsd
wr/(mg ol ma person who »a SAM In have wvfllsn ma
quaslrorved document In nu ma nompanson rakes ma
Iorm or a be/rel man the wunasa snlarlafns upon
comptmng ma wnnng m qusslton mm an exemplar
fanned m ms mmd Irom some prevrous knowledge or
rspofmve observance av ma handwnlmg ol ma person
concerned rn ma case of[m)‘ ma compansan Is made
by the Court with ma sample wmmg or exemplar
obtained by M from ma person concmau '
[34] As for the role M a handwnling expen « 15 must be noted (ha| the
Indian Conn went on to cannon as to «he admwssxbllrly nflhe handwvmng
experl and much was aarsmuy wcumscnbed as lcnoms:
' ms not lhe pmvince Dfthe expert to acids Judge
or Jury As rightly poinled ob: m nu. V Janss ILR 56 All
423: AIR 1934 All 273 live real Iunzlinn cl [he export
:5 m pm bofon on Cam! all ma manwfals, Iagevthev
x2
m wecpwvivuizuaxkxznyxn
_«wa.. am n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 a mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
with masons which induce hlm lo come to ma
concmuon, so me: me Court. nlthouqh not In
upon, mny four! In own Judgmenl by us own
ousemuon al thnse muemls, ommenly, :1 is not
pruper Iar Ihe Court to ask me expen to give me /inmng
upon any 0/me pssues, wnemer anew or /5151‘ because,
strvcl/y speekmg such Issues are rm me com 0: Jury to
aezemune me rmnawrmng upon’: runcuon rs to
aplm after a selemmc campanson 1:! me disputed
wmmg wnn an proved or edmmoa mmng wllh
rugani to me palm: of slmllnrhy and dlsslmllarlty In
me two sets 0! wrlklngs. me Caun should then
campnm me handwrlfings mm its own eyes for .
proper assessment ol the value or the lam!
emrenee . '[Emphas\s added]
[35] Remmmg to me mslant meuer, m ham 0! me xmnonant mredueni
of mtermon‘ “dwshoneslIy’ or “!raudu|en(Iy' lha| needs to In proven, the
accused submns me: the mgredmnl was ormusd mam (he churge and
ms, he vs severely premovced as mere is e drflerenca m law beaween
“d|shonesl|y" and “lvaudu|sn|ly“ Reference .s made to Rlllnlxl A
Dh|r|jl-|'I Liw ol Crlmu 24" Edlllon (Vulumu 2) where me learned
aulhm expwemea es lollows
‘There Is an ob»/mus difference between "d:shonssHy”
and -rmuaucemry" In oider to do a thmg dishonest/y
there must be Ihe mrenlion to cause wmgm /0:5 or
wrongful gem or uopeny, am m order to do a my
fraudulently I! IS no! necessary Mal Ihsra should be the
1:
IN Recvwwivailfilksllwxn
‘Nata em.‘ ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm
mlelllion to cause wronglui loss or wmrtg/ul gain ol
PVOWIY
[36] It is trite taw that in trarning charges agains| accused person/s,
the charge in question must he precisety tarrnuiated to irictude the
speciric accusation auams1 the accused This is in drder tor the accused
to know and have notice or the very nature ctthe charges at the tirst
oppurllmm/, so that they are being ierewerned with ciarity and certainty
the essentiet elements or ingredients that the prosecution has td
esteeiish against them in order to ensure that they are torearrned in
their dalertce tar the purpose at directing an the evidence eitciiisivety lo
the specihc charges (per zaniani A Rntiirn J (as he then west in Ellll
Md one V FFR011] i cu nut.
[37] This edun is at the considered view that the absence at the word
“dishones|\y“ nr -iraudutentv in the charge does not cause any
iriiscairiage ol ]us|tce ta the accused. it can be gleaned ircrn the notes
at pmceedings that the aemised was very aeie lo undetstand the charge
against him and to raise his detenee acedrdingty The drcsecutien tar
that iriatter rnust prove the eieinent oV“dtshonesflY‘ or “lraudu|enIiy' on
the part otthe accused beyond reasonable doubt and the coun mus|
make such a tindirig notwithstanding the Ingredient dt “dishonestly or
lrauduienlly" is net stated in the charge.
[sat However‘ having acknomedged that the issue at idrgery oi lhe
witi may tie ascertained by censiaenng whether the amused
* ried the wilt this court finds that the
tearned Magistrate has tailed to consider this very eseentiat ingredient
is. dtshonssly on the dart ot the accused. which niust be pmven by the
“dtshones|iy“ or -trauuutenti
in Recpwwvuilufilkxlnyxn
“Nate a.ii.i nnvthnrwm re used m van; i.e nflgtrinflly MIME dnnnvtlnl vu .riuiia pom!
proseouunn. the basis for I119 learned MagIs|raIa‘s flndlngs mat the
amused had lerged me Will can be seen m her grounds as loIlows'
‘[46] From ma awdenca adduced WI lha course onna
Ina/. anly accused nas me access ro ma vwllana na ana
nas knowledge or me existence ol the WI! Accused
knew Rex and um and agreed lo hsln Rex wan WIN
wllnaul charging any laa or opsn any fila ll! lna llnn Io:
ma wul mam is no plsparsllorl slgnmg lmll ln ma
acnused3 alfics as no wllnass prepared PW4
auandance was not planned and Rex and not
cormnumcala for such lmponnnl dooumsnl. No rwal
wlmess saan Rex Signed mg ml axcapl accusau
Accused was ma ona ma: surrender ma wm lo lna
lawyer appoinled by ma lamlly of Rex Thus‘ mm lna
Chsm ofswdsnces, [here Is In: on. mu/l1 nava accass Io
Will and ma vwl was kspl by ma accused. Such svarlts
could only aoncluda that aaausad forged ma slgrlalum in
ma vwl and ma: would be only lnfemrwe to be drawn in
ma case "
[39] ms coun finds Ihe above filmmg VS mlsplaoed. Awllnsss lo a will
need not know the mn|enlS of the will A sollcllar who had asslsled lrl
gwmg a drafl will la a lnend and who naa subsequently asslsled Ia
wilness me execullon vflhe wlll need nol charge nur open a me lame
same. The fact that PW4's presence In the accused: amce was not
planned ls Irrelevant
15
m fiscvwvlvuilulilkslhyxu
ma. s.n.l n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnllly mm: dun-mm VII mane v-mm
[AD] lne unchallenged lacls reveal mail me edcused aonriirned lnar lie
had asked PW4 io be a wlmess because FW4 nad known Rax
previously PWA came lo invlie lne accused lor lunch all me eccuseds
olrice and allnougn lnlllally reludanh lie nad llien agreed when we
accused lold nirn lnel il was Rex or Alwie as lie was known wno was an
lne omoe. PW4 did ncl deny ol Rexe presence al Ihe adcuseds ollice
runner, lrieie is no iequireinenl in law lor FW4 lo know lne conlenis ol
lne will or even know lne leslalor or me will
[411 The negalive lnlerenoe made by lne learned Megislrale whsrelha
accused is said lo be me only one wno knows aboul lne will as a copy
was keol wilri him and llieielore lie inusl be lne one who lorged lrie
signalure cl Rex‘ is again. clearly niisulaoed. The fact is, lne Idle Rex
had a copy ol lne Will loo so. lne accused was nol llie only one who
has me ccoy ol me will No orie knows ollne will oecauco ll is no: lor
lrie accused lo lell lne wliole world aocur lne will unlil Rsx‘s demise
man no had noliced or me lack llial Re>l's larnily was looking loreny
will or leslarnenl olfiex ll was me accused wnc had senl a copy cl lne
same lo lne solicilois lorlhe laniily This com is olllie considered view
being a solicilor lornicre lnan 1 3 years slarldlng al llielinie llie willwas
execmed by Rex in 2005, me accused would nor have taken sucli a risk
lo rils orolessional career lo lcrge a docunieril lo wnich he gains nolning
liorn i\ The accused can be descrlbed lo be a wnolly disinleresled
wilness in regards lo the wi
[421 In San vook cliiii (F) a. Anor v loo lng Chin @ Lee reek Seng
5. are [2005] 2 ulL.J 1‘ llia Federal coun in assessing lne issue on
loigery ie wlielner the coun ol Appeal erred in ereleinng lne diiecl
evidence or MU wilnesses ie a solicilor (DW2) and lire legal clerk
IS
in Rscpwwvuilufilkxznyxn
«wee s.n.i In-vlhnrwlll be used w my me nflglrlnllly MIME dnunvlnrll vu eFluNG pom!
(owe) wno witnessed me mu over me evident: ol me nanawming
experls sIa|ed as iouews.
‘v The Forgery ouesnen
31 This question also relates to me issue oldus execution
ofihe wiii anne deceased. on mix, the coun omnneai
said as follows‘
we nowtum to consider me issue: as re whelherlhsre was
due execulian of me will by the deceased The ieemeo
iudiciei commissioner /ound against me delendanis on lms
point on two main grounds First ne Iound Ihal ins
slgnnlurv on the win was no: ine deceased‘: andlhersfars
a forgery. Sflcami in: round that there had ueen cniy one
suesiing wilrlsss pvsssm‘ when execution lock piace and
lhsl lmznzlovs [here was noncompliance wim me relevant
Dmvisions onne Wills An!
32 me courr 0/Appeal men reviewed in some detail me
auioence on znis issue oidue execution. This is rel/scted in
paras 62 to so alihsiudgmenl nu Court omppoai (wk
me view me: the Nlnh com mid I-Ilod to conmm mo
alomonl armozin an Inn plrl of non Ming (owz) and
Chln Fong Lin mwa) in rupee: ultho nxlculion of Ibo
dncus-d’: will,’ that It did not Isk me quosllon Is to
why! pass/bu mauve In a two wnneuu would nu c
in concocung such a story :1 my took no intnnst
umkr an will nor In: ow: p-Id Iny significant
lmnlml for tho pnplrlllon er en. said will
33 Hera, counser ror the apps/rams G“ex!:ansd the
soundness of lhe ptoposmon or observauon, conrandrng
mar DW2 was aflemplmg to covarher mrslake: as aresrrn
alhsrinexpsnoncs, re ydrrng, /oorrsn sndmo huslmg vwm
Isspecl‘ we do not accept rnrs arms marry, mo
avrdanco snows mar nwz nad been An legal pncllcl
In! About nun yur: at tho rnmrm time. she was
obviously nor a novice. In any ownr, ovnn accapung
her lnaxparlenca. given the llama! zlrcumslnncns In
nus case, 1: rs anukary. In am View, um owz would
mm mun such an enormous rrsu to her prarasstonar
carur. Moroovar, n Is a rnamr orprurosslonar rnoramy
and so its standard would nor on rnaasurod by we
ungm or ono'4 pncflcn Evaryrhlng consrdmd. we
and lo agru wmr ma obmvauons oaprussod by the
Court oIAppuI In an Iollowlng him:
Once on tvldmcn ol ow: nnd own an c-ruruuy
scnmnuod and mud Agnmst mo grnblblllrln or ma
us. n is lggmnk am [hex urn wholly dlalntorurod
witnesses. TIMI! mdencs may be nfelz mad uggn
and agar to have bun acted ugnn by me Ium-d
1-rdmalcornrnrssrorror. ow: amnded on the deceased
won his Instructions ground a mu In accardance
with those Inszrucuon nd mndod to m uocuflon
d Hilts an or that will owz and Dl/W, tssunod ma:
me deceased was ermre/y mud and mentally alert born at
the me ofgn/mg /nslrucl/ans and at me nrne arsrgnrng Ins
wrll wa find no good mason for trust two wnrrossos In
IN ReGvWP7vdE:IuB|x;zDyxD
more Sum ndnwhnv Mu be used M mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm VII arwum pm
have concocted WE/I srovy as nemm of mm hid
Inylhlng to gain mun doing so." [Emphasns added]
[431 The -zueenan ye was there any raasnn [or me accused to hug:
me wm What motive could me accused mm (0 Verge me Vale Rex‘:
swgnalura on \he WHI wnen there ws no suggeshon an an (hat he would
sland to gam enytmng lrorn nne wmv Tnere us no avidenoe man the
accused naa made any farm ul 1manc|a\ or muneiary gam mam Rex uv
any onne xauere vanuly member Whatever uanepneu after me Gram
av Fmbale belween Rex‘; wue FW3 and ms bro|her DW3 are wnouy
Irvekantanl mlhe Issuewhelherlhe accused was gumy as perms charge
[44] Moms vs Indeed rslsvanl harem The Cow‘ umnpeal m Lee mg
Chinq @ Ln Tack Song u Gan Vook Chin 12am] 2 MLJ 91 raised
me same quesnon as |a me molwz er lwu defendanfs mnesses DW2,
me sohcuar and her clerk (owe) whu anenaea lo the preparallun and
me anesoauen of me impugned wm Gopal sn Ram JCA (as he men
was) slated as vcucwe
‘Frrsr, me evrdelvce er pwz and ow: which we have
already summanzed. Here, me learned judge failed to
apply Illa can-Ict lusts to determine IIII clbdlhllliy OI
lhl two wltnuus. HQ did nar Ask hlmsetllhe crucial
question‘ whll mollve did these two witnesses II vs ta
concoct me my Ibaut me maklu or the by the
deceased? Nollllor look in lnlensl under the wm. And
is Mr moms pointed out during ergumem, owz-e
Ilrm reeelvea me pnltry sum on me more llnn msau
for preplrlng And Imzsting the deceased’: win. As in
m
IN fiecpwwivazauilxxzuyxn
-we Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm ue mwmnmly mm; dun-mm vn mum pm
:3 law: In concnlmd, em was merely n elem ln - Ilrm
ol sollcllols Ind rlrm appears to bl no motiv-
wrrmmyor for nor la I-brlcllo mo mm concumlnq
ule execuklun enm wlllby nu docn.Iul.1.'
[45] The unellallengea evlderlce ol llre accused eannel be
disvegardad and musl be aceeplsd The lacl Isl me only person wne ls
an eye wrlness lo lne Signing or me wrll is nene olhsr bul lne accused
and we learned Magislrele lor lhal mailer had made lnal rlncllng whale
sne slalea
‘No real wllness seen Rex slgned the Mll except the accused‘
[45] the aeelleecls enaenee was nevu challenged by me
pmseclfllon. The evldenoe :7! me necusea ls reproduced below
‘O Please elaborate on how me srgrllrlg ollne vwll (Exhlhil
P-5} look place er your o/Vice on la 6.20057
A' On l3 5 2005, Rex came lo my arree al Amara & Ho
el DJ-15, Pangsapurl lrnpran Kala, Jalan Kg Allap.
50460 Kuala Lumpur during lunen hour
l was srmng in my room al that me. My room rs small ll
has a (able and chali lor me lo sll ln lronl olme mere are
3 chairs ler clients lo srl on my lell ls a wall ollhe room
and on my rlgnlls lne mam daa
l mulled Rex to come lnlo my room Rex came VI and sal
acmss llre leble ln lronlolme on me clner chair closeslla
me well Rex then showed me P5. lnollee mar P5 is all type
wrmen wlln all the parilculars been msened ln ll.
lo
we Smnl luvlhnrwlll re flied m van; .. nnglnnllly sun. dun-mm VII nFluNG palm
[7] The campllmanl. one Nya Aye Aye (PW3) who Is from Myanmlv
Wu mamed m Rex smoe1111 was
Is] on 1.3 2006. Rex passed on.
[91 Aecurdmg to PW3. Rex en: mi weave any wm Ths [army
members slatted lo locklcr any WI“ and Iestamem a1me\aIe Rex PW5
was man appomled by PW3 cp mmale proceedmg lov Iener of
admlnislralxon.
[10] Subssuuemly. me vernuy members av me lale Rex had advertised
nouee .n me newspaper seeking vpr any peny me would nave known
pvany mm by me late Rex and |o rever me manenp Messrs Faun. Ngah
a. Neasa. Advocates .5 scanner:
[1 41 The accused havmg made aware wf Rex s uermse had lnrwarded
the origina\ copy pnne will to Messrs. Faun. Ngah 5 Neasa. the lawyers
ac1m9(orthelam\Iy of me Vans Rex
[12] Mssrs. Faun. Ngah 5. Neasa men apphed tome Kuala Lumpur
mgr. cpun var gram pv probate and m [ms regards. new the aeeusee
and PW4 affimed me amdaws tor the sam purpose span the accused
arm PW4 averted Ina! they had wmnessed me Iale Rex srgmng P5. me
WIN (the ' ' I.
[13] on 19 7.2006. me Grant cl Frobale was Issued by me Kuala
Lumnur H\gh com and Rex's mower, ow: Is me execulor M me '
m ReGvWP7vuiIo!lk:ZDh0
«we. s.n.r mmhnrwm be ....a e may r... paw-y em. dnuumnl y. mum WM
Rex rsquemu my help to wtlnsss mm 5/gnmg nrs Will I
agreed In do so
Araboul the same me, my cnuanooct Irrend Subiamamam
a/I Sudram (Sabra) (SP4) cams Irllo my allme In VWVIS me
lo! Iuncn
Whsn sum Ism) came rnIo my ulfce, he walked Inm my
room straighl and he saw Rex seated (here
IIequesIed Subra Io become a wrmsss Io Rex srgmng ms
wm. Imna//y Subrs was reluctant as he Ina not racogmze
Rex When I told Subra (hat this was Rex De A/wrs, Subva
nodded his new sad that he knew Rex bu! ecu/drI‘l
recogmze Rex. Subra men agreed to be a witness. sum
men set In me man c/uses! lo Ine dool
After Rex $911611 2 comes :2! hrs MI I lhen pm my chop
Vasanla A/L Amalasekera and sagnsd as a wflness.
ImmedIaIeIy I gave II In Subra.
sums Is a Isl! handar. Ha Iaok ma mu (P75) and wrote Ins
ruII name ‘Subrannmam s/o Sundram‘ logamsr with hrs
idenmy card number “550.'!1&V0~5B1.'!“on II Subra man
signed Ins 2 names al me wIII above me name and
Iaenn/Icavron cant number as a witness rne execunon 0/
me MI! (P5) took a law mrnuzss.
I gave Ru 3 copy ol Ina I/WI Ikspl Ina mm, copy ol Ins
WIII as an olnce copy
0' mi Subra know Rex?
A: Ves. Subra and I used lo play badmmlon In ms
Buddnrsl (ample M Bnckfie/I15 with a law people
Incrumng Rex and ms bmmar, Maurice In Ina Iasos
11
IN Rscvwwlvuilulilkxlhyxu
_«wu.. sum Iunhnrwm .. u... m mm he unmnm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
0 Do you know wny snma drd not rscogmzs Rex?
A: Rex had aged and looked a la! oma: syncs ma Irma we
used to play oaamrnton at ma Bmidhlsl temple m
Bncklta/ds, in ma 1930;
Q In what may was rm wr//s»9nad7
Rex signed Ina ww first. rmen signed as a wrlness and
was followed by sm
0. In what aapacny were you signing as In ma page
malked as Page A o/Exn/bu P-57
A Istgnsd as a wvlness to ma w///.'
>.
[471 It 13 vmponanl to note Ihal ma acwsed had leshfied that lhere was
no mlannon/nmniva on his Dan in vmga |he Wvll The accused slalsd
-0- What do you have m say about ma charges ma:
have oaan Ian1 agamsl you’)
A I was wmrlgly charged roran aflence wnrcn I an: no!
commit man: not forge Rex: win Ida not have any
reason or molwe 10 do so / only asststed Rex by
preparing a man will for rum and men becammg a
Witness 1:: ms wr//. I have nolhmg to gain by
conunnung any forgery ol Rexk mu I was only
helping a menu by Dscammg a wnnass to the will. /
can confirm [hat Rex signed me will in Imnl of me
and spa on me dale srara-1 m me mu, that Is
13.6.2005."
m fiscvwvlvuilulilkslhyxu
3%.. an.‘ n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my n. annmun am. dun-mm wa mum v-mm
[as] The Vealned Magrslrale larls Io evaluale lhe above aelenae by me
accused ana lne lauure to do ac is lalal bscause dlshmesly on me pan
of the accused ls cru::la\ Io prove me charge at lorgery
[49] Furlhermoler lne accused's varslon orlacxs nrdelsnee was never
challenged by the Dmsecuhon In cross exanrlnanon. Vn Ayoroml Hllon
v Publll: Frmolzlnar [2005] l MLJ 699,015 Cuun cl Appeal In flndmg
man mar ma Hugh Courl Judge had lauea lo oonslder me lacl lha| the
nralenal pan cl lne delenca ol lne accused was nu! sublect la any
cross-examlnallon had ham
'(2) The accused ouglll lo have been cmss-examined
an me aelenseauvanced by me: and me iarlure ulthe
prosecution la do sa anrounrs la an accepoance cme
material pans afher defense This nrcanr that she has
esmblislled that She had no knowledge Ma! W715! was
found rn Iver custody were in /acr dangerous drugs mm
the results mar mere rs no ewrtence 10 snow thal she was
in possession ollhem." [Ernpnasrs added]
[50] upon scrulrny ol lne noles a1Drooeedlngs,Ims Coun agrees lnar
wllh lne learned counsel lor Ihe amused mal are class examinamll on
me accused can be summanzed as loHows'
. whether lha accused had openea I melcrpraparrng
(ha Wlllr
why ma accused mu nu| give a wpy ml the wm ll:
PW; ma wlls al the Ia|e Rex:
iii wiiy lrie accused did rial cnarge lees V04 ine dmfllng
o1 line will:
w. FW4, who was me olhel wflnals lo irie execullon oi
will was nei a close lnend oi ine laie Rex, and
V A lawyar inusi npen a me even inougn me work was
done preborie
[51] This Ccurl finds that all may above crussasxamlnallons are
Irvelevarll and do mi in any way pioved thal ine aeaused nad ldiged ine
vwll on 13.6.2005.
[52] At no iinie me issue at iriienliori or motive on lrie parl oi me
aeeused was enallenged by me pmseclman Tnerelore. me aocuseds
veisiori oannei be ieieeied laemiise when we praseeinion chooses noi
lo Cr0SS—EJlarlIIne a wilness an a niaieilai lael. ilie inleience would be
irie pieseculion accepis iiie evidence (see ran Klm Lue v Public
woseciiidi [1911] I MLJ 114; The accused nad given a deiailed
aoooiini dn wnai napoened beiween nim and Rex ai ms office in his
wiiness sialemeni and in me aosenee of inens rea on me pail oi the
aocused whldi remained unieouiied, ii must inereiuie oe accented.
Trie learned Magisirale failed lo address inis issue. Tins is an error in
law and in iacl on we paid cl lrie learned Magisiraie.
[531 lnleresiingly, one would men ask, now eduld ilie accused loiged
Rex's signaiuie wnen ine aocuseds ieaiiried inai ne nad no prior
knowledge wnai Rex‘: signaiine lucked like and mai ne was nol even
lainiliar wiiri Rex‘s signalure This evidence was noi even challenged
Tiiere is no evidence lo show irial lne accused had seen or riad in
possession Rex‘s sarnple slgnalure oi inal ne was larniiiar or have
knawledga ol lne slgnalure. The lrlvesligallng omeer lor lnal mailer nad
eenllnned max mere was ne euldenee lnal lne accused nad pessesslon
ol Rex‘s slgnamle, samples 9! speulmens Sn (here ls no evidence in
all el how lne accused could nave lorged Rex's slgnelure.
[54] The nandwnllng experts‘ PW1 and PW2 lddk me View ma: lnere
ls a dlllerenee ln lne slgnalure in lerrns el cenaln charac1erls|ics in me
sienelure on me Wlll and lne eenmles whxlsl DW2 lasllfied lhel lne
slgnelure III lne wlll and lne samnles are snfliclenlly slmllar ln elner
wards‘ lrdrn lne evidence dune handwrlling expens, I| can be deduced
lnel lne signatures in me WIII and me samples are nel edrnplelely
drllerenl. Tnerelme, ll lndeed lne accused nad ldrged lne lale Rex‘s
sigrlalure ne rnusl be lanuller or have knowledge or seen lhe lellers
slgrlaulre 10 be able Io large lne slgnelure. No ems-exarnrnalldn en
lnls lssue was pm lo lne accused Age-nl me learned Magulmle (Ills lo
ervalua|e and conslder (Ills erueel nleee ol evldenca I e lnel lne
accused nad no pner xneuledge whal Rex's signature even leaked Ilka
and "HS seam, ls anelner error on me pan dune learned Megrelrale
[55] In evaluallng me findlngs made by me courl or Appeal lll regards
lo lne alleged signalure ol lne deceased sald lo be «urged Illefein and
one general gulde lo lhe judlclal appreciauon cl nandwrlllng evidence
againsl direcl euldence, me Federal coun In an Yook Chin (P) 5
Anor v In Inn chln (suplal, had agreed with me nndlngs rnade by the
Court of Appeal lhal dlrEEl evidence ham a dislntelesled wllness who
nas seen me slnnlng of me will rnusl be prelerred egainsl me
handwrlllng expen 0p<l1Icl1.The Federal coun scaled Ihe Iallowlrlgs:
25
ru fiecvwvlvuilufilkslhyxu
mu. Smnl In-vlhnrwlll e. u... m may he nflnlrrallly Mlhln dun-vlnrll VII nFluNG Wflxl
‘:4 In. Court n!Aapsul men 4195!! wan mo mgn Cowl‘:
nnmng or nxgery es regems the allegsd sfgnalum 11/ me
deceased on me mu Hera, caunsal for me apps!/anlx
contended that me Court of Appeal comm/(lad a
fundamsntsl snot m hmdmg that Hrrsct svrdencs rnewlamy
prsvar/s over hamiwrilmg experrs opinmn which should
Ihslelole oe dysmunlsd‘ He arguadlhallhalapploach was
wrong and me re//ance by me com 0/ Appeal an me
Enghsh case oINsw1on v Rmkslts (1951) 11 ER 731 was
misplaced becauss m me: pass livers was no clvai/ange to
me dune! awdencs wnron was dasmad to have neon
accepted (sea paras 5s and 59 awn»; wnuen sulzmtssran)
He Iurmer contended that a court had m have rsgard Io all
me evidence be/ere cone/udlng on me genumansss L)! a
signature‘ dnswmg atlenlforv to Dr Snanmuganallvan V
Fsnasamy [1997] 3 MLJ sv, Cmmsel made rslarsnns Ia
Dara 109 onne com o(APPea/'5/udgment wmcn slates‘
We consldu It la be a wol/-oslab/Ishod gtrvoral guide
to ma judicial nppncmlan of handv/Ililng ovmnca
man when men I: A sharp connm bclwun mo dlncr
Iestlmnny 1:! n dlslnnmslad wnnnss on me out side
no nnn an hlndwrlllng experl en the alive! I: to me
aenulneness oflho one-nlan of: document. men ms
- safe course for n com to pnfonm dlmtmdence
35 Agsm, me Cour! oIAppaaI cued Newton V Rmkem. /1 rs
perhaps psmnen! In nols me: me Com! 0/ Appeal also
draw suppall Imm me Indian case of Kamsswala Rae v
Suryapiakasarao A/R V962 AP we VI parliculav mo
following passage oiiho /udgmsni‘ lharsin.
rho opinion ofs nonuwniing expel! is, no daubl, admissible
undsl s 45 (Evidence Ac!) Whn vn/uo is to be attuned
no that opinion in a given cast is iiowom, onmiy a
dlihrom inmei. An expert’: opinion with mom Io
nlmtwrillnq mus! ohnys on received with grant
soniion. There csminiy mny be. andperliaps are cases
whm iiio handwriting oxooira oplrilan may in oi
nuisance to lhn calm In coming lo o conclusion as to
tho gsnulnlnou oi oispuioo honowming. But Ilia on
Lil Iormlng opinion by comparlsnn oi hzndwrtllng is
-sseritlnlly emplrlnl In cliaracler Ind enur is seldom
Insepurahie rmin such aplnlans. Where however, llu.-I:
is uiioouno lruslwnrlliy evidence olpersans who Ind
mooiiy seen the signing or ma document by me
lestllrlx, It is not riccossary In nior to OI niy on the
expert opinion.
36 in emphasizing Inn pan iioiisoa noon, tht co-in of
Apponi roan Nu vim ihni inc High Court hm moo in
unmsonoiaiy rejecting the evidence or two lttestlng
witnesses ow; Ind ow: who noo ooiooiiy witnessed
the execution of in: wiii by Ilia docoosod. nu co-in
obviously regarded iimn u oinci and trustworthy
wlrnosses. Moreover, when the shlfemenl oi the court
chad zhave is examlni.-d in the canrexl oi the
observations made in xamoswaio Rao no iiow can be
amibulad to that statement’ [Emphasis added]
IN Recvwvivazaualxxzuyxn
-non Sum ...n... M“ be used m mm o. nflmnhflly mm; nan-mm VII mum wim
[56] Henoefarlh, nms com 15 taken to |he swdance 0! PW1‘ PW2 and
DW2 and u vs -mperanve (o [aka guidance «mm Ihe aumonhes on
evidence 07 handwrmng expert.
[57] Firstly, m Dr snanmuganuman v Pnriasamy slo snhambarnm
Flllal [1991] 3 MLJ 61‘ the Federal Ooun reminded as fnllawsz
‘It Is um law that an principal object of expert
evidence is to Jssisr the manic Iorm Its own opinion
An expert should give his reasons. The mun 15 Mo
Iinal amner. not the experts or eyewitness Dssprte me
wealth or authonlies avai/an/e on this subject, the errors
that appear rn judgments mvlle us to elaborate on rrns
malls].
The Supreme Court of India‘: deorsron m Murarilal V Slam
of MP AIR 1930 sc 531 at p 534 rs 4/usrrauve and some
paragraphs of ms /udgmsnl are warm Ieproducmg:
14) We mu firsl consider me argument‘ a stale argument
anen heard, parncular/y In mmmal cams, that me oprruon
evidence ala IVEIIUWHHIIQ expert shauld not be acted upon
without substantial corroboralian We shall presently pom!
out how the argunrenr Carma! be [usmied an pmlcrpls or
precedent. We begm wnn me abservarron that me exyarhs
no accornpncs There rs no nmsmcnon lor condemning Ins
opmionevrdenae to the same class of evidence as that of
an accompflce and msrs! upon conubaranon True. I! has
oocasronally been saw on very high aumanvy ma: u would
be hazardous to base a conwaron solely an me aplman of
a hanflwntmg expert. But, tin hazard in accepting the
u
Nuns snrm n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nnwun mums dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
opinion at" any expert, nandwriting export or any other
kind at expert, is not because airports, in ganerei, are
unreillbie witnesses — tne equaiity oi crediniiiiy or
incrediaiiity doing one wnicit an expert snares with aii
other witnesses — but benuse aii humun[ut1gmenk is
ieiiibie and an expert may go wrong because ai some
deiect of nbsuvallon, some nvor oi pninlsus or
nonest mlslnko of conciusion. rna more deveidped end
ins more perfect a science, me iess ine chance oi an
iricoriscl opmiarv and me converse ii me scieiice IS iess
dsvelaped and imper/eci. Tne Science oi idenlflicalion ol
linger-plmt nas attained near peeveciion and the risk or an
incorrect opanron I5 pracncaiiy non-exisleril on tire orhvr
nand, tne science oiidentiiicatien ainandwriting is not
nearly so pcmct and tire rm Is, lherifon, itigim. Bu!
mat is a /ar uy from doubling the Opinion die nandwnting
expert as an invariable ruia and insisting upon substantial
conoaoranan in every case ndwseeuer tne aplnlon may
be aacited by tne saundesteireasons ii is Iiardlylaiito
an expert to VIEW ms Dplmafl with an Initial suspicion and to
treat min as an inle/ior son ci witness . His opinion has
lo be tested by thu accepteaiiity oi tne muons given
ay Mm. An expert depases and not decides iiis duty
‘Is In Ilimlsh lhe [edge with the necessary scientific
criteria fw teslmy in. accuracy oi III: conclusion, so
as to anaaie me iudge to form his own independent
iudgnteni by tite appiication or these criled-I to [he
iacts proved in evidence’
22
IN ReGvWP7vdEJuB|x:ZDyxD
wane Sum am... Mu be used m mm a. anamu-y mm; dun-mm VII muuc wim
15) F/om me eeniesi limss, nouns have ieoeiyea iiie
opinion of experts As iong ego es 1553 ii was seie in
Buckley!/Rice rnonios (1554) 1 P/cwderi 115 iiineiiers
arise in oiii law wnicn concern oinei sciences or remiiies.
we coi-nnioniy apply ior iiie eiii oi iiiei science or iaoiiizy
wnicn ii concerns riiis is e noinineniiebie ining in our iew.
For inaiepy ii appears lhal we do no: iiisniiss eii oiiier
science: Dill our own, pm we approve oi insni and
encoiirege xneni as mings woiiiiy oiconirnendeiion.
is; Eiipen fesflmuny is min nkvlnl by s 45 oi ciio
Evidence Act and wiieie the min nu to fonn on
opinion upon ii palm as in Identity oi iiendwriiing, (ho
opinion ol a poison ‘spnclllly skilled’ in questions 1.:
lo iiicnmy oriinnciwming' is oiipnssiy inndc - nluvnrit
fact . The Evidence Act Ilse/I (5 3) tells us inei '3 ieci is
saidlo be proved wnen, aiiei considering me mallarbsfors
ii, me noun eniier believe: /1 to exist or considsrs fls
existence so probable me: e pmdenlman oiigni, iinaer iiie
circiimsienoes nf iiie paiiicuini case, in ac! upon me
siippoeiiion me: II 91051:’ /I is necessary to occasionaiiy
remind Guise/Ves oi mis inlalplatatinn cisiise in Evidence
Aci iesi we aci on anmoiai Slandald alproo/no! wannnied
by me provisions oi ine Aci. . ii is also in be nallcad that
s 45 oi me Evidence Act makes iocis, noi oiiieiwise
ieieyani, ieieyeni ii iiiey eiiopon or are /rmonsislem wnn
me opinion of experts, when siicii opinions are reievnni.
so, corioooraiion may no! invariahly be insisiea upon
peiore acting on the opinion oie nanuwming expert and
JD
in Recpwwvuilualkxznyxn
)"NnIn s.n.i iuvihnrwm be used m yam .. nniimiiiy MVMS dun-mm n. nF\uNG pans!
[:4] PW: challenged ma wm and denied ma! Rex had ever sugnea the
vwn. PW3 mac a sun In chaflenge |he wm and me smlwas disrmssed
wllhom a mu |naL
[15] In the present mailer, the learned Magxshale «mud that the
nmsec
pmened against the accused under secnon 467 aflhz Penal Oode
succeeded m pmvmg beyund ueasenabxs doubt me charge
Summary 91‘ Iho mgmmn Flndlngs
[15]
on the evidence gwen by the handwnlmg experts called by both the
proseculwon and the defence They ale PW1‘ PW2 and DW2 However.
me learned Maglsvale prelened me ewdenbe D1 PW1, a Science
Dlfioer with me Forensic Deparlmem 01 me Chemisky Deparlmem
Malaysia and PW2, a Fnvenslc Document Examiner 21 the Forensic
Department of lhe Raye! Malaysian Police accordmgly on the ground
that mm axpens were able to explam me characlensllc or me signamre
The learned Mag\sua|e1uslIfied as TOIIDWSI
In assessmg me avmenoe, the learned Maglshale relied neavuy
139] ms sxperls slated ma: ongmal documents would be
the best sslscuon la make companson comperad to
pholacopred documsnls Haws:/sr, mm are enough
spec/men wgnaluws to allow PW2 Ialorrn her opvmon. The
com accepled me opmro/1 by FW1 and PW2 when: mm
oflhs sxpsris wera able Ia exprain me characteristic suns
stgnamra DW2s opmran was mom on Iindmg ol the :ly)e
and shape and baby! of [he persan who stgnsd the
signature wrmouz ems lo Adsnltly what was the
churaclenslrcs 0/ me srgnalure, The Court believed mar
IN Rscpwwvuilufilkxznyxn
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
[hale need be no inilial Suspicion am, an the iacis ale
palhcu/al case, a cam may require corraoorairnn 0/ a
varying degree There can be no hard and res: rule, DUI
nomrng will justify me reiaction oi ms opinion aian expel!
supponsii by uncha//arigsd rsasaris an the sole ground
moi r: is no! corrubolated The nppmncn an aunt! while
daallivy with the opinion oia handwriting upon snouid
no to procud cauriousiy, pram (ht muons for ma
oplnlon, consider all ocnar ielevanl evident: and
decide nnniiy xo accept or reject it.
(1 1) We are /rrrniy oi me opinion mar mere is no mie uiiaw.
nor any rule a/piuderice which has crysiaiirzea into a mic
o/iaw, ma! OPVNOII evidence ola handwriting expert must
never be sued upon, uniess subslanlia//y conoboialed
am, iuving ciuc roqnrd to ma Impumct nature of mo
sclmcn alldnnllflutlon ol hlndwrltlng, inc Approach,
.5 in inuicmu earlier. shnuld be arm a! clurlon.
Reasons ior in. aplnlon inusl be carelully prubed and
examined. All allier relevant evidence must in
considmd. in appwnflala cases, corroboration may
bu sougm. in casts man an msons no: an opinion
If! convincing ma mere 15 no roiinnio Ivldonco
lhruwlng . daubt, the uncormbarafed testimony oi.
handwriting expel! may be accopind. Thorn cannot be
any Infloxlblo lulu on n in-mr which, in tin uiurnare
a alysls, Is no more men .1 qumion of tvsflmonlal
nrcigin." [EmpI1as\s added]
u
SIN Recvwwivaziifiixxzuyxn
'NnI2 Sum ...nn.. WW he used m mm in nnn.u-y mm; dun-mm n. mum pm
[53] The Court oi Appeal in cnua Sung Sam Realty sdn and V Say
Chang sdn mm is ors And Other Appeals [2012] 7 cu :31 in racing
wilh Mo ooniiiciing experl evidence on irie cause oflhe euiiapse ei trie
nrsi piaintiirs wall slated iiie ioiiovnngs
-[45] in treating confllctlny expert avldancc, the
court, besides examining the eredi ‘lily of the experts,
sriouid also examine the scientific grounds and (acts
nliad by the experts and wimiier, when taken in
lotaliry, the inrurences drawn from moi! findings are
sound or otiierwise (see sirigapore Finance Ltd V L/m
Kan ivgem (spore) Pte Lid 5 Eugene HL cnari Associates
miird Pan;/)[19B4]1 ms 3;
/49] in aurjudgmenl iiie learned High Caun‘ judge fell
into serious error in iaiiing to give adequate
eonsideralinn tn the evidence ortne defendants ' expert
witness DW7, wrio riad prepared triree reports an tne
cause or tire collapse ii! the firsr piaintirrs retaining
wall Two of the reports were based on riis iniiesrigaiian an
sire. and me iiiird report was based on drawings suppiied
or me nrsi piainiiir.
[50] we iisiie carslufly sxaminsd Ihs reports of this witness
and we are 0! the View inatriis evidence as to me cilllse
al are collapse is more credible as opposed re tne
evidence or tne pIaintirrs' Ixpcn witness, FW5."
[Emphasis added]
Al
in ReGvWP'1vdEJflli|k:1DyxD
-we s.ii.i ...r..i MU be used M mm Die nvW\ruH|Y MW; m.i.n VII AFVLING WM!
[59] In Pubnc Pro aaiiioi V Mohnmld xanin hln vauin mm 1
MLJ u, Hasriini Yeop A sani J (as he lhzn was) slaled lhe Vulluwlngs
‘I1 is ufllodlnw that Ividtricu by - hlndwrning upon‘
can new be concluiiva zioniisii it is anly opinion
ll/I'd1n€D— see /shwari Piasaii V Mohd /55 MR 1953 sc
1729
me assessment 0/ svidence ol handwm‘ir7§ exnsrfs was
also dean wim in iniiai uair V Einpemi AIR 1931 Lannie
4125 413 /n Iharcase in is a Velikala Raw(1913) in? as
Mad 159, 14 IC us, is El LJ 225 was cued and aisi: a
qiioiarion iroin Dr Lawson‘: work on the Law o/Expen and
Obfmon Evidence, which runs as fa//own‘
‘The evidence oi the genuineness ol (he siynalurs based
upon me comparison ei nanciwming and of me opinion of
experts is anlil/ed lo pionei consideration and wswhl. It
must in confund howvvor man in is ol the iamsr
ordor al eiiiinnco or 0! in. mos! uniillishckory
ciimciai. We iniian iii-2 in mi: apinion eiipiiiinnc-4
Iilymarl unikw wilh ma iniiiniinis aim. I-gill pmhssion.
ouii kinds 0/ nvlduvco aiiinmiid in a caim IN: is in-
most l4Ii8llI.IflOI0¢Y. It I: so wnk Ind docnpit as
ac-miy to imam - pin“ in our system or
iuiispmaoim -
in Slikanl V King Emperor AIR 1953 so 1723, rwo learned
judges oime Allahabad Higii coin: ansaived inei
'10 ban a conviction upon in. lvtdorlci u! .n "pm
in iunawming I1, I: n gonmi mic. my uns.r..'
[Emphasis aimed}
[so] Returning to iiie instant maner, the iearnea Magistrate iouria tha|
PWL PW2 and DW2 have adequate skiiis arid experience in anaiysing
nanawniing inciuaing signatures. However, the teamed Magistrate was
Mlhe opinion that PW2 was better equipped with better equipment and
kncwiedge in tanning her opinion Acmrdlng tn the learned Mlgisfile.
DW2's mslhadology was corivenlionai because he used magnifier,
oiienay and microscopic wriiisi PW2 used specirai mmparalorto which
better View at the signature can be obtained. In iegards Io PW1, the
learned Magistrate iouna man even inougn she did not use any
equipment In examine, PW1 had cleariy took Into both signaiuves and
was zbie In see the ditferenizes and similarities withoul the aid ofany
equipment
[51] PW1 look mree is; working days to prepare ner reimn Nu
equipmeni was used
[52] um look almul one (1) to Ma (2) months in examine irie
questioned signature on lhe win and the specimen signatures He usea
several equipment in conducting ms analysis.
i aesisoope BS302DT
Pmimcior
Overiay
Grid Ruler
Hand Magninei
in necpwmamaimayiin
“Nuns s.ii.i in-vihnrwm be used M van; i.. nflginniily Mimi dnunvilrit VII nFiuNG pom!
[53] DW2 has produced his reporl won se|s out (he anawsus and
camparison or the queslmnod sngnalura an the w-u wulh I0 ulher
s<gna|ures of Rex. n can be seen tram me generex may 01 a blown up
imagewlagmfied 4 «mes orA()0%)oHhe qussnoned slgnalure. venous
lemwmlngtes. Vabels at venous strokes and forms were marked
snowing the characlensncs o1Rex‘s signature Delailed reasons were
gwen by DW2 [or usmg all the equipment menlvoned \n ma above -n ms
(eshmony DW2 reeened Ins cunduslnn ener making mumpie
oomparisorvs In numemus onans in ms expen room
[54] In gmng nis opmion Ihal me quesucned swgnalure vs hke\y m be
genume, nwz answered as €aIlcws:
ADS .Can you exmern your findmg: m para 4
sxs Because o/me presence offine dem//s, a/nnese are Iound
In me quesnoneu stgnalure and /rkery me queslronsd
srgnalure ts gsnmne
ADS ‘The prssancs olfinsr dale:/s mprsssnls whsl?
sxs men: Is likely zo be genums sagnatura
ADS 'S:mr/aliliss in pege 11 Here mu say altogether I found 73
matclwvg egnamres. cen you tell us m brref, wnex ale me
srrm/enzres you found?
SKS :Pags 15, me curvature oflop curve
ADS wnwng mm/amen! It szene at page 15 What you mean by
wnrrng movement?
sxs :Tne curves are graceful 01 not rne stailgoes szrergnr ocwn
and no wavering Arse eanzrnurzy and coherence The
coherence means that me pafl: ere moss Iugslhsr
rn Rsflvwwvuilufilkslhyxu
_«we.. s.n.r n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m my r... nrW\rrnU|Y em. m.n.n VII murm perm
ADS page 15, maybe you can grva us an sxampoe
sxs The more angular mm is Iuund rn x4 them Is a sngnt cum
and there IS an angular mm
ADS .wna: does lms snow Io you
sxs .‘Thu abrupt tum rs axpectad //I o Abrupt mm 15 when (here
Is 3 snstgm and smmn curve.
ADS sltuw us when is [ms laurrd in Q
sxs cum 4 Thslu Is a straight stroke and sudden curve S1 1,
stmrgm stroke and /nlemal cans/slency
AKS what does Ilus mdlcals?
SKS It 75 normal Page 15, pom! no.39 There ts a flaw The
wnung movsmsnl IS same but pm vanalton 0/ hand
pmssum
ADS Show us a and tell us why you say is smmar
sxs Same mcwsnlcm humus! dmmu vsnalmn. "
[55] where PW2 Is concerned apart iron: using the Vuisu Spectral
Comparator woo‘ tter assessment was based on a naked eye
evaluatton
[561 The tnvasltgaung cmcer PW7 provtded I0 speumens sIgna|ure
to PW2 and «we were photocopy spectmens (P-Illa) and P41 (12))
Accurdmg to D—52, a document which lays down the requtretnents rot
examlnaunn otaocumentstmm the Chemistry DeparImenlolMalsIysta.
me documents sent tar exammatton must be tn the farm at ongmal
documerfl and that
:5
m fiscpwvlvuizuatksznyxn
_«m.. s.n.t n-vthnrwm .. t... M van; .. mn.u.y mum: dun-mm VII .ntm pans!
vonurnen eeiinan iomsiai atsu seiinen karbon Iidak
sesuer uriluk perbandingan den skan merusjasksri
psmeriksssn"
[67] In oinerwords, a Dhnwoovy deeurneni is rnapprepnaxe to be used
ior oampanson and WM aiieoi me exainrnanon This was agreed upon
by PW2.
[ea] PW2 then iorrned her opinion pvermsed on me phclooopy
speoimenl e. P1I»|a) The remaining rnne specimens ieumi which only
eight (5) were ongma\sj were abandoned by PW2 In ner ana\ys|5
{G9} u cannm be disputed Ihal vanaliuns .n one or more genuine
signature aulhured by me same person are bound |o nappen rne
cenns auenuon is bmugm to we meranue auxnorod by nu. Wllson R
Hlrrllon enuueo ‘Suspect Documanls mairsaienmia Examlnallon
(:~ lndlan Rlprlnl) znna" slates as laflows:
"As no Mo genuine sianeruiee in identical, It follows
Hill in eigneiuree, s with hlndwriling in generei, e
certein nmounl or neiurei nritliori in inner cie ign
inusi bl Ixpoctnd end consoquomly allmvod rer,
whancvlr signnuies are being compand lo deiennine
wireiim oi nut may MI ofcommon eumouirip.
Nothing is man ceicuieied la bring me comparison or
Iundwriliiw into canieinpr mun tho attitude or me
wlmass wna decieies - genuine siannure in be e
rumuy beceuse ii deperu in some -iereii of ienei
rn Recvwwivdilfilksllwxn
None sum in-uhnv M“ be used m mm no nunnu mm; dun-mm wa .nuno wiui
dulgn from ellmr ol me mo genulrre specrrrluls ne
has und :5 tho mm or me comparison. This kind at
fully nu lupperled wmlln me oxporlerlce 0! th-
-uurdr [Emphasls added]
170] In re clear lnal PW|‘s evidence ls laeklng ln dela
exarnlnalldn and analysls. ll re 01 me cdnsldered vlew \ha| lne
lenlls or
metlculous exarn-nallon, analysls and epneldsldn lprnled by DW2 are
more credlble than lne evldence ol PW2 whrch are queslldneble and
eemprdmlsed as they go agalnsl lhe redwernenl pl lne cnennslry
Deparlmem rlsell.
[11] Moving on, I! can be observed lnal lne learned MagIstra|e seems
lo pe nlple adneerned wlln me eledlmllly dl PW3. lne wlle ol the lale
Rex and own, lne lale Rex's brother Thls Omm IS ol lrle odnsldered
vlew ma| nolnlng ulrns on [mm men evldenoe lo prove me gull an lne
pan :2! me accused One flung VS aenaln, nwa was never at lne
accused‘: elrlee al me (lme Rex bruughl me Will lo be dllesled and
mere ls no evldenlx: up sndw lhal il was nws dr any dl Rexs lernlly
member who had asked me accused up prepare me w M me end at
me day, PW3 s challenge on lne vahdlly of me wlll by flllng a clvll sull
agalnsl uws was releoled by me Hlgh caurl, Court of Appeal and
Federal cam
[72] PW4 ls ln lac! an lmpdnanl wllness However. lne evldence at
PW4 wnd was pveserll all me rnalenel lune, was only donsldered rn
pusslng by me learned Maglslrele Trle learned Meglslrala ldund lllel
PW4 cannot be sad in be In eye-wllness In Rex signlng lne WIII
because PW4‘s allerldenoe was nel planned The pmseculmn dn ma
outer hanu harped on the had that the Wm was nm explained In Pvw
am msrelore me wm cannot be said we be a \egiIIma|e wm. These are
Irmevanl and a non-Issue nerem
U3] The crux oI he PW4’s evidence can be seen hem Ihe reuewmg
excerpxs
‘On that pamcu/ar day, my Inlsnllofl lo /nee! Mr Sunrr, ms
oflrcral name sr Mr vassnza Amarasekara, my Imennon )8
lo invite him for Iunch (hat was my only inlsnlian so, I
parked me car down slsrrs end Irush up and lush In. and I
shouted 'sunn, let's go In much’
wmnn a second he just looked aI ms‘ Iess man one minme
and ask me, ‘can you come and srgn this WI/ . " My
auIornan's reaclian was ‘I'm hungry Isls go down and eat
fun And he says, "na, no, no‘ please srgn ms WI” and he
mennotv a very Iong name.
(said, “I can't srgn because I are not know me name olme
person" and Ihal when he Imedecled and sard ns ‘A/wrs,
Aims” and then I remembeved who Alvis was because I
used to work If! Buddhst lomple In Bnckfields and help
Iempre
I'm very famflrar to this name because he used ro p/ay
bedmmton Then, Isafd Iarm/y wil/? He sara yes I sagnsd,
so I was weII<Inq our I could see somebody sming Imm my
corner oi my eye and I ,us4 walk out because I am very
hungry and all this happened in Iess men s mmulee then I
lell.‘
IN Recpwvlvuizuaxksznyxu “
3%.; Sum! n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrimnnuly mm; dun-mm VII mum em
[74] Ir rs rrreramra alaar lmm ore avrdenoa o1 FW4 In the above, mar
mere was no denIa\ on ma pan M FW4 that Rex or Alwls/Nvls as he
was known mm was plesanl a| {he accused's omoe
U5] Ir is penirram la nme man mere rs an smdavn amrrned by PW4
(D39) on 5 6 zone cunflmunglhal vwa nad rdentmed rrrrrrsewesa vrrand
who had known the accused and \he deoaasad (Rex) rn «hrs case |\
cleany shows mar PW4 had descnoed the deceased (Rex) as a “mend
that he had known‘ This evvdencs eorwborares the accused's evrdence
that he had reminded PW4 cl Rex whom he had known betore
[76] Feninenlly, PW8 are invesmgalmg omoer oonfrrmed man when
wwa gave his statement under seorrorr 112 or the Cnrmna\ Procedure
code, |he Iarrer had conhnned \ha| hewasa witness lo Rex’s WHI PW4
had also corrnrmed that were were two wrrnesses to Rexs win. are
accused and rrrmsew PW3 had aarrrrrrrred mar In PW4's alfdavil (may,
PM had amrrrred the! he had wrrrressed Rex 5' no me war‘ and Ihls
was repealed by PW8 in cross exammalion ms again, aorraoorares
ma ar-,orrsed‘s version 0! facts mat PW4 was arromar person who had
wllnesssd me s\gmng or me Will by Rex on 13 5.2005
[77] FW4‘s aifidavu (D39) rs a oonlemporaneous duoumarrr and n
mus\ be praverrad aga|ns| ore oral ewdence gwen by PW4 which can
be seen to be lamy and sketchy In |he aflmawl, it re clearmar PW4 rrad
wnlnessed Rex srgnrrrg the wru, PW4 avewed as rouows.
-2 Says marryarakarr dr smi hshawa "Wasml" sfmali
Adembenage Amanda Fax no Aims berfarikh 13 hanbu/an
Jun 2005 dr marra llndltlngln
ri dimmrrknr dl
ra
IN wecpwvlvdizdaxkxzoyxu
«ware sanaw In-nhnrwm re used m van; me nnmnnuly MIME dun-mm VII nF\uNG am
ovary slgnelure wlll neve slgmilcant chamclarlstlc and not
eole lo be coplad by ems! person Alorgea slgnulurscoul-1
reeen-lole me some shape Du! avelylhmg aspeerelly me
speual chamcrensllc.
nwz explemeu me snepe nflho slgnslurss were slrnller
but lallsd lo loenlrly ulna: was the Impunant leelures ol ell
me specimen slgnalures. A5 explerned by Pwl and PW2,
aven lnera ls one slgnllrcanl mlrerenoe oelween
queslloneu slgnsmre and specimen, 1! IS sufflclam‘ I0
canduda me: me slgnalums were not Imm me same
person. rne dlllsrsnce n-us: he matellal and slgnlficzanl ena
rvotjust a V505!/en. Based on me svaluat/on by com PWV
and PW2, mere ls one slgnmcanl lealula lnel absence m
the question slgnalule wnlcn me nlams lrne. As DW2s'
oolnlon, he concluded ma oombmatlon onne 73 srrrnlarloes
as unlaue chsrnclerlsm: However lhe courl uneole lo
agree wlln Opinion of DW2 es me unrquenese ls me
combmallon :2! me slml/srlliss me: found In all (he
spoclmsn slgnelures ln 12 ooeurnenls Thls clearly show
me: DW2 lelleo lo idenllly me umquenesa me: appear ln
aV9'Y ol the speclmens A/so DW2 slated that me
alllerence may appear between quesllcmed slgnelure and
speclmen slgnelures ls e Intm of unusual uenellon and
should not oe elessmeu ulsllngulsnrng eneraolensllc The
noun Illld there rs eonslslency or the specimen signalurss
the)! Show val-lellons orslope, curve, shaft and loop. rne
consrsleney of hlalus eppeereo III elrnosl every specimen
snows lnel me nenll 09' me eulnor. ln lne queslloneu
ru Recvwvlvuilufllkslhyxu
«ma Sum! nmhnrwm be u... m may he ennmuu mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max
hadapan sm dc/am waslal nezseom: [Emphasis
added]
[13] It \s a pnnclme ov law ss|ah|Ished Ihmugh ouemora of aumonues
men contemporaneous documents musl be omveneo lo ova! ev-aenee
(see T|nflok sour some stir: and v Tlnluv ca [1912] 2 um 22:,
Foo Sam Illlng v Archl Environ Pmnmmo [2004] 1 IILJ 449 and
Blhlruddln bin Ahmld v Public FrmIcu(ov[20|D] 7 MLJ 577). D39
Is a documem made on 0501 end PWA had cnnfirrned that ne had
smcmed 039 on 5 5.2005 abeu\ a year ener me Will was axeculad. It
Is of lhe nonsndsmd vvew (ha! D39 \s a oonlsmmnansuus document.
Had me Ieamed Magvslrals evimiled Dag and gwen proper wewghl in
me same‘ carmul be msouueo that PW4 was in YaC| a wnness |o lhs
wm Vmpnnanlly, cneue was no emoenoe in feel to suggesx lhal Rex um
um sign me wm at me accused's once in me presence M ball: the
eoeoseo and vwa As such‘ «ms ceunnnos «nu ma Vaarnad Maqlsvala
erred In making me lnHaw|ng nnoings
1 That “there rs no eye wnness who seen Rex
s/glued me W/H PW4 has nu knowledge ul me
conlsnl onne mm. The accused only asked PW4
In Sign lhe mu wrmaul Iurfhsr axplam eonaenz 0!
me Mflflor wvfness me person is Rex -
ii. Thu! “there rs no drrec! evidence in we case
rnere rs no eye w/mess eecepr me accused rn we
case PWA on: not nnness Rex srgn me w//I."
[79] Where uruc|a\ enoence mghlnghled .n the mregmng mcludmg me
accused‘: vefsxun 01 what Iranspmad on 1362005 was nut even
::haHenged by me pmsecuhon and mslead meievanl mailers were
being put m cross exam\nalion.Ll1s val: ly ov me wm ramam mac: and
has rum in any way proves man me accused had [awed ma Will on
1: s 2on5
Conclullan
[so] In hghl of ma abuve, «his cum finds mm mare was no or
msufficIen| ludicxm appreciancn oi the enura emdenoe adduced behave
the Magwslram Court The accused s awn! was allowed. The
cmmcnon and sentence under secnon 467 a! the Pena! Code was set
aswde and me accussd was dvscharged and aaqumea. Thu sweat
againsx sentence by the Pvcsecution was dvsrnissed.
Daled 14 November 2023
[Ma um BADA‘R|3DD|N]
Judge
Higr. pun 01 Ma\ay3
Kuala Lumpuv
Dopuly Publh: Pmmum
Nlk Mahd Fadh bin Dam’ Nlk Az\an
Altnmey Genera\‘s Chambers
Counwls tor the Raspondem
Alex Nandaseli De Silva lugetharwnh Angehne Tay Lee vm
Messrs Bndxpalar Ponnuduraw De Sflva lKua|a Lumpuvl
srgnaluras snow unuaua/ yanauons wmcn shnw
cunsfstancy of flow and vwfling uwz agreed ms: mm u
no pen ml rn ma quasfmnad signatura me appearance of
mezus snow there 75 a break and mus me signatures not
connnumn afpan movement. Tnamrcre, Cour! rened me
apmrorl Irom PW! and PW2.'
[11] Rewlng on lhe opinion of PW1 and PW2 me Veamed Magxslmh
¢aund mat me signature on the Wxll did not ongmale lmm the person
Mm signed me specmven dawmsnls.
[ca] The Ieamed Magwslmte further (ound Ihal smce there was no eye
wllness mm eeund lesmy man .1 was Rex who signed the wm exoepl 10!
me amused who have kept me wm and trial u was me accused wno
had surrendered me wm lo me lawyer appoinmd by Rex‘: larmlyy such
circumstances mmd nmy lead In me cnnclusmn Ihal u was me acwsed
who nad forged Rex‘s sxgnatuve The Mag\slra|e slated:
'14 6] From lhs awdenca adduced in me course onne mat,
only accused has me access In me wm and no one has
knowleflge al me existence 0/ me mu Accused knew Rex
endum and agreed lo na/p Rex mm mm wrthou! charging
any fee or open any me m me Inm let me vwu. There Is no
preparation signmg VWI In me accused‘: ofcs as no
witness prspersd PWA enendance was not planned and
Rex did no! commumcale lot sum Important documanz. No
real wnnass seen Rex signed live my except amused
Accused was me one mar surrender me my to ma rawyer
appomtod by me lamrly ol Rex. mus, wnn me cna/n oi
m wscpwwvdizuaxkxznyxn
_«wa.. s.nn n-nhnrwm be u... m mm .. nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm y.. muuc am
ewdenco, (here ;s no one mum have access lo Wr/I and me
wm was kenl by the accused. Such emu: mam only
conclude ma: accused forged the signature rn 1719 w.// and
me: would be an/y rnlsmnce to be drawn In this Cass "
Summary of mu Armand‘: canunuons
[191 summanly, me accused mnlendslhal me beamed Magwshale had
erred m failing to consider the Iouowmgs:
1. The arwavn amrmea by PW4 (D39) oonfnrmng
that he had wvlnessed me signing or me wm by
me Vale Rex‘
2 The evidence of spa an me stakemenl gwen by
PWA In him under sermon 112 of me Cnminal
Pmcedure Code.
3 The amuseds defence
[20] In addmnn, me learned Maglsllme .5 submmed to have erred m
lakmg Inln amuunl irr¢\evan| mauers m arm/mg in! her concmsxon Ihai
lhe accused was sunny 0! lurgery.
Summnryof lhn Pruinclniolfs Conlcnlionl
[21] me pmseculmn subrmts mm the learned Magislraie had ngnuy
adrmlled and accepted the evldsnne a{PW| and PW2 whnare fllmlmed
experts V! the fiemi ol handwriting exammahons Further he evndsnca
07 PVV3 i5 sad to he ralevanl and suppnrlad by PW1 and PW2 where
Pwa had Isslmsd ma| the signature m the win Is not the accused‘:
swgnahue PW3‘s ewaence Is subvmlled to be ra\avan\ under secllun 47
m Rscvwvlvuilulilkxlhyxu
3%.. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
nnhe Ev|dsnoeAcl195D as she Is me person who was acquainled with
\he handwnling enrer husband, irre iaie Rex.
[221 In regards In F-we II is submitted that re does rromuamy to he
an eye witness to F(sx's signalure since he did not know and was rrei
lnld nl [he content of the WM and his pressnl at the acwsed's ONCE
was just a co" 'denoe and no expianeirorr was anereee Io him by the
accused as ie irre rraiure oi irre vwu,
Erreirrauorr Ind Flndlngs
[231 Al me nulssl me primary issue (or oerrsrdereuorr in «us appeal is
wirenrer me accused had in rear, idrgea by placing me sigrraiure
purpomrrg \u be irrai ul Rex er the WW This in mm rrrviies a
consideralion of me rrrarrrrer er proof of a charge at iergery where
ingredients required in sairsiy a charge under seclmn 457 oflhe Penal
code musl be considered
[24] Seclion 457 ei me Perrel Code provides as Ieudws:—
'..Whoever lorges a document wrvch purports to be a
yerrrebie securriy or a win‘ ov err emnomy lo edopi e son, or
wrrrerr pulpmfs Ia grvs aufhamy ie erry person to make or
rrerreler erry valuable secrrrrry, or re reeerve rrrrr pnrrcrpe/,
interest, or diwdends rrrereorr, or to receive ar its/Ivar erry
rrrorrey. moi/tibia properry, or Va/uable securiry, er erry
deerrrrrerri per-perrrrrg in be err eequrnarrce or receipt,
eckrrewiedgrrrg me paymsrll errrrerrey or an aoqulllaricfl or
reeerpr Ier me delivery olarry rrreveirie pmpsrfy or valuable
securriy. srre/I be rwrrrsned with irrrprreorrrrrerrz rer a term
IN fiecvwvlvuilulilkslhyxu
«me semi nnrihnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nflmrrnflly mi. dun-rinrrl y.. nFiuNG vtmxi
wnrcn may extend to twenty yeard, and shall also ca name
to /tne "
[25] The essenuat ingredients of the offence which need to be
established by me prosewlion are -
tn the accused must have tongeo a document‘ am
(in lhedocumenl must be aneafthe clases spectned
In me sectton, [see Law otcritnes by Ratanlal at
Dhirailal 3rd Ed on Q 2346)
[25] ‘Forgery’ tn turn ts oeflneo VI sectton 463 at the Penal Code as
lollows -
'Whoewr makos any Ialsl documant or part cvf a
documnnl wzm iglln! la cause damp or rrriury lo
the public or to any plrsan or to support any c/arm or
me or to cause any person to party with property, or to
enter mlo any express or rmplted contract, or Will‘! mlsnl
to commit fraud or that fraud may be comnttflsd eommtts
Iorgerr [Empnasts added]
[27] The defimllnn at 'makmg a Ialse document’ is set out In sermon
454 ot the Penat Code The Satd secttcn prcvioes lhal a person ts satd
|a have made a tatse document it il tans underane ot the 3 limbs vrntcn
aIe—
‘A person Is sate to make a Ia/ss uocument —
(a) wno dlshoneslly or rraut-tutentty makes, stgns,
seals, or executes a document or part ola document.
or nukes eny mark denoting me sxsculron ol a
document, mm the tntentton of causing rt to be
behaved that such document was mede, srgnsd,
seated at axaculed by me eutnenty or a person by
wnom or by whose autnorny he knows met I! was not
made, signed, sealed, at executed. or at 5 Nine at
wnton he krmws met I! was not made, Stgnad, sea/ed.
or sxeculed,
win: without tewtut nulltorm/. dtenoneetty or
mudutenxty, by oencettetton or omerwtse, ts/tors a
document in any tneterret part meteor, after I! has
{D}
neon rneue or executed enner by hrrnsetr or by any
other person, wnetner such person be /Mng or dead
at the Itme culsuch etteretton, or
tn) who dtsnoneetty or rmudutet-my eeum uuy
pusan lo stgn, seat, execute or etter e document,
knowing tnet such person by reason ofunsoundnass
ofm/m1 or tnroxtcaltan nartnal, or Inn! by reason at
danepbon pvacltced upon ntrn he does not, know the
cantsnls at the document or the nature :3! me
etteretton." [Emphams edttee]
[231 From the toregotno definmons in the Penal code, it is ewdenl that
the tssue et the tergery at the Will in the instant mallet can be
astoerlainad by eenstdenng whether the accused dtd 'dishonesfly ar
tmudutehtty make or Sign me Wtll, or evan a can enhe wm with the
Inlermcn 07 cau l \o be behaved lha| Ihe VVi|| was made by Rex,
to
N fiscpwwvuilualkxznyxn
«we. s.n.t n-nhnrwm e. u... m van; .. enhr.u.y MIMI dun-mm vu mum pans!
| 5,418 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-22C-43-10/2017 | PLAINTIF 1. ) Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat (Menyaman Atas Namanya Sendiri Dan Sebagai Wasi Dan Pemegang Amanah Harta Pusaka Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong, Si Mati) 2. ) Bryan Patrick Ooi Sze-yuen 3. ) Shawn Philip Ooi Sze- Yew DEFENDAN SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD | Mah:a) Mahkamah tidak membenarkan ganti rugi am untuk kehilangan hak menghuni dan menikmati rumah-rumah yang telah dibeli oleh plaintif-plaintif.b) Mahkamah tidak membenarkan faedah pra penghakiman.c) Mahkamah membenarkan faedah selepas penghakiman sebanyak 5% setahun dari tarikh keputusan lisan pada 22 Disember 2022 sehingga pembayaran penuh.d) Selepas mengambil kira kos atas dasar standard dan pendengaran bersama, Mahkamah membenarkan kos RM90,000 kepada Plaintif-Plaintif dalam kes 43, 44, 45, 47 dan RM100,000 kepada Plaintif-Plaintif dalam kes 46 dan 49. | 13/11/2023 | YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1c6fec92-4780-453f-8713-1cb29d3e2ce5&Inline=true |
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-43-10/2017
BETWEEN
1. OOI CHENG HUAT @ OOI PENG HUAT (NRIC. No.: 540105-02-5317)
(Suing in his own name and as the Executor and Trustee of the
Estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong, deceased)
2. BRYAN PATRICK OOI SZE-YUEN (NRIC. No.: 890827-10-5765)
3. SHAWN PHILIP OOI SZE-YUWN (NRIC. No.: 911125-10-5613) … PLAINTIFFS
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-44-10/2017
BETWEEN
SPIRAL PRISTINE SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 775532-T) … PLAINTIFF
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-45-10/2017
BETWEEN
SHAIFUL HAMIDI BIN BASIRDIN (NRIC. No.: 750513-08-6309) … PLAINTIFF
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
15/01/2024 10:06:38
BA-22C-43-10/2017 Kand. 203
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-46-10/2017
BETWEEN
ROSLI BIN MUSA (NRIC. No.: 620521-10-5789) … PLAINTIFF
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
CIVIL SUIT NO: BA-22C-47-10/2017
BETWEEN
1. NITT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 867883-M)
2. SUSILAWATI BINTI AHMAD (NRIC. No.: 700702-10-5016) … PLAINTIFFS
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
(HEARD TOGETHER WITH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT
NO: BA-22C-49-11/2018
BETWEEN
1. ALBERT CHAI MIN CHUNG (NRIC. No.: 730120-13-5159)
2. ADELE LEONG BON YIEN (NRIC. No.: 730915-13-5144) … PLAINTIFFS
AND
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD (Co. No.: 15631-P) … DEFENDANT
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
AMENDED JUDGMENT
(after trial)
A. Introduction
1. This judgment arises from a joint trial (Trial) of the above six suits (6
Suits) filed by purchasers (Plaintiffs) of six bungalows built and sold (6
Bungalows) by the defendant company (Defendant), a housing
developer.
2. In these 6 Suits, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant had breached
six Sale and Purchase Agreements of the 6 Bungalows (6 SPAs)
because there were various defects in the 6 Bungalows.
B. Background
3. The 6 Suits are as follows:
(1) suit no. BA-22C-43-10/2017 (Suit No. 43) had been filed by the
plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No. 43)] against the Defendant with regard
to a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No.
43)] which was -
(a) built on land held Grant 174772, Lot 70087, Mukim Damansara,
Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 1.12.2010 [SPA (Suit No. 43)];
(2) suit no. BA-22C-44-10/2017 (Suit No. 44) was filed by the plaintiff
company [Plaintiff (Suit No. 44)] against the Defendant in respect
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No.
44)] which was -
(a) built on land held Grant 174763, Lot 70078, Mukim Damansara,
Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 18.4.2012 [SPA (Suit No. 44)];
(3) suit no. BA-22C-45-10/2017 (Suit No. 45) had been filed by the
plaintiff [Plaintiff (Suit No. 45)] against the Defendant in respect of
a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 45)]
which was -
(a) built on land held Grant 174760, Lot 70075, Mukim Damansara,
Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 1.12.2010 [SPA (Suit No. 45)];
(4) suit no. BA-22C-46-10/2017 (Suit No. 46) was filed by the plaintiff
[Plaintiff (Suit No. 46)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-
storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 46)] which
was -
(a) built on land held Grant 174770, Lot 70085, Mukim Damansara,
Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 22.4.2013 [SPA (Suit No. 46)];
(5) suit no. BA-22C-47-10/2017 (Suit No. 47) had been filed by the
plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No. 47)] against the Defendant in respect
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No.
47)] which was -
(a) built on land held Grant 174771, Lot 70086, Mukim Damansara,
Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 16.4.2012 [SPA (Suit No. 47)];
and
(6) suit no. BA-22C-49-11/2018 (Suit No. 49) was filed by the plaintiffs
[Plaintiffs (Suit No. 49)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-
storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 49)] which
was -
(a) built on land held Grant 174750, Lot 70066, Mukim Damansara,
Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 28.4.2015 [SPA (Suit No. 49)].
4. With regard to SPA (Suit No. 43), SPA (Suit No. 44), SPA (Suit No. 45)
and SPA (Suit No. 47) [collectively referred to in this judgment as “4
SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)”] -
(1) at the time of the execution of 4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47),
Bungalow (Suit No. 43), Bungalow (Suit No. 44), Bungalow (Suit No.
45) and Bungalow (Suit No. 47) [collectively referred to in this
judgment as “4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)”] were still
under construction by the Defendant; and
(2) the 4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were based on the
“statutory” SPA (Statutory SPA) prescribed in Schedule G
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
(Schedule G) to Housing Development (Control and Licensing)
Regulations 1989 (HDR).
5. At the time of the execution of SPA (Suit No. 46) and SPA (Suit No. 49)
[collectively referred to in this judgment as “2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and
49)”], the construction of Bungalow (Suit No. 46) and Bungalow (Suit No.
49) [collectively referred to in this judgment as “2 Bungalows (Suits No.
46 and 49)”] had already been completed.
6. Section 6.01 in the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49) [Section 6.01 (Suits
No. 46 and 49)] had provided as follows:
“Section 6.01 Inspection of the said Property
The Purchaser(s) hereby confirm and declare that they have
inspected the said Property at the date of this Agreement and is
satisfied with the condition state nature and character of the same
and has agreed to purchase the said property on an “as is where is”
basis and the Vendor hereby covenant with the Purchaser(s) that the
said Property shall substantially be in and of the same condition
state, nature and character (fair wear and tear expected) as at the
date of delivery of vacant possession of the said Property to the
Purchaser(s).”
(emphasis added).
7. The subject matter of the 6 SPAs concern high-end landed properties.
This is evident from the high purchase price of the 6 Bungalows (High
Purchase Prices) as follows:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
Suit No.
Purchase Price
43
RM4,891,127.00
44
RM4,869,008.00
45
RM5,537,628.00
46
RM4,701,247.00
47
RM4,502,534.55
49
RM5,033,032.00
The High Purchase Prices had been paid in full by the Plaintiffs to the
Defendant.
8. The 6 Bungalows were part of the Defendant’s development project in
Bukit Jelutong named “Primo Bukit Jelutong” (Project). The consultants
appointed by the Defendant for the Project were as follows:
(1) BEP Arkitek Sdn. Bhd. was the Project architect (Project
Architect);
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
(2) the Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) Engineering consultant was PE
Associates Sdn. Bhd.;
(3) Kemasepakat Sdn. Bhd. was appointed as the Structural
Engineering consultant for the Project; and
(4) the Quantity Surveyor (QS) for the Project was Perunding NFL Sdn.
Bhd.
9. The Defendant has appointed Kitacon Sdn. Bhd. as the Main Contractor
for the Project (Main Contractor).
10. On 30.1.2012, the Defendant had obtained the “Certificate of Completion
and Compliance” (CCC) for the Project.
11. Vacant possession of the 6 Bungalows had been delivered by the
Defendant to the Plaintiffs.
12. The Defendant had given to the Plaintiffs for each of the 6 Bungalows a
copy of “Home Owners Manual “Primo” Bukit Jelutong” (Home Owners
Manual).
13. Clause 25.1 of the 4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) [Clause 25.1
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)] had provided for a “Defect liability period” of
24 months (DLP). The 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49) had no provision
equivalent to Clause 25.1 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) because the 2
Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49) had been sold by the Defendant on an
“as is where is” basis - please refer to Section 6.01 (Suits No. 46 and
49).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
14. Save for the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49), if there was any defect
in the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) [Alleged Defect (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47)] -
(1) the Plaintiffs in Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47 [collectively referred to in
this judgment as “Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)”] were
required to -
(a) fill in “Defect Rectification Forms” (DRFs) provided by the
Defendant; and
(b) give details of the Alleged Defect (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) in
DRFs (Completed DRFs); and
(2) once the Defendant received the Completed DRFs from the
Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47), the Defendant would pass the
Completed DRFs to the Main Contractor for the Main Contractor to
rectify the Alleged Defect (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47).
15. According to the Defendant -
(1) after the expiry of DLP for the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47); and
(2) with regard to the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49)
- the Plaintiffs would fill in “Feedback Forms” (FFs) and inform the
Defendant in the FFs regarding the alleged defects in the 6
Bungalows [Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows)]. Out of goodwill and
without any prejudice to the Defendant’s rights under the 6 SPAs,
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
the Defendant averred that the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) (as
stated in the FFs) had been rectified.
16. The Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had alleged that their
signatures on the following documents had been forged [Disputed
Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)]:
(1) Suit No. 43 -
(a) DRF no. 2837 dated 12.6.2012;
(b) DRF no. 9106 dated 1.11.2013;
(c) DRF no. 9133 dated 12.12.2013;
(d) DRF no. 9137 dated 17.12.2013; and
(e) DRF no. 3212 dated 27.1.2014;
(2) Suit No. 44 - DRF no. 9108 dated 3.6.2013;
(3) Suit 45 - DRF no. 9405 dated 19.11.2012; and
(4) Suit 47 -
(a) DRF no. 3156 dated 10.4.2014;
(b) DRF no. 9318 dated 4.7.2014; and
(c) FF no. 1913 dated 7.12.2015
[Alleged Forged Documents (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)].
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
C. 6 Suits
C(1). Plaintiffs’ claims
17. In summary, the Plaintiffs had alleged against the Defendant as follows:
(1) as the signatures of the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) on the
Alleged Forged Documents (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had been
forged [Averment (Forgery)], the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47) were not bound by the Alleged Forged Documents (Suits No. 43
to 45 and 47) with regard to the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45
and 47);
(2) with regard to the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49) -
(a) in accordance with reg. 11(1A) HDR -
(i) the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49) should be in Schedule I
to HDR (Schedule I) which provides for, among others,
clause 15(1) {Clause 15(1) [Schedule I]}. According to
Clause 15(1) [Schedule I], the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46
and 49) “shall be constructed in a good and workmanlike
manner” by the Defendant; and
(ii) the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49) should not have provided
for Section 6.01 (Suits No. 46 and 49); and
(b) the Plaintiffs in Suits No. 46 and 49 [Plaintiffs (Suits No. 46
and 49)] did not receive the certified true copy of CCC for the 2
Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49) at the time of the execution of
the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49). Consequently, by virtue of
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
reg. 11(1A) HDR, the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49) should be
in Schedule I;
(3) the Defendant had breached 3 SPAs in Suits No. 45, 47 and 49 [3
SPAs (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49)] when “Red Balau” timber (instead
of “Yellow Balau” timber) was used by the Defendant to build the 3
Bungalows in Suits No. 45, 47 and 49 [3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45,
47 and 49)]; and
(4) with regard to the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows)], the Defendant
was liable to the Plaintiffs as follows -
(a) cost to rectify the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) [Rectification
Cost (6 Bungalows)]; and
(b) damages for the Plaintiffs’ loss of use and enjoyment of the 6
Bungalows [Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows)] which
include rental of the 6 Bungalows at market rate [Loss of
Rental (6 Bungalows)].
18. Sixteen witnesses testified in support of the 6 Suits:
(1) Encik Amir Bin Awang Hamad (SP1) [who gave evidence for the
Plaintiff (Suit No. 44)];
(2) Dato’ Kamarulzuhan Bin Ibrahim (SP2) [who testified for the
Plaintiffs (Suit No. 47)];
(3) Datin Susilawati Binti Ahmad (SP3), the second plaintiff in Suit
No. 47;
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(4) Encik Shaiful Hamidi bin Basirdin (SP4), the Plaintiff (Suit No. 45);
(5) Mr. Ooi Cheng Huat (SP5), the first plaintiff in Suit No. 43;
(6) Encik Rosli Bin Musa (SP6), the Plaintiff (Suit No. 46);
(7) Ms. Adele Leong Boon Yien (SP7), the second plaintiff in Suit No.
49;
(8) Encik Mohd Zulhemlee Bin An (SP8), an architect (who gave
expert evidence in support of Suit No. 49);
(9) Encik Mushahar bin Mohamed Suki (SP9), an architect (who
provided expert testimony in Suits No. 43 to 46 and 47);
(10) Encik Adifazli bin Ahmad (SP10), an architect (who gave an
expert opinion in Suits No. 43 to 46 and 47);
(11) Encik Shamsul Anuar Bin Shamsudin (SP11), an expert valuer
(whose expert evidence supports the 6 Suits);
(12) Mr. Wong Tack Loong (SP12), an expert valuer (who gave expert
testimony in Suit No. 49);
(13) Mr. Tan Chioo Bin (SP13), a M&E engineering expert (who
provided an expert opinion in support of Suit No. 49);
(14) Encik Syah Adam Bin Mohamed Khair (SP14), an expert on air-
conditioning (who gave expert evidence in Suits No. 43 to 46 and
47);
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
(15) Puan Nordahlia bt Abdullah Siam (SP15), a timber expert (who
provided expert testimony in the 6 Suits); and
(16) Mr. Lim Kok Sang (SP16), a QS (who gave an expert opinion in
Suit No. 49).
C(2). Defence
19. The Defendant refutes the Plaintiffs’ claims as follows:
(1) regarding the Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47) -
(a) the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) did not plead the
Averment (Forgery) in their four Statements of Claim [4 SOCs
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)] and consequently, the Plaintiffs
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) could not raise the Averment
(Forgery) in Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47;
(b) the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had failed to discharge
the evidential burden to prove the Averment (Forgery) on a
balance of probabilities;
(c) save for the Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45
and 47), the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had admitted
signing the other DRFs and FFs [Genuine DRFs/FFs (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47)]. The Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
are barred by the Genuine DRFs/FFs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47) from alleging any defect in the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
45 and 47) which had been complained in the Genuine
DRFs/FFs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47);
(d) upon receipt of the DRFs and FFs, the Defendant instructed the
Main Contractor to repair the defects stated in the DRFs and
FFs. Such a conduct by the Defendant disproved forgeries of
the Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47).
In any event, there was no reason for the Defendants to forge
the Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47);
and
(e) DRFs and FFs were provided by the Defendant in three copies.
The first copy of DRFs and FFs was the original copy which
was signed by the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
[Original Copy (DRF/FF)]. The Original Copy (DRF/FF) was
then handed over by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs (Suits No.
43 to 45 and 47). The second and third copies of DRFs and FFs
were carbon copies [Carbon Copies (DRF/FF)] which were
kept by the Defendant. The signatures on the Carbon Copies
(DRF/FF) had faded over time;
(2) with regard to the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) stated in DRFs
and FFs where the Plaintiffs had not disputed their signatures on
those documents, the Plaintiffs could not now complain in the 6
Suits regarding the defects stated in those documents;
(3) the Defendant’s use of Red Balau timber in the 3 Bungalows (Suits
No. 45, 47 and 49) -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
(a) did not breach clause 13 of the 2 SPAs in Suits No. 45 and 47
[Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47)]; and
(b) did not breach the SPA in Suit No. 49 because the Bungalow in
Suit No. 49 was sold on an “as is where is” basis - please refer
to Section 6.01 of the SPA (Suit No. 49);
(4) in respect of the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49), the Defendant
is not liable for any defect therein [Alleged Defects (Suits No. 46
and 49)] because the Defendant can rely on Section 6.01 (Suits No.
46 and 49) and the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 46 and 49) have had the
opportunity to inspect the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49) before
signing the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49);
(5) with regard to the defects alleged in the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43
to 45 and 47) [Alleged Defects (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)] -
(a) the Defendant did not breach clause 13 of the 4 SPAs (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47) [Clause 13 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)];
(b) as the DLP provided in clause 25(1) of the 4 SPAs (Suits No.
43 to 45 and 47) {Clause 25(1) [Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47]}
had expired, the Defendant was not liable to the Plaintiffs (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47);
(6) the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) were caused by -
(a) renovation works in the 6 Bungalows carried out by the
Plaintiffs after the Plaintiffs had taken delivery of vacant
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
possession of the 6 Bungalows (Plaintiffs’ Renovation
Works);
(b) the Plaintiffs’ lack of maintenance of the 6 Bungalows
[Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows)]; and/or
(c) ordinary wear and tear [Ordinary Wear and Tear (6
Bungalows)]; and
(7) the Plaintiffs were not entitled to claim from the Defendant for
Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows), Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6
Bungalows) and Loss of Rental (6 Bungalows).
20. The Defendant called the following 13 witnesses to resist the 6 Suits:
(1) Mr. Radhakrishnan A/L Rengasamy (SD1), an expert valuer;
(2) Mr. Lim Yok Chaw (SD2), a handwriting expert;
(3) Mr. Tay Kar Teik (SD3), a M&E engineering consultant;
(4) Encik Mohd Norzam bin Ujud (SD4), a timber expert;
(5) Mr. Cheah Ming Yew (SD5), an architect;
(6) Encik Sharizan bin Sudin (SD6);
(7) Encik Irfan Syafiq Omar (SD7);
(8) Mr. Chooi Kuen Wah (SD8);
(9) Mr. Kwang Eau Quan (SD9);
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
(10) Encik Mohamad Zailani bin Tabut (SD10);
(11) Encik Syazlina bin Mat Jim (SD11);
(12) Puan Azlin Shereen binti Abu (SD12); and
(13) Encik Mohd Arphian Ahmad (SD13), a QS.
D. Issues
21. The following questions arise in the 6 Suits:
(1) with regard to the Averment (Forgery) -
(a) whether the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were required
by O 18 rr 7(1) and 12(1) read with O 1A and O 2 r 1(2) of the
Rules of Court 2012 (RC) to plead the Averment (Forgery) in
their 4 SOCs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47); and
(b) did the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) discharge the
evidential burden to prove the Averment (Forgery) on a balance
of probabilities? In this regard -
(i) whether the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were
required to adduce expert handwriting evidence to -
(i)(a) support the Averment (Forgery); and
(i)(b) rebut SD2’s expert opinion that the Disputed
Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
had not been forged (SD2’s Expert Opinion);
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
(ii) can this court accept -
(ii)(a) SD2 as a competent handwriting expert; and
(ii)(b) SD2’s Expert Opinion
- when there are previous cases wherein the court has
rejected SD2’s expert testimony?; and
(iii) whether the court can accept as credible SD2’s Expert
Opinion when SD2 did not compare the Disputed Plaintiffs’
Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) on original copies of
the Alleged Forged Documents (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
[Original Documents (Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures)]
with undisputed signatures of the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to
45 and 47) [Undisputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No.
43 to 45 and 47)] on original copies of documents
[Original Documents (Undisputed Plaintiffs’
Signatures)];
(2) in respect of Suits No. 46 and 49, did the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 46 and
49) receive the certified true copies of CCC for the 2 Bungalows
(Suits No. 46 and 49) at the time of the execution of the 2 SPAs
(Suits No. 46 and 49)? If the answer to this issue is in the negative -
(a) the 2 SPA’s (Suits No. 46 and 49) [including Section 6.01 (Suits
No. 46 and 49)] cannot be enforced in Suits No. 46 and 49
because of the non-applicability of reg. 11(1B) HDR; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
(b) in view of reg. 11(1A) HDA, Schedule I shall apply to the 2
Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49);
(3) can the Defendant rely on the Home Owners Manual to resist the 6
Suits?;
(4) whether the court can reject as evidence the report of SD4
(Defendant’s timber expert) (SD4’s Report) solely on the ground
that SD4’s Report did not comply with O 40A r 3(2)(g) and (h) RC;
(5) did the Defendant’s use of Red Balau timber in the 3 Bungalows
(Suits No. 45, 47 and 49) breach -
(a) Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47); and
(b) Clause 15(1) [Schedule I] [which applies to Suit No. 49 upon
the application of reg. 11(1A) HDR]?;
(6) have the Plaintiffs proven on a balance of probabilities the existence
of the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows)? If “yes” -
(a) whether the “causa causans” of the Alleged Defects (6
Bungalows) was -
(i) the Defendant’s failure to construct -
(i)(a) the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) “in a
good and workmanlike manner in accordance with
the description set out in the Fourth Schedule” to
the SPAs in Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47 as required
by Clause 13 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47); and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
(i)(b) the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49) “in a good
and workmanlike manner in accordance with the
description set out in the Fourth Schedule” in
Schedule 1 in accordance with Clause 15(1)
[Schedule I].
In deciding the above questions, can the court consider the
effect of Selangor Uniform Building By-Laws 1986
(SUBBL)?;
(ii) the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works. In this regard, the Home
Owners Manual provided that the Defendant “shall not be
held responsible for any defect whatsoever arising after the
renovation” [Exclusion Clause (Home Owners Manual)];
(iii) the Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows); and/or
(iv) Ordinary Wear and Tear (6 Bungalows);
(b) can the Defendant rely on the expiry of DLP as provided in -
(i) Clause 25(1) (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) for the 4
Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47); and
(ii) clause 27(1) in Schedule I {Clause 27(1) [Schedule I]} for
the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49)
- as a ground to exclude the Defendant’s liability for the
Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows)?; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
(c) whether the Plaintiffs are barred from claiming for the Alleged
Defects (6 Bungalows) on any one or more of the following
grounds -
(i) CCC had been issued for the 6 Bungalows;
(ii) the Plaintiffs inspected the 6 Bungalows before taking
delivery of vacant possession of the 6 Bungalows and did
not complain about any defect in the 6 Bungalows
[Plaintiffs’ Inspection of 6 Bungalows (Delivery of
Vacant Possession)];
(iii) the Plaintiffs signed the Defendant’s “CRM Checklist” and
“Inventory Checklist” for the 6 Bungalows without any
complaint of any defect in the 6 Bungalows;
(iv) the Plaintiffs had signed DRFs and FFs wherein the
Plaintiffs had not denied their signatures (Genuine
DRFs/FFs); and
(v) some of the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) -
(v)(a) had not been notified at all to the Defendant until
the filing of the 6 Suits; and/or
(v)(b) were only conveyed to the Defendant in the
reports of the Plaintiffs’ experts (after the filing of
the 6 Suits and before the commencement of
Trial); and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
(d) in view of the application of HDA and HDR in the 6 Suits, can
the Defendant invoke the equitable doctrine of estoppel against
the Plaintiffs?;
(7) if the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs for the Alleged Defects (6
Bungalows), whether the Plaintiffs can recover the following sums
pursuant to s 74(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 (CA) -
(a) Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows); and
(b) Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows), including Loss of Rental
(6 Bungalows).
I am not able to find a previous Malaysian case which has decided on
the issues raised in the above sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
E. Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
E(1). Whether Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were required to
plead Averment (Forgery) in 4 SOCs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
22. Mr. Rohan Arasoo A/L Jeyabalah, the Defendant’s learned counsel, had
contended that the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) could not raise
the Averment (Forgery) in Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47 because such an
issue had not been pleaded in the 4 SOCs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47).
23. I reproduce below O 1A, O 2 r 1(2), O 18 r 7(1) and 12(1) RC:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
“O 1A Regard shall be to justice
In administering [RC], the Court or a Judge shall have regard to
the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical
non-compliance with [RC].
O 2 r 1(2) [RC] are a procedural code and subject to the
overriding objective of enabling the Court to deal with cases
justly. The parties are required to assist the Court to achieve
this overriding objective.
O 18 r 7 Facts, not evidence, to be pleaded
(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and rules 10, 11
and 12, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a
statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the
party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be,
but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved, and
the statement shall be as brief as the nature of the case admits.
O 18 r 12 Particulars of pleading
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), every pleading shall contain
the necessary particulars of any claim, defence or other matter
pleaded including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
words -
(a) particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust,
willful default or undue influence on which the party pleading
relies; and
(b) where a party pleading alleges any condition of the mind of any
person, whether any disorder or disability of mind or any malice,
fraudulent intention or other condition of mind except
knowledge, particulars of the facts on which the party relies.”
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
(emphasis added).
24. I have no hesitation to decide that the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47) were not required by O 18 rr 7(1) and 12(1) read with O 1A and O 2 r
1(2) RC to plead the Averment (Forgery) in the 4 SOCs (Suits No. 43 to
45 and 47). This decision is premised on the following reasons:
(1) the sole cause of action for the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
against the Defendant is based on a breach of the 4 SPAs (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47) with regard to the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to
45 and 47) [Sole Cause of Action (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)].
The Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were only required by O 18
rr 7(1) and 12(1) RC to plead the following particulars in the 4 SOCs
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) -
(a) by virtue of O 18 r 7(1) RC, the 4 SOCs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47) -
(i) “shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary
form of the material facts” on which the Plaintiffs (Suits No.
43 to 45 and 47) rely for the Sole Cause of Action (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47);
(ii) shall not plead the evidence by which the Sole Cause of
Action (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) is to be proved; and
(iii) “shall be as brief as the nature of the case admits”.
The Averment (Forgery) did not constitute a “material fact” upon
which the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) could rely to
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
prove the Sole Cause of Action (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47). As
such, the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were not
required to plead the Averment (Forgery) in the 4 SOCs (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47); and
(b) O 18 r 7(1) is subject to O 18 r 12(1) RC - please refer to
Universiti Teknologi MARA v Magna Metier Sdn Bhd [2022]
5 AMR 583, at [20(2)]. According to O 18 r 12(1) RC, the 4
SOCs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) “shall contain the necessary
particulars” of the Sole Cause of Action (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47).
The Averment (Forgery) was not a “necessary particular” to
support the Sole Cause of Action (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47).
Hence, the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were not
required by O 18 r 12(1) to plead the Averment (Forgery) in the
4 SOCs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47); and
(2) according to O 1A and O 2 r 1(2) RC, when RC [including O 18 rr
7(1) and 12(1) RC] are administered by the court, the court “shall
have regard to the overriding interest of justice”. I am not able to see
how the Plaintiffs’ omission to plead the Averment (Forgery) in the 4
SOCs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had caused any injustice to the
Defendant in resisting the 6 Suits, especially when the Defendant
had adduced SD2’s Expert Opinion to rebut the Averment (Forgery).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
E(2). Did Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) prove Averment
(Forgery) on a balance of probabilities?
25. The Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) bear the evidential burden
under s 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA) to prove the Averment
(Forgery). Section 103 EA reads as follows:
“s 103 Burden of proof as to particular fact
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.”
(emphasis added).
26. The Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) are required to prove the
Averment (Forgery) on a balance of probabilities - please refer to the
judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by Anuar J (as he then was) in
United Asian Bank Bhd v Tai Soon Heng Construction Sdn Bhd
[1993] 1 MLJ 182, at 188.
E(2A). Whether Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) are required to
adduce expert handwriting evidence
27. According to Mr. Rohan, the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) did not
adduce any opinion from a handwriting expert to prove the Averment
(Forgery), let alone rebut SD2’s Expert Opinion.
28. I am not able to accede to the above submission. My reasons are as
follows:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
(1) s 45(1) EA provides as follows -
“s 45(1) Opinions of experts
When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign
law or of science or art, or as to identity or genuineness of
handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of
persons specially skilled in that foreign law, science or art, or in
questions as to identity or genuineness of handwriting or finger
impressions, are relevant facts.”
(emphasis added).
Section 45(1) EA does not provide that the court is bound by a
handwriting expert’s opinion on the authenticity of a signature or
otherwise (Handwriting Expert’s Opinion). This is because a trial
judge has the primary duty as a decider of fact to decide on the
genuineness of a signature or otherwise [Factual Issue
(Genuineness of Signature)] and is not bound by a Handwriting
Expert’s Opinion. If otherwise, the court would have abdicated its
judicial duty to decide the Factual Issue (Genuineness of Signature)
and in turn, a handwriting expert would have usurped the court’s
function in this regard;
(2) according to ss 47 and 73 EA -
“s 47 Opinion as to handwriting when relevant
When the court has to form an opinion as to the person by
whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any
person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
it is supposed to have been written or signed, that it was or was
not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation - A person is said to be acquainted with the
handwriting of another person when he has seen that person
write, or when he has received documents purporting to be
written by that person in answer to documents written by
himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or
when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting
to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to
him.
s 73 Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others
admitted or proved
(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or
seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been
written or made, any signature, writing or seal, admitted or
proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or
made by that person, may be compared by a witness or by the
court with the one which is to be proved, although that
signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for
any other purpose.”
(emphasis added)
A party (X) who has alleged that X’s signature or handwriting on a
document has been forged (X’s Forgery Allegation) is not required
to adduce a Handwriting Expert’s Opinion to discharge the evidential
burden under s 103 EA to prove X’s Forgery Allegation. Nor can the
court draw an adverse inference against X pursuant to s 114(g) EA
for X’s failure to tender a Handwriting Expert’s Opinion to
substantiate X’s Forgery Allegation. I refer to the following judgment
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
in Hanson Quarry Products Sdn Bhd v Chong Boon Heng & Ors
[2023] MLRHU 603, at [32(1)(a)] and [32(1)(b)] -
“[32] …
(1)(a) ss 47 and 73(1) [EA] state as follows -
…
By virtue of s 73(1) EA -
(i) the court has a discretion to decide as a matter of fact
regarding the genuineness of a person’s signature on
a document (Signature A) by comparing Signature A
with other undisputed signatures of that person
(Undisputed Signatures); and
(ii) the court does not need, let alone require, an opinion
of a handwriting expert to assist the court to decide
the authenticity of Signature A.
According to s 47 EA, the court may decide on the
genuineness of Signature A by way of evidence of persons
who are “acquainted” with the signatures of the signatory
of Signature A (as understood in the Explanation to s 47
EA);
(b) in the Federal Court case of Letchumanan Chettiar
Alagappan @ L Allagappan (as executor to SL Alameloo
Achi Alias Sona Lena Alamelo Acho, Deceased) & Anor v
Secure Plantations Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 697, at [1] and [92]
to [94], Jeffrey Tan FCJ delivered the following judgment -
“[1] Leave was granted to the appellants
to raise the following ‘questions of law’ before
this court:
…
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
(3) whether a case of forgery can only be
proved by means of the opinion of a
handwriting expert?
…
[92] Inadvertent or not, the courts below
plainly held that only the evidence of a forensic
expert was sufficient in law to prove the alleged
forgery. ‘But opinion as to handwriting is not
confined to experts, but may be given by any
person who is duly acquainted with it. It is not
necessary to examine a handwriting expert in
every case of disputed writing. No adverse
inference can be drawn against a party from the
fact that the opinion of the handwriting expert
has not been obtained … ‘The modes of proof
envisaged in ss 45 and 47 [EA] are not exclusive
for proving the genuineness or authorship of a
document’ (Woodroffe and Amir Ali Vol 2 at p
2237). Comparison may be made, by a
handwriting expert under s 45 [EA], by anyone
familiar with the handwriting of the person
concerned as provided by s 47 [EA], or by the
court itself. ‘As a matter of extreme caution and
judicial sobriety, the court should not normally,
take upon itself the responsibility of comparing
the disputed signature with that of the admitted
signature or handwriting and in the event of the
slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of
the experts. But this does not mean that the court
does not have any power to compare the
disputed signature with the admitted signature.
That power is clearly available under s 73 [EA]’
(Woodroffe and Amir Ali Vol 2 at p 2236). But ‘if
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
the feature of writing and signature on the
documents are so glaring, that the court can form
an opinion by itself either way, further exercise
under s 45 may virtually become unnecessary or
futile’ (Woodroffe and Amir Ali Vol 2 at p 2248).
That was practically said in Siaw Kim Seong v
Siew Swee Yin (f) & Anor [2009] 1 MLJ 349, where
the supposed signatures of the plaintiff did not
match his admitted signatures upon a cursory
visual examination, and where it was said by the
Court of Appeal per Gopal Sri Ram JCA, as he
then was, delivering the judgment of the court,
that the trial judge ought to have acted under s
73(1) [EA] and made the comparison himself and
that ‘had the judge undertaken such an
examination he would have concluded, even
without the aid of an expert, that the signatures
appearing on the assignment and the transfer
were plain and undisguised forgeries’. It should
be clear enough that a finding of forgery could be
made without the opinion evidence of a
handwriting expert, be it in civil (AGS Harta Sdn
Bhd v Liew Yok Yin) or in criminal proceedings
(Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim & Anor v Public
Prosecutor [1983] 2 MLJ 232 at p 277).
[93] There was no opinion evidence from
a handwriting expert. Yet the courts below
should have considered the totality of the
evidence, the evidentiary facts and made the
inferences, and not just dismissed them as being
of no probative value. … The testimony of a
witness, or even the testimonies of witnesses,
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
could not prevail over the inferences drawn from
the total body of evidence. In the final analysis,
there were two contrary versions, genuine versus
forgery. But only the version of forgery was not
at odds with the indirect evidence. On the
balance of probabilities, forgery was proved. …
[94] We have covered the ground to
answer the leave questions, but in the following
terms:
…
Leave question 3 - Whether a case of forgery can
only be proved by means of the opinion of a
handwriting expert?
Answer: Negative.”
(emphasis added).
It is clear from Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan that when
the court decides whether Signature A has been forged or
otherwise, no adverse inference can be drawn by the court
under s 114(g) EA against a party (X) who has alleged
forgery of Signature A on the ground that X has failed to
procure an opinion of a handwriting expert that Signature A
has been forged;”
(emphasis added);
(3) a Handwriting Expert’s Opinion, by its very nature, is subjective and
cannot be conclusive. In the High Court case of Public Prosecutor
v Mohamed Kassim bin Yatim [1977] 1 MLJ 64, at 66, Hashim
Yeop Sani J (as he then was) has decided as follows -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
“It is settled law that evidence by a handwriting expert can never
be conclusive because it is only opinion evidence - see Ishwari
Prasad v Mohd Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728.
The assessment of evidence of handwriting experts
was also dealt with in Indar Datt v Emperor AIR 1931
Lahore 408 413. In that case In re B Venkata Row
(1913) ILR 36 Mad 159; 14 IC 418; 13 cr LJ 226 was
cited and also a quotation from Dr. Lawson's work on
the Law of Expert and Opinion Evidence, which runs
as follows:
"The evidence of the genuineness of the
signature based upon the comparison of
handwriting and of the opinion of experts is
entitled to proper consideration and weight.
It must be confessed however that it is of
the lowest order of evidence or of the most
unsatisfactory character. We believe that in
this opinion experienced laymen unite with
the members of the legal profession. Of all
kinds of evidence admitted in a court this is
the most unsatisfactory. It is so weak and
decrepit as scarcely to deserve a place in
our system of jurisprudence." ”
(emphasis added);
(4) if X has given oral evidence to prove X’s Forgery Allegation and if
the court finds X to be a credible witness (especially after vigorous
cross-examination), X’s testimony, in itself, can discharge the
evidential onus to prove X’s Forgery Allegation on a balance of
probabilities; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
(5) circumstantial evidence may prove X’s Forgery Allegation on a
balance of probabilities.
E(2B). Can court accept SD2 as a handwriting expert?
29. The Plaintiffs’ learned counsel, Mr. Colin Andrew Pereira, had invited the
court to find as a fact that SD2 was not a competent handwriting expert
under s 45(1) EA and on this ground alone, SD2’s Expert Opinion should
be rejected. According to Mr. Pereira, the following judgments of the
High Court had rejected SD2’s expert testimony on the authenticity of
signatures:
(1) the decision of Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah J in Genevieve
Christeta Bois v Public Prosecutor [2013] 1 LNS 947, at [42] and
[43];
(2) in Tan Sri Dato’ Kam Woon Wah v Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai
Yeow [2021] 1 LNS 2207, at [74] to [96], Ong Chee Kwan JC (as he
then was) preferred the opinion of one expert, Mr. William Pang
Chan Kok (Mr. Pang), over SD2’s expert view; and
(3) the judgment of Kamaludin Md. Said J (as he then was) in Goh
Chin Chai v Goh Seng Chan [2016] 1 LNS 1660, at [44].
30. In my earlier decision in Lai Kim Wa v Khiew Ju Meng & Ors [2023] 1
AMR 308, at [23] to [25], I have accepted SD2’s expert opinion and
rejected the expert evidence of Mr. Pang.
31. Firstly, the factual findings of one or more courts regarding -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
(1) the competence of an expert (Y); and
(2) the weight to be attached to Y’s expert testimony, if any
[Previous Court’s Factual Findings (Y’s Expert Opinion)];
- does not bind another court. This is due to the following reasons -
(a) from the view point of the doctrine of stare decisis, Previous Court’s
Factual Findings (Y’s Expert Opinion) have no binding effect. This is
because only the ratio decidendi in the written judgment of a
superior court binds all lower courts. The ratio decidendi of a court’s
written judgment is the legal proposition and reasoning (not the
factual decision) which has been applied by the court to decide an
issue which arises from the material facts of the case in question -
please refer to Syahin Hafiy Danial Bin Soh Ahmad Luptepi
Amin v Mansur Bin Yunus & Anor [2021] 8 MLJ 297, at [14]; and
(b) Previous Court’s Factual Findings (Y’s Expert Opinion) are based on
the particular facts and evidence adduced in those cases.
Notwithstanding the fact that Previous Court’s Factual Findings (Y’s
Expert Opinion) have no binding effect, if the court has decided as a
matter of fact that Y is not a competent expert under s 45(1) EA and/or
Y’s Expert Opinion should not be accepted (for any reason adduced in
that case), the court may rely on Previous Court’s Factual Findings (Y’s
Expert Opinion) to support such a finding of fact.
32. Secondly, notwithstanding the previous cases listed in the above
paragraph 29 (which had rejected SD2’s expert evidence), I find as a fact
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
that SD2 is a competent handwriting expert under s 45(1) EA to assist
this court regarding the genuineness of the Disputed Plaintiffs’
Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) or otherwise. This finding of fact
is based on SD2’s training and vast experience as a handwriting expert.
E(2C). Should court accept SD2’s Expert Opinion?
33. Regrettably, I am not able to attach any weight to SD2’s Expert Opinion.
This is because SD2 had not compared the Disputed Plaintiffs’
Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) on the Original Documents
(Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures) with Undisputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) on the Original Documents (Undisputed
Plaintiffs’ Signatures). Only with the availability of the Original
Documents (Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures) and Original Documents
(Undisputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures) could SD2 ascertain the fluency of
writing movement and the pressure of the pen(s) used by the Plaintiffs
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) on the Original Documents (Disputed
Plaintiffs’ Signatures). The importance of the availability of original
documents for the purpose of a forensic handwriting analysis has been
explained in the following cases and article:
(1) Mah Weng Kwai JCA has delivered the following judgment of the
Court of Appeal in Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Bhd v Augusto
Pompeo Romei & Anor [2014] 3 MLJ 672, at [33] -
“[33] The court is mindful that the use of photocopies of
original documents in handwriting/signature analysis may result
in inaccurate and inconclusive findings as fine hand or pen
movements would not be detectable as was held in CS
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
Petroleum (M) Sdn Bhd v Public Bank Berhad & Other Cases
[2011] 1 LNS 1349.”
(emphasis added);
(2) in the High Court case of CS Petroleum (M) Sdn Bhd v Public
Bank Bhd & Other Cases [2011] 1 LNS 1349, at [73] and [74],
Gunalan Muniandy JC (as he then was) has decided as follows -
“[73] ... Very importantly [Plaintiff’s handwriting expert’s]
report is entirely based on photocopies of the disputed cheques
and documents and he had never sighted the original
documents. ...
[74] It is a well known fact in the field of document
examination that the use of photocopies in
handwriting/signature analysis would result in inaccurate and
inconclusive findings as fine hand or pen movements would not
be detectable. …”
(emphasis added); and
(3) Mr. Harcharan Singh Tara, a handwriting expert and former
Director-General of the Chemistry Department, has expressed the
following opinion in his article, “Examination of Handwriting and
Signatures” [1995] 3 MLJ i, at iii -
“Photostated copies of disputed signatures/writing are not so
suitable for examination and all attempts should be made to
obtain the originals.”
(emphasis added).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
E(2D). Whether Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had proven
forgeries of Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45
and 47)
34. I find as a fact that the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) have
succeeded to prove the Averment (Forgery) on a balance of probabilities.
This factual finding is premised on the following evidence and reasons:
(1) the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had given oral testimonies
that the Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
had been forged;
(2) the cross-examination of the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
has not revealed any reason to doubt their veracity;
(3) police reports regarding the forgeries of the Disputed Plaintiffs’
Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had been lodged by the
Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47); and
(4) there is no reason for the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) to -
(a) give false evidence that the Disputed Plaintiffs’ Signatures
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had been forged. It is to be noted
that s 193 of the Penal Code (PC) provides for a maximum
imprisonment sentence of seven years and/or a fine for an
offence of giving false evidence; and
(b) according to s 182 PC, a person is liable to imprisonment up to
six months and/or a fine not exceeding RM2,000.00 for an
offence of making a false police report.
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
35. As explained in the above paragraph 34, the Disputed Plaintiffs’
Signatures (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) had been forged. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) are not bound by DRFs and FFs
which contained their forged signatures.
F. Object of HDA and effect of HDR
36. In the Federal Court case of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri
Kesejahteraan Bandar & Anor and another appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 162,
at [40], Tengku Maimun Binti Tuan Mat CJ has decided that “{Housing
Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 [HDA]} being a social
legislation designed to protect the house buyers, the interests of the
purchasers shall be the paramount consideration against the developer”
[Object (HDA)].
37. I reproduce below reg. 11(1), (1A) and (1B) HDR:
“Contract of sale.
11(1) Every contract of sale for the sale and purchase of a
housing accommodation together with the subdivisional portion of
land appurtenant thereto shall be in the form prescribed in Schedule
G and where the contract of sale is for the sale and purchase of a
housing accommodation in a subdivided building, in the form of a
parcel of a building or land intended for subdivision into parcels, as
the case may be, it shall be in the form prescribed in Schedule H.
(1A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), every contract of sale for
build then sell for a housing accommodation together with the
subdivisional portion of land appurtenant thereto shall be in the form
prescribed in Schedule I and where the contract of sale for build then
sell is for the sale and purchase of a housing accommodation in the
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
form of a parcel of a building or land intended for subdivision into
parcels, as the case may be, it shall be in the form prescribed in
Schedule J;
(1B) Subregulations (1) and (1A) shall not apply if at the time of
the execution of the contract of sale, the certificate of completion and
compliance for the housing accommodation has been issued and a
certified true copy of which has been forwarded to the purchaser.”
(emphasis added).
38. In SEA Housing Corporation Sdn Bhd v Lee Poh Choo [1982] 2 MLJ
31, the previous Federal Court (the Privy Council was then the apex
court) had construed provisions in HDA and Housing Developers
(Control and Licensing) Rules 1970 (1970 Rules). The Housing
Developers (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1982 (1982
Regulations) had replaced 1970 Rules. HDR has subsequently
repealed 1982 Regulations. Suffian LP has decided as follows in SEA
Housing Corporation, at p. 24:
“In Daiman Development Sdn Bhd v Mathew Lui Chin Teck [1978] 2
MLJ 239 we said at page 243 that developers are bound by the [1970
Rules] …
…
Mr. Chelliah argued that clause 32 is such a detail. With respect we
do not agree. In our judgment such details as are inserted into a
written agreement must be details consistent, not inconsistent with
[HAD] and [1970 Rules]. Clause 32 is inconsistent with paragraph (r)
of rule 12(1) [1970 Rules].
When Daiman went to the Privy Council [1981] 1 MLJ 56 their
Lordships observed at page 60, second column:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
42
"… it seems to their Lordships that upon the proper
construction of the proforma [used in that case] the
solicitors [for the developer there] would not be able to
include in the contract of sale any term or condition which
was not appropriate to effectuate the sale which had been
made, including for that purpose, of course, provisions to
comply with the requirements of the [1970 Rules]."
Thus it is clear that only terms and conditions designed to comply
with the requirements of the [1970 Rules] that may be inserted in a
contract of sale of land that is governed by [HDA] and [1970 Rules],
and that on the contrary terms and conditions which purport to get
round [HDA] and [1970 Rules] so as to remove the protection of
home buyers may not be so inserted.
With respect, the provisions in question here are similar to those
in Johnson v Moreton [1978] 3 All ER 37, a House of Lords decision,
where at page 49 Lord Hailsham said:
"The policy of the law has been repeatedly used to protect
the weaker of two parties who do not contract from
bargaining positions of equal strength.
The truth is that it can no longer be treated as axiomatic
that, in the absence of explicit language, the courts will
permit contracting out of the provisions of an Act of
Parliament - as was attempted here - where that Act,
though silent as to the possibility of contracting out,
nevertheless is manifestly passed for the protection of a
class of persons who do not negotiate from a position of
equal strength, but in whose well-being there is a public as
well as a private interest."
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
43
It would appear that only "contracting out" in favour of the weaker
party - i.e. the purchaser - might be countenanced by the courts.”
(emphasis added).
The above decision in SEA Housing Corporation was followed by Lord
Oliver in the Privy Council in Loh Wai Lian v SEA Housing
Corporation Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 1, at 2.
39. I am of the following view regarding reg. 11(1), (1A) and (1B) HDR:
(1) regs. 11(1) and (1A) HDR have mandatory effect due to the
employment of an imperative term “shall” in those provisions;
(2) reg. 11(1) HDR is subject to reg. 11(1A) HDR. This is clear from the
words “Notwithstanding paragraph (1)” in reg. 11(1A) HDR;
(3) according to reg. 11(1) HDR, if a “housing developer” (defined in s 3
HDA) sells -
(a) a “housing accommodation” (defined in s 3 HDA) together with
a subdivided portion of land appurtenant to the housing
accommodation, the SPA “shall” be in Schedule G; and
(b) a housing accommodation in a subdivided building, the SPA
“shall” be in Schedule H to HDR (Schedule H);
(4) reg. 11(1A) HDR provides that notwithstanding reg. 11(1) HDR, if a
housing developer builds and then sell -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
44
(a) a housing accommodation together with a subdivided portion of
land attached to the housing accommodation, the SPA “shall”
be in Schedule I; and
(b) a housing accommodation in a subdivided building, the SPA
“shall” be in Schedule J to HDR (Schedule J);
(5) according to reg. 11(1B) HDR, reg. 11(1) and (1A) HDR do not
apply provided that at the time of the execution of the SPA -
(a) the CCC for the housing accommodation has been issued; and
(b) a certified true copy of the CCC has been forwarded to the
purchaser.
If reg. 11(1B) HDR applies, the SPA of the housing accommodation
is not required to be in the form of a Statutory SPA (Schedule G, H, I
or J).
The 6 Bungalows concern the application of SUBBL. According to
by-law 25(1) SUBBL, the CCC of a construction project (in Form F in
the Second Schedule to SUBBL) shall be issued by the project’s
“principal submitting person”. By-law 2 SUBBL defines a principal
submitting person as a “qualified person” who has submitted
“building plans” (defined in by-law 2 SUBBL) (Building Plans) to the
local authority for approval in accordance with SUBBL and includes
any other qualified person who has taken over the duties and
responsibilities of or acts of the first-mentioned qualified person (in
accordance with by-law 7 SUBBL);
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
45
(6) a housing developer who intends to rely on reg. 11(1B) HDR has the
evidential burden under s 103 EA to prove compliance with reg.
11(1B) HDR [as explained in the above sub-paragraph (5)].
Purchasers have no evidential onus to disprove the application of
reg. 11(1B) HDR because purchasers are entitled to rely on the
mandatory application of reg. 11(1) and (1A) HDR;
(7) if reg. 11(1B) HDR does not apply, housing developers cannot
contract out of reg. 11(1) and (1A) HDR due to the following reasons
-
(a) as explained in the above sub-paragraph (1), reg. 11(1) and
(1A) HDR have mandatory effect;
(b) the only exception to reg. 11(1) and (1A) HDR is reg. 11(1B)
HDR; and
(c) if a housing developer is allowed to contract out of reg. 11(1)
and (1A) HDR -
(i) this will defeat the Object (HDA); and
(ii) this will be contrary to the ratio decidendi in SEA Housing
Corporation;
(8) in accordance with SEA Housing Corporation, purchasers of
housing accommodation may contract out of reg. 11(1) and (1A)
HDR in the sense that housing developers may agree to terms and
conditions in the relevant Statutory SPA which are more favourable
to the purchasers than those provided in the Statutory SPA; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
46
(9) in the construction of the Statutory SPA -
(a) if there is any ambiguity in any provision in the Statutory SPA,
such an ambiguity should be resolved in favour of a purchaser
of housing accommodation against a housing developer. Such
an interpretation attains the Object (HDA);
(b) Malaysian cases on contracts, in particular construction
contracts, which do not involve the Statutory SPA (Non-
Housing Development Contracts), should be read with
caution because -
(i) parties to Non-Housing Development Contracts have the
freedom to contract and are not bound to follow the
Statutory SPA; and
(ii) there is no disparity in the bargaining power between the
parties to Non-Housing Development Contracts which
warrants Parliament to intervene by way of legislation
(such as HDA);
(c) even if a Non-Housing Development Contract has a provision
which is identical or similar to a provision in the Statutory SPA,
it has to be borne in mind that the Non-Housing Development
Contract does not involve the attainment of the Object (HDA);
and
(d) cases from the Commonwealth which have decided on the
effect of contractual provisions which are identical or similar to
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
47
provisions in the Statutory SPAs, should be read with caution
as these foreign cases do not concern the achievement of the
Object (HDA).
G. Whether Defendant can rely on reg. 11(1B) HDR in Suits No. 46 and
49
40. As explained in the above sub-paragraphs 39(5) and (6), for the
Defendant to rely on reg. 11(1B) HDR in Suits No. 46 and 49, the
Defendant has the evidential burden pursuant to s 103 EA to satisfy the
court that at the time of the execution of the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and
49):
(1) the CCC for the Project dated 30.1.2015 [CCC (Project)] had been
issued; and
(2) a certified true copy of the CCC (Project) [CTC (Project’s CCC)]
had been forwarded to the purchasers of the 2 Bungalows (Suits
No. 46 and 49).
41. I have no hesitation to accept Mr. Pereira’s submission that the
Defendant cannot rely on reg. 11(1B) HDR in Suits No. 46 and 49
because -
(1) the Defendant did not adduce any evidence regarding the CTC
(Project’s CCC);
(2) no documentary evidence had been adduced in Suits No. 46 and 49
to prove that the CTC (Project’s CCC) had been forwarded to the
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
48
purchasers of the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49) at the time of
the signing of the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49);
(3) according to SP6 (for Suit No. 46), SP6 only received the CCC
(Project) a few years after the conclusion of the SPA (Suit No. 46);
and
(4) SP7 (for Suit No. 49) testified that she had not received the CCC
(Project).
42. I have not overlooked the Defendant’s letter dated 21.9.2015 to, among
others, SP7 [Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015)]. Attached to the
Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) was a copy of the CCC (Project)
[Attachment to Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015)]. This court is not able
to accept the Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and Attachment to
Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) as compliance with reg. 11(1B) HDR by
the Defendant in Suit No. 49. My reasons are as follows:
(1) there was no evidence that the Attachment to Defendant’s Letter
(21.9.2015) had been certified as a true copy of the CCC (Project)
by the Project’s principal submitting person [Ar. Kam Pak Cheong
(Ar. Kam) from the Project Architect] or any person authorized by
Ar. Kam;
(2) the Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) stated that it had been sent by
“Registered Mail” to the Plaintiffs (Suit No. 49). In view of SP7’s
denial of receipt of the Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and
Attachment to Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015), the Defendant should
have adduced documentary evidence to prove the posting of the
Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and Attachment to Defendant’s
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
49
Letter (21.9.2015) by way of Registered Post {Documentary
Evidence [Posting of Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and
Attachment to Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015)]}.
Illustration (f) to s 114(f) EA states as follows -
“s 114 Court may presume existence of certain fact
The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks
likely to have happened, regard being had to the common
course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
ILLUSTRATIONS
The court may presume -
…
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in
particular cases;
…
(vii) as to illustration (f) - the question is whether a letter was
received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual
course of the post was interrupted by disturbances;”
(emphasis added).
The Defendant can only invoke the rebuttable presumption under s
114(f) EA that the Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and Attachment to
Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) had been received by the Plaintiffs
(Suit No. 49) by way of Registered Post if the Defendant had
adduced the Documentary Evidence [Posting of Defendant’s Letter
(21.9.2015) and Attachment to Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015)]. As
the Defendant had failed to tender in Suit No. 49 the Documentary
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
50
Evidence [Posting of Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and Attachment
to Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015)], the Defendant cannot rely on s
114(f) EA to contend that -
(a) there was a rebuttable presumption that the Plaintiffs (Suit No.
49) had received the Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and
Attachment to Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015); and
(b) the Plaintiffs (Suit No. 49) had the evidential burden to rebut the
above rebuttable presumption; and
(3) even if it is assumed that the Plaintiffs (Suit No. 49) had received the
Defendant’s Letter (21.9.2015) and Attachment to Defendant’s
Letter (21.9.2015), reg. 11(1B) HDR required the Defendant to
forward the CTC (Project’s CCC) to the Plaintiffs (Suit No. 49) on
28.4.2015, the date of the signing of the SPA (Suit No. 49).
43. In any event, premised on of the evidence and reasons stated in the
above paragraphs 40 to 42, I find as a fact that the Defendant has failed
to discharge the evidential burden to prove the application of reg. 11(1B)
HDR in Suits No. 46 and 49.
44. As explained in the above paragraphs 40 to 43 -
(1) the 2 SPA’s (Suits No. 46 and 49) [including Section 6.01 (Suits No.
46 and 49)] cannot be enforced in Suits No. 46 and 49 because of
the non-applicability of reg. 11(1B) HDR; and
(2) in view of reg. 11(1A) HDA, Schedule I shall apply to the 2
Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
51
H. Whether Defendant can rely on Home Owners Manual
45. I am of the view that the Defendant cannot rely on the Home Owners
Manual as a defence to the 6 Suits because -
(1) any reliance on the Home Owners Manual would allow the
Defendant to circumvent -
(a) the contents of the 4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) which
have been mandatorily prescribed in Schedule G by virtue of
reg. 11(1) HDR;
(b) Schedule I which applies in Suits No. 46 and 49 by reason of -
(i) the non-applicability of reg. 11(1B) HDR; and
(ii) the invocation of reg. 11(1A) HDR;
(2) according to ss 91 and 92 EA -
“Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of
property reduced to form of document
s 91. When the terms of a contract or of a grant or of any
other disposition of property have been reduced by or by consent
of the parties to the form of a document, and in all cases in which
any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a
document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of the
contract, grant or other disposition of property or of the matter
except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents
in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the
provisions hereinbefore contained.
…
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
52
Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement
s 92. When the terms of any such contract, grant or other
disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced
to the form of a document, have been proved according to section
91, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be
admitted as between the parties to any such instrument or their
representatives in interest for the purpose of contradicting,
varying, adding to, or subtracting from its terms:
Provided that -
(a) any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document or
which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating
thereto, such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due
execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, the fact
that it is wrongly dated, want or failure of consideration, or
mistake in fact or law;
(b) the existence of any separate oral agreement, as to any matter
on which a document is silent and which is not inconsistent with
its terms, may be proved, and in considering whether or not this
proviso applies, the court shall have regard to the degree of
formality of the document;
(c) the existence of any separate oral agreement constituting a
condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any
such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved;
(d) the existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement, to
rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of
property, may be proved except in cases in which the contract,
grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in
writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for
the time being as to the registration of documents;
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
53
(e) any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly
mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of
that description may be proved if the annexing of any such
incident would not be repugnant to or inconsistent with the
express terms of the contract; and
(f) any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the
language of a document is related to existing facts.
…”
(emphasis added).
It is not disputed that in Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47, the Defendant
cannot rely on any of the provisos (a) to (f) to s 92 EA. By virtue of ss
91 and 92 EA, as explained by Chang Min Tat FJ in the Federal
Court case of Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co [1979] 2
MLJ 229, at 232 to 233, the contents of the Home Owners Manual
cannot -
(a) contradict;
(b) vary;
(c) add to; or
(d) subtract from
- the 4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47); and
(3) the contents of the Home Owners Manual do not have any legal
effect. This is clear from the second page of the Home Owners
Manual (under the title “Provision”) -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
54
“This [Home Owners Manual] is for Owner’s reference purposes
only. It is not legally binding and its contents are not to be
taken, read and construed as an integral part of the [SPA] …”
(emphasis added).
I. Whether court can reject SD4’s report as evidence due to non-
compliance with O 40A r 3(2)(g) and (h) RC
46. Mr. Pereira had invited the court to reject SD4’s Report as evidence
solely on the ground that SD4’s Report had failed to comply with O 40A r
3(2)(g) and (h) RC.
47. O 40A r 3(2)(g) and (h) RC state as follows:
“O 40A r 3 Requirements of expert’s evidence
(1) Unless the Court otherwise directs, expert evidence to be
given at the trial of any action, is to be given in a written report
signed by the expert and exhibited in an affidavit sworn to or
affirmed by him testifying that the report exhibited is his and that he
accepts full responsibility for the report.
(2) An expert’s report shall -
…
(g) contain a statement of belief of correctness of the expert’s opinion;
and
(h) contain a statement that the expert understands that in giving his
report, his overriding duty is to the Court and that he complies with
that duty.”
(emphasis added).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
55
48. According to Mr. Pereira, in the following cases, the court has rejected
the admissibility of experts’ reports on the sole ground that the experts’
reports have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of O 40A r 3
RC:
(1) the judgment of Vernon Ong Kiat Lam JCA (as he then was) in the
Court of Appeal case of Batu Kemas Industri Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan
Malaysia & Anor [2015] 7 CLJ 849;
(2) the High Court’s decision in Goh Chin Chai; and
(3) Abdul Wahab Mohamed JC’s (as he then was) judgment in Teoh
Ah Cha @ Teoh Sik Sen & Ors v Huatson Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018]
1 LNS 1037.
Based on the above cases, Mr. Pereira had attempted to persuade this
court to exclude SD4’s Report as evidence solely on the ground that
SD4’s Report had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of O
40A r 3(2)(g) and (h) RC.
49. Firstly, the requirements imposed by O 40A r 3(2)(a) to (h) RC regarding
the contents of an expert’s report, are not mandatory. It is decided by
Lau Bee Lan J (as she then was) in the High Court case of ADM
Ventures (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Renew Capital Sdn Bhd and other
cases [2021] MLJU 1466, at [88], as follows:
“[88] By virtue of the opening words “unless the Court otherwise
directs …” being present in O 40A r 3(1) [RC], I am of the respectful
view that is not mandatory for the written report of the expert to be
exhibited in an affidavit form sworn or affirmed by
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
56
him. Consequentially premised on the authority of Datuk Captain
Hamzah (supra), since the non-compliance is not mandatory in
nature, in the interest of justice I invoke O 1A [RC] to overcome the
technical non-compliance.”
(emphasis added).
The above judgment in ADM Ventures has been followed by John Lee
Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee JC (as he then was) in the High Court in
Mercu Pusu Development Sdn Bhd v Setara Jaya Sdn Bhd [2022]
MLJU 512, at [52] and [53]. I have no hesitation to accept the ratio
decidendi of ADM Ventures and Mercu Pusu Development.
50. Secondly, Batu Kemas Industri has not decided that if an expert’s
report does not comply with any of the paragraphs in O 40A r 3(2)(a) to
(h) RC, the court should reject the admissibility of the expert’s report on
this ground alone.
51. Thirdly, the High Court has decided in Goh Chin Chai and Teoh Ah Cha
that if an expert’s report fails to comply with any of the paragraphs in O
40A r 3(2)(a) to (h) RC, the expert’s report cannot be admitted as
evidence:
(1) according to Goh Chin Chai, at [30] and [31] (in our National
Language) -
“[30] Berdasarkan kepada kegagalan mengeksibitkan
laporan pakar yang disediakan dalam afidavit yang diikrarkan
sepertimana kehendak Aturan 40A k 3(1), saya berpendapat
laporan pakar P2 telah dikemukakan tanpa mematuhi arahan di
bawah Aturan 40A k 3(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
57
Adalah penting mematuhi peruntukan dalam Kaedah-Kaedah
yang telah diadakan kerana tanggungjawab pakar adalah
membantu Mahkamah dalam perkara-perkara dalam
kemahirannya dan tanggungjawab ini mengatasi sebarang
tanggungjawab terhadap mana-mana orang yang mana arahan
diterima atau yang membayar saksi pakar itu (A 40A k 2).
[31] Berdasarkan kepada ketakpatuhan itu maka laporan
bertulis yang disediakan oleh SP1 tidak memenuh isyaratsyarat
di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Laporan bertulis SP1
dan keterangan yang diberikan wajar ditolak.”
(emphasis added); and
(2) the above judgment in Goh Chin Chai has been followed in Teoh
Ah Cha, at [30] and [31] -
“[30] Failure of an expert report to comply with Order 40A
[RC] was a serious defect as may be seen in the case of Goh
Chin Chai v. Goh Seng Chan [2016] 1 LNS 1660 where it was
held as follows:-
…
[31] Based on the forensic report prepared by PW4, I
agree with the Defendants that PW4 had failed to comply with
the O 40A r 3(1) [RC] and that his evidence ought to be rejected
by this court. It was also my finding that PW4 had failed to state
in his report that his duty is to the Court and that he complies
with that duty as required under O 40A r 3(2)(e) [RC].”
(emphasis added).
52. Fourthly, as explained by Ong Hock Thye FJ (as he then was) in the
Federal Court case of Sundralingam v Ramanathan Chettiar [1967] 2
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
58
MLJ 211, at 213, the ratio decidendi of a High Court’s judgment does not
bind the other High Courts. With respect, I beg to differ with the ratio
decidendi of Goh Chin Chai and Teoh Ah Cha. I am of the view that if
an expert’s report does not comply with any of the paragraphs in O 40A r
3(2)(a) to (h) RC {Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC]} -
(1) notwithstanding the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC], the expert’s
report is still admissible as evidence; and
(2) the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC] may only adversely affect
the weight to be attached by the court to the expert’s report, affidavit
and oral testimony.
The above opinion is supported by the following considerations -
(a) O 40A r 3(2) RC does not provide, either expressly or by necessary
implication, that the expert’s report is inadmissible as evidence
solely due to the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC]. It is decided as
follows in Kingtime International Ltd & Anor v Petrofac E&C Sdn
Bhd [2018] MLJU 1840, at [24(5)] -
“[24] I am of the following view regarding an expert’s
duties:
…
(5) if an expert -
(a) is not independent or is perceived to be not independent;
or
(b) has breached the Duty To Disclose
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
59
the Court cannot reject the expert’s evidence. This view is
supported by the following reasons -
(i) O 40A r 2(1) and (2) RC do not provide for
admissibility or exclusion of expert evidence;
(ii) s 45(1) EA provides for expert evidence as follows -
…
Section 45(1) EA does not bar the admissibility of
expert evidence on the ground that the expert is not
independent (in fact or perceived as such) or has
failed to comply with the Duty To Disclose;”
(emphasis added);
(b) in Mercu Pusu Development -
(i) the valuation report (VR) of an expert valuer did not comply with
O 40A r 3 RC; and
(ii) the defendant had applied to the High Court to exclude as
evidence both the VR and the valuer’s oral evidence solely on
the ground that O 40A r 3 RC had been breached.
It is decided in Mercu Pusu Development, at [42] to [45], as follows
-
“[42] I shall now proceed with the next issue, in which the
parties disputed as to the admissibility of the VR. The Defendant
contended that the VR should be disregarded and/or set aside
by this Court due to its incompliance to the mandatory
requirements set in Order 40A Rule 3 [RC].
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
60
[43] The Defendant further elaborated that it is mandatory for
the expert evidence to be given in a written report and exhibited in an
affidavit sworn by the maker of the report. The Plaintiff’s expert
witness in this case had produced the VR in a common bundle as
usual documentary evidence attached with a statutory declaration.
[44] I differ with the Defendant on this because Order 40A
Rule 3 [RC] does not bar the Court from accepting the witness’s
oral testimony if the expert’s opinion was not done in
accordance to Order 40A rule 3 [RC]. …
[45] While Order 40A rule 3 detects that written expert
opinion needs to be tendered in accordance with the format laid
down in it, there is nothing to impede the witness from giving
their oral testimony stating their opinion as to facts. The court
may still consider PW1’s testimony under section 59 [EA], where
it states:
“Proof of facts by oral evidence
59. All facts, except the documents, may be proved
by oral evidence.” ”
(emphasis added);
(c) by virtue of O 2 r 1(1) RC, the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC]
“shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not nullify” the expert’s
report and the court may “make such order, if any, dealing with the
proceedings generally as it or he thinks fit in order to cure the
irregularity”, ie., the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC], pursuant to
O 2 r 1(3) RC. I reproduce below O 2 r 1(1) and (3) RC -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
61
“O 2 r 1 Non-compliance with Rules
(1) Where, in beginning or purporting to begin any proceedings or at
any stage in the course of or in connection with any
proceedings, there has, by reason of any thing done or left
undone, been non-compliance with the requirement of these
Rules, the non-compliance shall be treated as an irregularity
and shall not nullify the proceedings, any step taken in the
proceedings, or any document, judgment or order therein.
…
(3) The Court or Judge may, on the ground that there has been
such non-compliance as referred to in paragraph (1), and on
such terms as to costs or otherwise as it or he thinks just,
bearing in mind the overriding objective of these Rules, exercise
its or his discretion under these Rules to allow such amendments,
if any, to be made and to make such order, if any, dealing with the
proceedings generally as it or he thinks fit in order to cure the
irregularity.”
(emphasis added).
In Mercu Pusu Development, at [53] and [54], the High Court had
exercised its discretion pursuant to O 2 r 1(1) RC to cure the non-
compliance with O 40A r 3 RC;
(d) O 1A and O 2 r 1(2) RC require the court to administer O 40A r
3(2)(a) to (h) RC with regard to the overriding interest of justice -
please refer to ADM Ventures, at [88]; and
(e) no injustice is caused by the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC]
because -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
62
(i) the report and affidavit of an expert (S) which do not comply
with O 40A r 3(2) RC is disclosed to the opposing party’s expert
(T) before the commencement of a trial and T may then assist
the court with regard to T’s rebuttal, if any, to the contents of S’s
report and affidavit;
(ii) T’s learned counsel has a right to cross-examine S in respect of
the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC], contents of S’s report,
affidavit and S’s oral evidence; and
(iii) T’s learned counsel has a right to submit, orally and in writing,
on the Non-Compliance [O 40A r 3(2) RC], contents of S’s
report, affidavit and S’s oral testimony.
53. As explained in the above paragraph 52, I am not able to accede to Mr.
Pereira’s application for this court to exclude SD4’s Report as evidence
in Suits No. 45, 47 and 49.
J. Did Defendant breach Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47) and Clause
15(1) [Schedule I] by using Red Balau timber in 3 Bungalows (Suits
No. 45, 47 and 49)?
54. Mr. Pereira had submitted as follows, among others:
(1) SP15, a timber expert, had examined parts of timber taken from the
3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49) (Timber Parts). According to
SP15’s examination of the Timber Parts, Red Balau (not Yellow
Balau) timber was used by the Defendant in the construction of the
3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49);
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
63
(2) SP15 had given the following expert view (SP15’s Expert Opinion)
-
(a) Red Balau timber is classified as “SG3” under “MS 544, 2001”,
“Code of Practice for Structural Use of Timber: Part 2,
Permissible Stress Design of Solid Timber” from the
Department of Standards Malaysia (MS 544); and
(b) according to MS 544, Yellow Balau timber is classified as “SG
1” which is “stronger” than Red Balau timber (classified as “SG
3” in MS 544);
(3) based on the reasons advanced by Mr. Pereira, the court should
prefer SP15’s Expert Opinion to SD4’s expert evidence (SD4’s
Expert Opinion); and
(4) in view of SP15’s Expert Opinion, the Defendant had breached -
(a) Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47); and
(b) Clause 15(1) [Schedule I] [which applies to Suit No. 49 upon
the application of reg. 11(1A) HDR].
According to Mr. Pereira, due to the High Purchase Prices, the
Defendant should have used Yellow Balau (not Red Balau) timber in
the construction of the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49).
Reliance had been placed on the following two High Court decisions
-
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
64
(i) the judgment of Lim Chong Fong J (as he then was) in Dua
Residency Management Corporation v Edisi Utama Sdn
Bhd & Anor [2021] 1 LNS 174; and
(ii) See Mee Chun J’s (as she then was) decision in Portland
Arena Sdn Bhd v Sime Darby Property Bhd [2014] 1 LNS
1562.
J(1). Interpretation of Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47) and Clause 15(1)
[Schedule I]
55. I reproduce below the relevant part of Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47)
and Clause 15(1) [Schedule I]:
“Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47)
Materials and workmanship to conform to description
The said Building shall be constructed in a good and workmanlike
manner in accordance with the description set out in the Fourth
Schedule hereto and in accordance with the plans approved by the
Appropriate Authority as in the Second Schedule, which descriptions
and plans have been accepted and approved by the Purchaser, as
the Purchaser hereby acknowledges. ...
Clause 15(1) [Schedule I]
Materials and workmanship to conform to description
15(1) The said Building shall be constructed in a good and
workmanlike manner in accordance with the description set out in
the Fourth Schedule and in accordance with the plans approved by
the Appropriate Authority as in the Second Schedule, which
descriptions and plans have been accepted and consented by the
Purchaser, as the Purchaser hereby acknowledges.”
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
65
(emphasis added).
The Second Schedule to the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 45 and 47) and the
Second Schedule to the Statutory SPA in Schedule I [collectively
referred to in this judgment as the “2nd Schedule (SPAs)”] contain the
approved Building Plans for the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49).
This judgment shall refer collectively to the Fourth Schedule to the 2
SPAs (Suits No. 45 and 47) and the Fourth Schedule to the Statutory
SPA in Schedule I as the “4th Schedule (SPAs)”. The 4th Schedule
(SPAs) provides the particulars for the materials to be used in the
construction of the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49).
56. Section 74(1) CA provides as follows:
“Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract
74(1) CA 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 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.”
(emphasis added).
As explained in Jambatan Merah Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Public
Bank Bhd [2016] 1 CLJ 811, at [46], a party can only claim for loss due
to a breach of a contract if the loss falls within the following two limbs of s
74(1) CA {2 Limbs [Section 74(1) CA]}:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
66
(1) the loss “naturally arose in the usual course of things” from the
breach of the contract within the meaning of the first limb of s
74(1) CA {1st Limb [Section 74(1) CA]}; and/or
(2) both the contracting parties “knew, when they made the
contract” that the “loss was likely to result from the breach” of
the contract as understood in the second limb of s 74(1) CA {2nd
Limb [Section 74(1) CA]}.
57. I construe Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47) and Clause 15(1) [Schedule
I] as follows:
(1) Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47) and Clause 15(1) [Schedule I]
require a housing developer to -
(a) construct a housing accommodation in accordance with the
approved Building Plans as laid down in the 2nd Schedule
(SPAs);
(b) use materials in the building of a housing accommodation
(Construction Materials) which conforms to the description in
the 4th Schedule (SPAs) [Housing Developer’s Obligation
(Materials)]; and
(c) construct a housing accommodation in a “good and
workmanlike manner” in accordance with -
(i) the 4th Schedule (SPAs); and
(ii) the 2nd Schedule (SPAs)
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
67
[Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship)];
(2) the nature and extent of a Housing Developer’s Obligation
(Materials) and Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship) are dependent on the price of the housing
accommodation [Price (Housing Accommodation)]. The relevance
of the Price (Housing Accommodation) is clear from the following
reasons -
(a) the Price (Housing Accommodation) is the valuable
consideration furnished by the purchaser to the housing
developer for the housing accommodation;
(b) in determining the loss which may be claimed by a purchaser of
a housing accommodation from a housing developer for breach
of a Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) and/or Housing
Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship) -
(i) the court has to consider the Price (Housing
Accommodation) in deciding whether the loss “naturally
arose in the usual course of things” from the breach of the
contract - please refer to the 1st Limb [Section 74(1) CA];
and/or
(ii) premised on the Price (Housing Accommodation), both the
purchaser and housing developer would have known,
when they made the contract, whether the “loss was likely
to result from the breach” of the contract - please see the
2nd Limb [Section 74(1) CA]; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
68
(c) Dua Residency Management Corporation has interpreted a
contractual provision which is substantially similar to Clause 13
(Suits No. 45 and 47) and Clause 15(1) [Schedule I]. It is
decided in Dua Residency Management Corporation, at [91]
and [115], as follows -
“[91] Furthermore, the Plaintiff relied on three-fold
implied terms expounded in the 1966 English Court of
Appeal case of Hancock and Others v. B W Brazier
(Anerley) Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 901 (CA), in which the plaintiff,
the purchaser of a house built by the defendants, sued for
damages for breach of contract in failing to erect and
complete the house purchased in a proper and
workmanlike manner after the purchaser’s house suffered
from substantial damage due to the usage of unsuitable
materials during its construction. Lord Denning held that
apart from the express clauses contained within the
contract entered into between the plaintiff and the
defendants in the sale and purchase of the house, the
defendant builders were also bound by a threefold
implication in law: “It is quite clear from Lawrence v.
Cassel (1) and Miller v. Cannon Hill Estates, Ltd (2), that
when a purchaser buys a house from a builder who
contracts to build it, there is a threefold implication: that
the builder will do his work in a good and workmanlike
manner; that he will supply good and proper materials; and
that it will be reasonably fit for human habitation.
Sometimes this implication, or some part of it, may be
excluded by an express provision, as for instance in Lynch
v. Thorne (3). … The question in this case is whether the
threefold implication is excluded by cl. 9. I think that it is
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
69
not, for this simple reason: cl. 9 deals only with
workmanship. It does not deal with materials. The quality of
materials is left to be implied; and the necessary
implication is that they should be good and suitable for the
work. I am quite clear that it is implied in the contract that
the hardcore must be good and proper hardcore, in the
same way as the bricks must be good and proper bricks. I
know that the builders were not at fault themselves.
Nevertheless this is a contract: it was their responsibility to
see that good and proper hardcore was put in. As it was
not put in, they are in breach of their contract. If it is any
consolation to them, they can try and get hold of their
suppliers and sue them if they can prove it against them;
but they have to take responsibility so far as the
purchasers are concerned.” (emphasis added) This three-
fold implied terms principle has been accepted in the
Malaysian cases of Teh Khem On & Anor v. Yeoh & Wu
Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 2 MLJ 663 as well as
Komala Devi M Perumal v. Bandar Eco-Setia Sdn Bhd &
Anor [2016] 1 LNS 1053.
…
[115] First and foremost, I have no qualms that this
Condominium is indeed an expensive high end
condominium located in a prestigious location in the
Golden Triangle of Kuala Lumpur. In the English case of
Brown v. Gilbert-Scott [1992] 35 Con LR 120, Mr Recorder
Coles QC held as follows: “... if you buy a Mini Minor you
cannot expect to have a car with all the attributes of a
Rolls-Royce and the same must be true of building works.”
Likewise, I hold this must be conversely true if it is for an
expensive high end building; see also the English Court of
Appeal case of Cotton v. Wallis [1955] 1 WLR 1168. In other
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
70
words, the quality expectation should generally
commensurate with the price.”
(emphasis added);
(3) taking into consideration the Price (Housing Accommodation), a
Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) is breached if the
housing developer uses Construction Materials which -
(a) is contrary to the 4th Schedule (SPAs);
(b) causes defects, patent and/or latent, in a housing
accommodation which should not have occurred in view of the
Price (Housing Accommodation); and/or
(c) will render the housing accommodation not fit for human
habitation for a purchaser who has paid the Price (Housing
Accommodation);
(4) based on the Price (Housing Accommodation), a Housing
Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship) is not fulfilled when a
housing developer’s workmanship in a housing accommodation
causes -
(a) patent and/or latent defects in a housing accommodation which
should not have occurred in view of the Price (Housing
Accommodation); and/or
(b) the housing accommodation to be not fit for human habitation
for a purchaser who has paid the Price (Housing
Accommodation); and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
71
(5) a breach of SUBBL does not create an independent cause of action
in the form of a tort of breach of statutory duty - please refer to the
judgment of Lee Swee Seng J (as he then was) in the High Court in
KL Eco City Sdn Bhd v Tuck Sin Engineering & Construction
Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] 1 LNS 360, at [187] and [188]. Having said
that, in deciding the extent of a Housing Developer’s Obligation
(Materials) and Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship), the court may consider the effect of SUBBL. This is
because the building plans for the housing accommodation as laid
down in the 2nd Schedule (SPAs) can only be approved by the local
authority if the housing developer complies with SUBBL.
J(2). Whether Defendant had breached Housing Developer’s
Obligation (Materials) by using Red Balau timber in 3 Bungalows
(Suits No. 45, 47 and 49)
58. The 4th Schedule (SPAs) has not specified the particular type of timber,
let alone Yellow Balau timber, to be used in the construction of 3
Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49). Nonetheless, even if this court
accepts SP15’s Expert Opinion [the Defendant had used Red Balau to
construct the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49)], I decide that the
Defendant has not breached Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials).
My reasons are as follows:
(1) SP15 did not offer any expert testimony that in view of the High
Purchase Prices, Red Balau timber is not a strong timber which
should not have been used by the Defendant in the building of the 3
Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49); and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
72
(2) there is no evidence to show that the Defendant’s use of Red Balau
timber in the construction of the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and
49) -
(a) had caused any patent and/or latent defect in the 3 Bungalows
(Suits No. 45, 47 and 49) which should not have occurred in
view of the High Purchase Prices; and
(b) had rendered the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49) not fit
for human habitation for the purchasers who had paid the High
Purchase Prices for the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49).
K. Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows)
59. It is not disputed that the Plaintiffs bear the legal and evidential burden to
prove on a balance of probabilities -
(1) the existence of the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows); and
(2) the causa causans of the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) was -
(a) the Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s Obligation
(Materials) and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship) as provided in Clause 13 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
47) and Clause 15(1) [Schedule I];
(b) not the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works;
(c) not the Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows); and/or
(d) not Ordinary Wear and Tear (6 Bungalows).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
73
In deciding the causa causans of the Alleged Defects (6
Bungalows), I refer to the following judgment in Tropicana Golf &
Country Resort Bhd v Loke Wei Kuen & Ors and three other
appeals [2023] 2 MLRH 453, at [35], [36], [79] and [80] -
“[35] Firstly, a plaintiff can only claim for damages from a
defendant for a tort if the causa causans of the plaintiff’s injury,
loss and/or damage [Loss/Injury/Damage] is the commission of
the tort by the defendant. This is a question regarding
“causation in fact” of the Loss/Injury/Damage (Factual
Causation Issue). Besides the term causa causans, case law has
used various terms, ie., “effective” cause, “real” cause,
“proximate” cause, “immediate” cause, “operative” cause,
“dominant” cause, “true” cause and “substantial” cause as the
factual cause of the Loss/Injury/Damage which is enforceable in
law. In this judgment, I will employ the term causa causans as
the factual cause of the Loss/Injury/Damage which is
enforceable in law. This is because of the following judgment by
Steve Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) in the Federal Court case of
Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon &
Ors [2006] 2 MLJ 389, at [4]:
“[4] … The expression 'causa causans' merely means
a cause that causes (see Smith, Hogg & Company Ltd
v Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd [1940]
AC 997 at p 1003). There may be more than one cause
that causes a particular injury. From the passage cited
above, it would appear that Mr Abraham was of the
view that causa causans merely meant an effective
cause. It has been held that such an expression
should be avoided as the issue of causation does not
necessarily turn upon it (see Environment Agency
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
74
(Formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car
Co (Abertillery) Ltd [1999] 2 AC 23 at p 29). Causation
is a matter to be determined by common sense and
what the law regards as fair, just and reasonable in
the circumstances of a particular case (see Fairchild
(suing on her own behalf) etc v Glenhaven Funeral
Services Ltd & Ors, etc [2002] 3 WLR 89, March v E &
MH Stramare Pty Ltd & Anor (1991) 99 ALR 423 at p
429). The relevant question is whether the acts and/or
omissions of a particular defendant made a material
contribution to the harm suffered by the plaintiff (see
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 at pp
620, 623; Nicholsons & Ors v Atlas Steel Foundary &
Engineering Co Ltd [1957] 1 WLR 631 at p 624;
Fairchild (suing on her own behalf) etc v Glenhaven
Funeral Services; Chappel v Hart (1998) 156 ALR 517
at pp 524–524).”
(emphasis added).
[36] I am of the following view regarding the Factual
Causation Issue:
(1) cases have not spoken with one voice regarding the
Factual Causation Issue. Each written judgment on the
Factual Causation Issue depends on the particular facts of
the case in question. Hence, previous decisions
concerning the Factual Causation Issue cannot constitute
binding legal precedents from the view point of the
doctrine of stare decisis;
(2) a plaintiff bears the evidential onus to satisfy the court on a
balance of probabilities regarding the Factual Causation
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
75
Issue, namely, the commission of a tort by the defendant is
the causa causans of the Loss/Injury/Damage; and
(3) the following considerations are relevant in the
determination of the Factual Causation Issue -
(a) the most important consideration is common sense -
Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya;
(b) what is fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances
of the case in question - Majlis Perbandaran Ampang
Jaya;
(c) policy considerations are relevant according to the
following joint judgment of Mason CJ, Deane and
Toohey JJ in the High Court of Australia (the highest
court in Australia) in Bennett v Minister of Community
Welfare (1992) 107 ALR 617, at 619 -
“In the realm of negligence, causation is
essentially a question of fact, to be
resolved as a matter of common sense. In
resolving that question, the “but for” test,
applied as a negative criterion of
causation, has an important role to play
but it is not a comprehensive and exclusive
test of causation; value judgments and
policy considerations necessarily intrude.”
(emphasis added); and
(d) the court may apply the “but for” test, ie., would the
plaintiff have suffered the Loss/Injury/Damage “but
for” the commission of a tort by the defendant? -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
76
please refer to Ravi A/L Ratnam v Ghandi Rajan A/L
Arjunan & Ors [2020] 7 MLJ 591, at [23] and [24].
…
[79] When a contract is breached, the innocent party to
the contract has the burden to prove that the causa causans of
the innocent party’s loss and/or damage, is the breach of
contract. I rely on the following judgment of Glidewell LJ in UK’s
Court of Appeal case of Galoo Ltd (in liquidation) v Bright
Grahame Murra [1994] 1 WLR 1360, at 1369-1370 -
“This argument depends upon the nature of the
causation necessary to establish liability for breach of
duty, whether in contract or in tort. There is no doubt
that this is one of the most difficult areas of the law.
Both counsel are agreed that, at least in the context of
this case, the principles applicable to liability in either
contract or tort are the same.
Mr. Hunter, for the defendants, submits that the
plaintiff's case depends upon the adoption of the "but
for” test of causation which, at least in contract, is not
the proper test in English law. This is causation of the
kind which has sometimes been referred to as a
"causa sine qua non.”
In Chitty on Contracts, 26th ed. (1989), vol. 2, pp. 1128–
1129, para. 1785, the editors say:
"The important issue in remoteness of
damage in the law of contract is whether a
particular loss was within the reasonable
contemplation of the parties, but causation
must also be proved: there must be a causal
connection between the defendant's breach
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
77
of contract and the plaintiff's loss. The
courts have avoided laying down any formal
tests for causation: they have relied on
common sense to guide decisions as to
whether a breach of contract is a sufficiently
substantial cause of the plaintiff's loss. (It
need not be the sole cause).” ”
(emphasis added).
[80] Premised on Galoo Ltd, the test for causation for torts
and breaches of contract is the same. I accept this legal position
as there is nothing in principle which justifies a test for deciding
the causa causans for a plaintiff’s Loss/Injury/Damage due to
the commission of a tort which is different from a test used to
decide the issue of causation for breaches of agreements. Nor
is such a difference supported by any policy consideration.
Accordingly, the cases discussed in the above paragraphs 35
and 36 regarding causation for torts, apply in deciding whether
the causa causans for a plaintiff’s loss and/or damage arises
from a breach of contract.”
(emphasis added).
K(1). Whether court needs expert evidence regarding defects in
housing accommodation
60. It is decided in Era Kemuncak Jaya (M) Sdn Bhd v Tenaga
Switchgear Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 MLRH 208, at [37], as follows:
“[37] Secondly, I am of the view that the court can decide the
following three questions (3 Questions) in this case without the
assistance of any expert testimony:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
78
(1) the Issue (Breach of Contract);
(2) the Issue (Remoteness of Damage) under s 74(1) CA; and
(3) the Issue (Quantum of Damages).
I acknowledge that there may be exceptional cases when the 3
Questions involve a highly technical matter which is beyond the
competence of the court. In such exceptional matters, an expert’s
opinion may assist the court to decide the 3 Questions. In this case,
the 3 Questions did not concern any highly technical matter which
necessitated the Defendant to adduce any expert view. Regrettably,
SD5’s Opinion on the 3 Questions unnecessarily protracted the trial
and escalated the costs incurred in this case.”
(emphasis added).
K(1A). Does court need expert testimony regarding alleged defects in
air conditioners installed in 6 Bungalows (Air Conditioners)?
61. The Plaintiffs had claimed the existence of the following defects
regarding the Air Conditioners, -
(1) for the five bungalows in Suits No. 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 [5
Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 47)] -
(a) “cooling load” of a particular area refers to the amount of energy
which is required by an air conditioner to cool the area at a
particular temperature. The kitchen and entrance areas of the 5
Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 47) have a high cooling load but the
Defendant had installed “under-capacity” Air Conditioners in
those areas. Consequently, there was “sweating” at the “Supply
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
79
Diffuser” of the Air Conditioners in the 5 Bungalows (Suits No.
43 to 47) {Sweating at Supply Diffuser [Air Conditioners in 5
Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 47)]}; and
(b) the Defendant had used a “foam insulation” to wrap the pipe for
the outdoor Air-Conditioners [Pipe (Air Conditioners)]. This
foam insulation was too soft to protect the Pipe (Air
Conditioners) {Unsuitable Pipe Insulation [Air Conditioners
in 5 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 47)]}; and
(2) in respect of Bungalow (Suit No. 49), there was a condensation
problem in respect of the Air Conditioners {Condensation Problem
[Air-Conditioners in Bungalow (Suit No. 49)]}.
62. In respect of -
(1) Sweating at Supply Diffuser [Air Conditioners in 5 Bungalows (Suits
No. 43 to 47)];
(2) Unsuitable Pipe Insulation [Air Conditioners in 5 Bungalows (Suits
No. 43 to 47)]; and
(3) Condensation Problem [Air-Conditioners in Bungalow (Suit No. 49)]
[collectively referred to in this judgment as “Alleged Defects (Air
Conditioners)”]
the court needs expert opinion to decide the following issues -
(a) whether the Alleged Defects (Air Conditioners) exist; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
80
(b) whether the causa causans of the Alleged Defects (Air Conditioners)
was -
(i) the Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s Obligation
(Materials) and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship);
(ii) not the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works;
(iii) not the Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows); and/or
(iv) not Ordinary Wear and Tear (6 Bungalows).
K(1B). Whether court needs expert evidence regarding Alleged
Defects (6 Bungalows) other than Alleged Defects (Air
Conditioners)
63. In this judgment, I shall refer to all the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows)
other than the Alleged Defects (Air Conditioners) as the “Alleged Other
Defects (6 Bungalows)”.
64. As explained in Era Kemuncak Jaya, the court does not need expert
testimony to decide on the existence and cause of the Alleged Other
Defects (6 Bungalows). Having said that, the court may be assisted by
expert opinions regarding the Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
81
K(1C). Does court need expert opinion on Rectification Cost (6
Bungalows), Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of
Rental (6 Bungalows)?
65. I am of the view that expert testimony is not needed by the court to
decide on the following questions:
(1) Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows);
(2) Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows); and
(3) Loss of Rental (6 Bungalows).
- please refer to Era Kemuncak Jaya.
If parties have adduced expert evidence on the above matters, needless
to say, the court may refer to such expert testimony.
K(2). Alleged Defects (Air Conditioners)
K(2A). Who can provide expert opinion on Alleged Defects (Air
Conditioners)?
66. I find as a fact that the following experts are competent under s 45(1) EA
to give opinions regarding the Alleged Defects (Air Conditioners):
(1) SP13 (for Suit No. 49);
(2) SP14 (for Suits No. 43 to 47); and
(3) SD3, the Defendant’s expert.
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
82
The above factual finding is based on the work experience of SP13,
SP14 and SD3 with regard to air conditioners and air-conditioning
systems.
K(2B). Can Plaintiffs prove Alleged Defects (Air Conditioners)?
67. This court makes the following findings of fact:
(1) SP14’s expert testimony regarding -
(a) the Sweating at Supply Diffuser [Air Conditioners in 5
Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 47)]; and
(b) the Unsuitable Pipe Insulation [Air Conditioners in 5 Bungalows
(Suits No. 43 to 47)]
- is accepted;
(2) this court accepts the expert view of SP13 in respect of the
Condensation Problem [Air-Conditioners in Bungalow (Suit No. 49)];
and
(3) the expert evidence of SD3 with regard to the Alleged Defects (Air
Conditioners) is rejected.
68. On a balance of probabilities, the following reasons and evidence
support the factual findings made in the above paragraph 67:
(1) as opined by SP14 -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
83
(a) the Defendant had supplied under-capacity Air Conditioners in
the entrance and kitchen areas of the 5 Bungalows (Suits No.
43 to 47) because -
(i) the entrance and kitchen areas of the 5 Bungalows (Suits
No. 43 to 47) are adjacent to each other. Consequently,
the total size of these areas needs a higher cooling load
which cannot be met by the Air Conditioners;
(ii) cooking in the kitchen areas generates heat;
(iii) a substantial part of the kitchen areas has glass windows
or panels which expose those areas to sunlight and higher
temperatures; and
(iv) the air flow in the air ducts of the 5 Bungalows (Suits No.
43 to 47) is turbulent due to poor design and workmanship
of the air ducts; and
(b) the Unsuitable Pipe Insulation [Air Conditioners in 5 Bungalows
(Suits No. 43 to 47)] is proven because the foam insulation
used by the Defendant is too soft to insulate the Pipe (Air
Conditioners); and
(2) according to SP13, the Condensation Problem [Air-Conditioners in
Bungalow (Suit No. 49)] is proven by the following evidence and
reasons -
(a) the probable cause for the Condensation Problem [Air-
Conditioners in Bungalow (Suit No. 49)] is the under-capacity
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
84
Air Conditioners installed by the Defendant in Bungalow (Suit
No. 49), namely, the Air Conditioners cannot cool and
dehumidify Bungalow (Suit No. 49) within a reasonably short
period of time;
(b) the Condensation Problem [Air-Conditioners in Bungalow (Suit
No. 49)] is aggravated by an unknown reason for the
consistently higher indoor "relative humidity" (RH) as compared
to the outdoor RH. Hence, the water vapour in Bungalow (Suit
No. 49) could not escape outdoor; and
(c) there is no sufficient airflow in the Air Conditioners in Bungalow
(Suit No. 49).
69. The expert evidence of SD3 cannot credibly rebut the expert opinions of
SP13 and SP14 as stated in the above paragraph 68.
70. I will now refer in this judgment to the proven defects regarding the Air
Conditioners as the “Defects (Air Conditioners)”.
K(2C). What was causa causans of Defects (Air Conditioners)?
71. I have no hesitation to make the following factual decisions:
(1) the causa causans of the Defects (Air Conditioners) was the
Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials)
and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship). I rely
on the following reasons -
(a) the Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) was breached in
the following manner -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
85
(i) the Defendant had installed under-capacity Air
Conditioners in the 6 Bungalows;
(ii) the under-capacity Air Conditioners had caused the
Sweating at Supply Diffuser [Air Conditioners in 5
Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 47)] and Condensation
Problem [Air-Conditioners in Bungalow (Suit No. 49)] which
should not have occurred in view of the High Purchase
Prices paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant; and
(iii) the Unsuitable Pipe Insulation [Air Conditioners in 5
Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 47)] should not have happened
in light of the High Purchase Prices;
(b) the Defendant had breached the Housing Developer’s
Obligation (Good Workmanship) because -
(i) the air flow in the air ducts of the 5 Bungalows (Suits No.
43 to 47) is turbulent due to poor design and workmanship
of the air ducts; and
(ii) there is no sufficient airflow in the Air Conditioners in
Bungalow (Suit No. 49);
(c) as a matter of common sense, the causa causans of the
Defects (Air Conditioners) was the Defendant’s breach of
Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) and/or Housing
Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship); and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
86
(d) the Defects (Air Conditioners) would not have occurred “but for”
the Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s Obligation
(Materials) and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship);
(2) as a matter of common sense, the causa causans of the Defects
(Air Conditioners) could not be -
(a) the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works;
(b) the Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows); and
(c) Ordinary Wear and Tear (6 Bungalows); and
(3) the application of the “but for” test does not show that the causa
causans of the Defects (Air Conditioners) to be -
(a) the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works;
(b) the Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows); and
(c) Ordinary Wear and Tear (6 Bungalows).
K(2D). What was Rectification Cost for Defects (Air Conditioners)?
72. To rectify the Defects (Air Conditioners) -
(1) SP14 proposed the following sums of money -
(a) for Bungalow (Suit No. 43) - RM79,400.00;
(b) for Bungalow (Suit No. 44) - RM79,400.00;
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
87
(c) for Bungalow (Suit No. 45) - RM72,600.00;
(d) for Bungalow (Suit No. 46) - RM79,400.00; and
(e) for Bungalow (Suit No. 47) - RM79,400.00; and
(2) according to SP13, a total sum of RM33,000.00 should rectify the
Defects (Air Conditioners) for Bungalow (Suit No. 49).
I shall refer the above sums collectively as “Proposed Quantum
[Damages for Defects (Air Conditioners)]”.
73. I have no hesitation to award the Proposed Quantum [Damages for
Defects (Air Conditioners)] in favour of the Plaintiffs against the
Defendant because -
(1) the Proposed Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air Conditioners)]
constitutes the loss which “naturally arose in the usual course of
things” from the Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s
Obligation (Materials) and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship) within the meaning of the 1st Limb [Section 74(1) CA];
(2) all the contracting parties in the 6 SPAs knew, when they made the
6 SPAs, that the Proposed Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air
Conditioners)] is the loss which is “likely to result” from the
Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials)
and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship) as
understood in the 2nd Limb [Section 74(1) CA]; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
88
(3) the Proposed Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air Conditioners)] is
not excessive. On the contrary, the Proposed Quantum [Damages
for Defects (Air Conditioners)] is a just and reasonable sum to
compensate adequately the Plaintiffs for the rectification of the
Defects (Air Conditioners). The Defendant had not adduced any
evidence to show that the Plaintiffs would be unjustly enriched by
the Proposed Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air Conditioners)].
In view of the above proof of Proposed Quantum [Damages for Defects
(Air Conditioners)], the Proposed Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air
Conditioners)] will now be referred to in this judgment as the “Quantum
[Damages for Defects (Air Conditioners)]”.
K(3). Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows)
74. In Dua Residency Management Corporation, at [116], a defect in a
building has been explained as follows:
“[116] In the treatise Construction Law by Julian Bailey, it is
provided as follows:
“WHAT IS A DEFECT?
14.01 There is no precise definition, in law, of what,
constitutes a defect. Defects may relate to design,
construction or both. The word “defect” may refer to the
quality of goods supplied. A defect may be patent, in the
sense of being known or detectable upon reasonable
observation, or latent, in which case, its existence is
unknown or detectable not reasonably discoverable. In
everyday parlance, a “defect” is something which is faulty,
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
89
or not built correctly. This is also true insofar as the law is
concerned with building defects ...
…
14.04 ... The determination of whether works are defective
is not always a straightforward matter ... There could be the
case where a contract is silent as to the quality of
workmanship called for and where it requires the
contractor to perform its works in a “good and
workmanlike” manner ... What a builder considers to be
“good and workmanlike” may be at odds with the owner’s
expectations. Published industry’s standards may
sometimes assist, in so far as they provide a normative
basis for assessing the sufficiency of work performed, but
ultimately if matter are taken to court, or brought before a
tribunal) the reckoning of the contractual compliance of
work - and whether or not it is “defective” - will involve an
admixture of objective and subjective matters.”
In the English Court of Appeal case of Barclays Bank plc v.
Fairclough Building Ltd [1994] 68 BLR 1, Beldam LJ held as follows:
“The requirement that the workmanship should be the best of its
kind required a standard to be achieved. It would not be
satisfied by workmanship of average competence skill or
exercise of reasonable care to attain the standard ... In my
view “workmanship’ in the context of the specification was
intended to cover the whole of the works which the
contractor had undertaken to perform.”
Furthermore it is also gainful to reproduce the following learned
commentary of the case of Davis & Co (Wines) Ltd v. AFA-Minerva
(EMI) Ltd 9 BLR 99 at 101:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
90
“On the other hand it may not always be sufficient to say
that the design was only as good as the money available
(cf Cotton v. Wallis [1955]1 WLR 1158). The work, materials
and installation as ultimately to fit for some purpose. A
building generally is expected to be watertight. However it
does not follow that the building is guaranteed to be
watertight for its expected life, since some maintenance is
required on nearly every building. Whether there is to be
any reduction in the standards which would otherwise
obtain will depend in most areas upon the background to
the commission and the terms upon which it was made.” ”
(emphasis added).
75. Patent and latent defects in a building have been explained by Mary Lim
Thiam Suan J (as she then was) in the High Court case of Sigma
Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd v Isyoda (M) Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 LNS 1363, at
[92], as follows:
“[92] ... Broadly, there are two types of defects; patent and latent
defects. The writers, S Rajoo and Harbans Singh KS in their book
entitled “Construction Law in Malaysia” [Sweet & Maxwell, p 470]
have explained:
“... Patent defects are defects that can be discovered
through reasonable inspection and testing (see Robinson,
Lavers, Tan and Chan, Construction Law in Singapore and
Malaysia, 2nd Edn., p 160). These are the ones that are more
commonly noticed and therefore reported to the contractor
prior to completion or during the defect liability period. On
the other hand, latent defects cannot be discovered by
either reasonable inspection or testing even by a
reasonably careful person skilled in the works in question
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
91
(see Victoria University of Manchester v. Hugh Wilson
[1984] 2 Con LR 43). These are inherent in the works
themselves and become apparent or noticeable or capable
of being discovered only when they become patent (see
Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v. Oscar Faber & Partners
[1983] 2 AC 1; see also Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & 72 Ors
v. Highland Properties Sdn Bhd & 9 Ors [2000] 1 AMR 3567).
…”
(emphasis added).
76. The Plaintiffs have claimed a list of the Alleged Other Defects (6
Bungalows) which include both patent and latent defects.
K(3A). Whether SP8, SP9, SP10 and SD5 are competent to give expert
opinions on Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows)
77. The court does not need expert evidence on the existence of the Alleged
Other Defects (6 Bungalows) - please refer to Era Kemuncak Jaya.
78. SP8, SP9, SP10 and SD5 had provided their expert testimonies on the
Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows). SP8, SP9, SP10 and SD5 are
qualified and practising architects. Hence, I have no hesitation to accept
SP8, SP9, SP10 and SD5 as expert witnesses who can provide expert
opinions regarding the Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows).
K(3B). Had Plaintiffs proven existence of Alleged Other Defects (6
Bungalows)?
79. I find as a fact that the Plaintiffs have discharged the legal and evidential
burden to prove the existence of the Alleged Other Defects (6
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
92
Bungalows) on a balance of probabilities. This factual decision is
premised on the following evidence and reasons:
(1) SP1 to SP7 had given oral evidence regarding the existence of the
Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows) [Oral Evidence (SP1 to
SP7)];
(2) the Oral Evidence (SP1 to SP7) did not consist of bare allegations
only but instead, the Oral Evidence (SP1 to SP7) is supported by
written complaints made by the Plaintiffs in their correspondence
with the Defendant, including the Genuine DRFs/FFs [Plaintiffs’
Written Complaints (Defects)). The significance of the Plaintiffs’
Written Complaints (Defects) is provided in s 157 EA which reads as
follows -
“Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate
later testimony as to same fact
s 157 In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness,
any former statement made by him whether written or verbal, on
oath, or in ordinary conversation, relating to the same fact at or
about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority
legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.”
(emphasis added);
(3) SD5, the Defendant’s own expert, had admitted that there existed
certain Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows) {SD5’s Admission
[Certain Defects (6 Bungalows)]}. In this manner, SD5’s
Admission [Certain Defects (6 Bungalows)] corroborated the Oral
Evidence (SP1 to SP7);
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
93
(4) the Oral Evidence (SP1 to SP7) is supported by the expert opinions
of SP8 to SP10 [Expert Opinions (SP8 to SP10)]. There is no
reason for SP8 to SP10 to sacrifice their professional reputation by
providing inaccurate or false Expert Opinions (SP8 to SP10) in the 6
Suits;
(5) as explained in the above sub-paragraph 57(5), the court may
consider the effect of SUBBL in deciding whether there is a breach
of Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) and/or Housing
Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship). In the 6 Suits, the
Oral Evidence (SP1 to SP7) and Expert Opinions (SP8 to SP10) are
supported by the Defendant’s three breaches of SUBBL
[Defendant’s 3 Breaches (SUBBL)] as follows -
(a) according to by-law 107(1) SUBBL -
“107 Handrails
(1) Except for staircases of less than 4 risers, all
staircases shall be provided with at least one handrail.”
(emphasis added).
For Bungalow (Suit No. 49), the staircase to the swimming pool
therein did not have any handrail. As such, the Defendant did
not comply with by-law 107(1) SUBBL with regard to the
Bungalow (Suit No. 49). It is to be noted that a mandatory term
“shall” is employed in by-law 107(1) SUBBL;
(b) by-law 115(1) SUBBL provides as follows -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
94
“115 Roof coverings and drainage with a rainwater
harvesting and utilisation system (SPAH)
(1) All roofs of buildings shall be so constructed as to
drain effectually to suitable and sufficient channels, gutters,
chutes or troughs which shall be provided in accordance
with the requirement of these by-laws for receiving and
conveying all water which may fall on and from the roof.”
(emphasis added).
An imperative term “shall” is used in by-law 115(1) SUBBL. The
roofs of all the 6 Bungalows do not have gutters. Hence, the
Defendant had breached by-law 115(1) SUBBL in respect of the
6 Bungalows: and
(c) by-law 116(1) SUBBL states as follows -
“116 Accessible flat roofs, balconies, etc.
Every flat roof, balcony or other elevated areas 1.8 metres
or more above the adjacent area where normal access is
provided shall be protected along the edges with suitable
railings, parapets or similar devices not less than 1 metre in
height or other suitable means.”
(emphasis added).
By-law 116 SUBBL has mandatory effect due to the
employment of the word “shall” in that provision. The verandah
in Bungalow (Suit No. 49) is 3.150 metres above the lower
ground floor of that building but the railing around the entrance
foyer in the verandah is only 0.720 metre which is less than 1
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
95
metre (required by by-law 116 SUBBL). Accordingly, the
Defendant has failed to comply with by-law 116 SUBBL
regarding Bungalow (Suit No. 49); and
(6) there is no reason to disbelieve the Oral Evidence (SP1 to SP7)
because -
(a) SP1 to SP7 had withstood vigorous cross-examination by Mr.
Rohan; and
(b) it is inconceivable for SP1 to SP7 to give false evidence with
regard to the existence of the Alleged Other Defects (6
Bungalows).
80. In view of the reasons and evidence elaborated in the above paragraph
79, save for SD5’s Admission [Certain Defects (6 Bungalows)], I am not
inclined to accept SD5’s expert testimony as a sufficient ground to deny
the existence of the Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows).
81. This judgment shall now refer to the proven Alleged Other Defects (6
Bungalows) as the “Other Defects (6 Bungalows)”.
K(3C). What was causa causans of Other Defects (6 Bungalows)?
82. This court is satisfied that the causa causans of the Other Defects (6
Bungalows) -
(1) was the Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s Obligation
(Materials) and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship)
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
96
{Causa Causans [Other Defects (6 Bungalows)]}; and
(2) could not be -
(a) the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works. It is to be noted that SD5 had
the candour to admit that for certain Other Defects (6
Bungalows), he was unable to verify whether such defects were
caused by the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works;
(b) the Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows). In this
regard, certain Other Defects (6 Bungalows) did not concern
the Plaintiffs’ maintenance of the 6 Bungalows, let alone a lack
of maintenance thereof; and
(c) Ordinary Wear and Tear (6 Bungalows).
The Causa Causans [Other Defects (6 Bungalows)] is premised on the
following evidence and reasons:
(i) the Oral Evidence (SP1 to SP7);
(ii) the Expert Opinions (SP8 to SP10);
(iii) SD5’s Admission [Certain Defects (6 Bungalows)];
(iv) considering the High Purchase Prices, common sense supports the
Causa Causans [Other Defects (6 Bungalows)];
(v) the Other Defects (6 Bungalows) would not have occurred “but for”
the Defendant’s breach of Housing Developer’s Obligation
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
97
(Materials) and/or Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship); and
(vi) as a matter of common sense and applying the “but for” test, the
Causa Causans [Other Defects (6 Bungalows)] could not be -
(vi)(a) the Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works;
(vi)(b) the Plaintiffs’ Lack of Maintenance (6 Bungalows); and
(vi)(c) Ordinary Wear and Tear (6 Bungalows).
83. Mr. Rohan had relied on the Exclusion Clause (Home Owners Manual)
which provided as follows:
“Guidelines on Renovation
…
2. The [Defendant] shall not be held responsible for any defect
whatsoever arising after the renovation. Even though the [DLP] is
still valid, if there is any defect, please take note that the defect
rectification work must be completed before you start your
renovation. Failure to do so, the [Defendant] will not be responsible
for any defects arise [sic] after your renovation works.”
(emphasis added).
According to Mr. Rohan, SP1 agreed during cross-examination that if the
Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works were carried out before the Defendant could
complete the rectification works (Defendant’s Rectification Works), the
Defendant would not liable for any defects which arose after the
Plaintiffs’ Renovation Works (SP1’s Admission). SP1’s Admission was
made based on the Exclusion Clause (Home Owners Manual).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
98
I am not able to accede to the above contention by Mr. Rohan because -
(1) as explained in the above paragraph 45, the Defendant cannot rely
on the Home Owners Manual, including the Exclusion Clause
(Home Owners Manual);
(2) the Exclusion Clause (Home Owners Manual) has no legal effect
because such an exclusion clause is described by the Defendant as
a mere guideline; and
(3) if the Defendant is allowed to rely on the Exclusion Clause (Home
Owners Manual) -
(a) this is tantamount to a carte blanche for the Defendant to
circumvent the mandatory Schedule G [which applies to the 4
SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)] and Schedule I [which
applies to the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49)] [Defendant’s
Circumvention (Statutory SPAs)]; and
(b) as explained in SEA Housing Corporation, the Defendant’s
Circumvention (Statutory SPAs) is not allowed - please refer to
the above paragraphs 38 and 39(7).
As the Exclusion Clause (Home Owners Manual) has no legal effect, the
court cannot then attach any weight to SP1’s Admission.
84. I have not overlooked the following submission by Mr. Rohan:
(1) SP9 and SP10 agreed during cross-examination that they could not
identify certain Other Defects (6 Bungalows) due to the Plaintiffs’
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
99
Renovation Works or rectification works performed by the Plaintiffs
(Plaintiffs’ Rectification Works);
(2) SP9 and SP10 had admitted during cross-examination that in their
reports regarding a certain bungalow, they had relied on duplicate
photographs of defects in another bungalow (Duplicate
Photographs); and
(3) SP9 and SP10 agreed during cross-examination that some of the
Other Defects (6 Bungalows) could be due to the Plaintiffs’ Lack of
Maintenance (6 Bungalows) and Ordinary Wear and Tear (6
Bungalows).
The court is not able to accept the above contentions due to the following
reasons:
(a) the Oral Evidence (SP1 to SP7) and Plaintiffs’ Written Complaints
(Defects) are sufficient to prove the existence of all the Other
Defects (6 Bungalows). As explained in Era Kemuncak Jaya, the
court does not need expert evidence to prove or disprove the
existence of the Alleged Other Defects (6 Bungalows); and
(b) if the Plaintiffs’ Rectification Works were successful in the
rectification of the defects in question, there is no reason for SP1 to
SP7 to give false evidence regarding the existence of those defects.
In view of the above reasons, I accept the following submission by Mr.
Pereira -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
100
(i) the Other Defects (6 Bungalows) had not been rectified satisfactorily
by the Defendant’s Rectification Works in accordance with the 4
SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) and Schedule I (for Suits No. 46
and 49); or
(ii) the Other Defects (6 Bungalows) had recurred after the Defendant’s
Rectification Works.
For good measure, the Duplicate Photographs does not undermine the
credibility of SP9 and SP10 because SP9 and SP10 had actually
inspected all the bungalows in Suits No. 43 to 47.
85. Mr. Rohan had relied on a judgment of Zaleha Yusof JC (as she then
was) in the High Court case of R Kanagasingam R Rajasingam & Anor
v Wong Chong Fatt & Ors [2009] MLJU 1851 to persuade the court that
the Causa Causans [Other Defects (6 Bungalows)] was the Plaintiffs’
Renovation Works. With respect, in Kanagasingam, at [10(b)], the
plaintiffs (co-purchasers of a double-storey link house) sued the housing
developer for the latter’s breach of duty of care (tort of negligence) in
allowing the plaintiffs’ neighbour to carry out renovation works on the
adjoining link house and the neighbour’s renovations works had caused
damage to the plaintiffs’ house. It is clear that Kanagasingam did not
decide on the issue of defects of a housing accommodation (built by a
housing developer) which is the subject matter of a Statutory SPA.
86. Mr. Rohan’s reliance on the following four High Court judgments:
(1) two decisions of Lim Chong Fong JC (as he then was) in KC Leong
Holdings Sdn Bhd v Datin Moh Bee Ling [2015] 7 MLJ 10 and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
101
Komala Devi a/p Perumal v Bandar Eco-Setia Sdn Bhd & Anor
[2016] MLJU 719;
(2) Lee Swee Seng J’s (as he then was) judgment in Bumimetro
Construction Sdn Bhd v Sun-Jaya M&E Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU
136; and
(3) the decision of Linton Albert J (as he then was) in Kiing Teck Hoon
v T-Point Aluminium Sdn Bhd & Ors [2007] MLJU 37
- is misplaced because the above four cases do not concern a
Statutory SPA.
87. Mr. Rohan had cited the judgment of Diplock LJ (as he then was) who
sat as a High Court judge in United Kingdom’s case of Hancock & Ors v
BW Brazier (Anerley) Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 1. As explained in the above
sub-paragraph 39(9)(d), construction cases from the Commonwealth
should be viewed with caution because such cases do not concern the
attainment of the Object (HDA).
K(4). Can Defendant rely on expiry of DLP to exclude liability for
Defects (Air Conditioners) and Defects (6 Bungalows) [referred
collectively in this judgment as “All Defects (6 Bungalows)”]?
88. Mr. Rohan had invited the court to decide that the Defendant was not
liable for any defect in the 4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
because the DLP had expired in accordance with Clause 25(1) (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47). Reliance had been placed by Mr. Rohan on the
judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by Mohd. Hishamudin JCA in
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
102
Toh Ang Poo (trading as Poo Wah Enterprise) v Jasin Construction
Development (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 MLJ 192.
89. Firstly, Toh Ang Poo does not concern a Statutory SPA.
90. Secondly, as explained in the above paragraphs 40 to 44, Schedule I
applies to the 2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49).
91. I reproduce below Clause 25(1) (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) and Clause
27(1) [Schedule I]:
“Clause 25 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)
[DLP]
(1) Any defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building
which shall become apparent within a period of twenty-four (24)
calendar months after the date the Purchaser takes vacant
possession of the said Building and which are due to defective
workmanship or materials or; the said Building not having been
constructed in accordance with the plans and description as specified in
the Second and Fourth schedule as approved or amended by the
Appropriate Authority, shall be repaired and made good by the Vendor
at its own cost and expenses within thirty (30) days of the Vendor
having received written notice thereof from the Purchaser.
(2) If the said defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said
Building have not been made good by the Vendor within the said
period of thirty (30) days under subclause (1), the Purchaser shall be
entitled to carry out the works to repair and make good the said
defect, shrinkage or other faults himself and to recover from the
Vendor the costs of repairing and making good the same and the
Purchaser may deduct such costs from any sum which has been
held by the Vendor’s solicitors as stakeholder for the Vendor under
item 5 of the Third Schedule provided that the Purchaser shall, at any
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
103
time after the expiry of the said period of thirty (30) days, notify the
Vendor of the cost of repairing and making good the same defect,
shrinkage or other faults before the commencement of the works and
shall give the Vendor an opportunity to carry out the works himself
within fourteen (14) days from the date the Purchaser has notified the
Vendor of his intention to carry out the said works and provided
further that the Purchaser shall carry out and commence the said
works as soon as practicable after the Vendor’s failure to carry out
the said works, within the said period of fourteen (14) days. In such
an event, the Vendor’s solicitors shall release such costs to the
Purchaser from the stakeholder sum held by the Vendor’s solicitors
under Item 5 of the Third Schedule within fourteen (14) days after
receipt by the Vendor’s solicitors of the Purchaser’s written demand
specifying the amount of such costs.
(3) Subject to subclause (2), where the Purchaser has, before
the expiry of eight (8) months or twenty-four (24) months after the
date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Building as
set out in item 5(a) and item 5(b) respectively of the Third Schedule,
duly served on the Vendor’s solicitors a copy of the written notice
from the Purchaser to the Vendor under subclause (1) to rectify the
said defect, shrinkage, or other faults in the said Building, the
Vendor’s solicitors shall not release to the Vendor the relevant sum
held by the Vendor’s solicitors pursuant to item 5(a) and/or item 5(b)
of the Third Schedule, as the case may be, until the Vendor’s
solicitors shall have received a certificate signed by the Vendor’s
architect certifying that the said defect, shrinkage or other faults in
the said Building have been repaired and made good by the Vendor.
Clause 27 [Schedule I]
[DLP]
(1) Any defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building
which becomes apparent within twenty-four (24) months after the
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
104
date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Property and
which are due to defective workmanship or materials or; the said
Building not having been constructed in accordance with the plans and
descriptions as specified in the Second and Fourth Schedules as
approved or amended by the Appropriate Authority, shall be repaired and
made good by the Developer at its own cost and expense within
thirty (30) days of the Developer having received written notice
thereof from the Purchaser.
(2) If the defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building
have not been made good by the Developer within thirty (30) days
referred to in subclause (1), the Purchaser shall be entitled to carry
out the works to repair and make good such defect, shrinkage or
other faults himself and to recover from the Developer the costs of
repairing and making good the same provided that the Purchaser
shall, at any time after the expiry of the period of thirty (30) days,
notify the Developer of the costs of repairing and making good
such defect, shrinkage or other faults before the commencement of
the works and shall give the Developer an opportunity to carry out
the works himself within thirty (30) days from the date the Purchaser
has notified the Developer of his intention to carry out the works and
provided further that the Purchaser shall carry out and commence
the works as soon as practicable after the Developer’s failure to carry
out the works within the said thirty (30) days. In such event, the
Developer shall reimburse such costs to the Purchaser within thirty
(30) days after the receipt by the Developer of the Purchaser’s written
demand specifying the amount of such costs.”
(emphasis added).
92. I opine as follows regarding the effect of Clause 25 (Suits No. 43 to 45
and 47) and then the application of Clause 27 [Schedule I]:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
105
(1) Clause 25(1) (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) shall only apply if the
following three conditions are fulfilled cumulatively [3 Conditions
(Patent Defects)] -
(a) defects in a housing accommodation “shall become apparent”
(Patent Defects) within 24 calendar months after the date the
purchaser of the housing accommodation (Purchaser) has
taken vacant possession of the housing accommodation;
(b) the Patent Defects are “due to defective workmanship or
materials” on the part of the housing developer; and
(c) the Purchaser has given written notice of the Patent Defects to
the housing developer [Purchaser’s Written Notice (Patent
Defects)];
(2) upon the fulfilment of the 3 Conditions (Patent Defects), the Patent
Defects “shall be repaired and made good” by the housing developer
at the housing developer’s own cost within 30 days from the date of
the housing developer’s receipt of the Purchaser’s Written Notice
(Patent Defects) (30 Days Period);
(3) if the Patent Defects are not rectified by the housing developer at
the housing developer’s own cost within the 30 Days Period, by
virtue of Clause 25(2) (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) the Purchaser
shall be entitled to carry out works to rectify the Patent Defects
(Purchaser’s Rectification Works) if the following two conditions
are met [2 Conditions (Purchaser’s Rectification Works)] -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
106
(a) written notice of the Purchaser’s Rectification Works shall be
given to the housing developer [Purchaser’s Written Notice
(Rectification Works)] after the expiry of the 30 Days Period
and the Purchaser’s Written Notice (Rectification Works) shall
state the following matters -
(i) the cost of the Purchaser’s Rectification Works [Cost
(Purchaser’s Rectification Works)]; and
(ii) if the housing developer does not rectify the Patent Defects
within 14 days from the date of notification of the
Purchaser’s Written Notice (Rectification Works) (14 Days
Period), the Purchaser’s Rectification Works would be
carried out and the Purchaser shall thereafter claim the
Cost (Purchaser’s Rectification Works) from the housing
developer; and
(b) the housing developer has failed to rectify the Patent Defects
within the 14 Days Period;
(4) upon the completion of the Purchaser’s Rectification Works,
according to Clause 25(2) (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) -
(a) the Purchaser may recover the Cost (Purchaser’s Rectification
Works) from the housing developer; or
(b) the Purchaser may demand from the housing developer’s
solicitors to pay to the Purchaser the Cost (Purchaser’s
Rectification Works) from the “stakeholder sum” [provided in
item 5 of the Third Schedule to the SPA (Suits No. 43 to 45 and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
107
47)] [Purchaser’s Demand (Housing Developer’s Solicitor)]
and the housing developer’s solicitors “shall release” the Cost
(Purchaser’s Rectification Works) to the Purchaser from the
stakeholder sum within 14 days after the receipt of the
Purchaser’s Demand (Housing Developer’s Solicitor);
(5) with regard to Clause 27 [Schedule I] -
(a) if the 3 Conditions (Patent Defects) are satisfied, the housing
developer is required by Clause 27(1) [Schedule I] to rectify the
Patent Defects at the housing developer’s own cost within the
30 Days Period;
(b) if the housing developer does not rectify the Patent Defects at
the housing developer’s own cost within the 30 Days Period,
according to Clause 27(2) [Schedule I], the Purchaser’s
Rectification Works may be carried out if -
(i) the Purchaser’s Written Notice (Rectification Works) is
given to the housing developer and the Purchaser’s Written
Notice (Rectification Works) shall state as follows -
(i)(a) the Cost (Purchaser’s Rectification Works); and
(i)(b) if the housing developer does not rectify the Patent
Defects within 30 days from the date of notification
of the Purchaser’s Written Notice (Rectification
Works), the Purchaser’s Rectification Works would
be carried out and the Purchaser shall thereafter
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
108
claim the Cost (Purchaser’s Rectification Works)
from the housing developer; and
(ii) the housing developer has failed to rectify the Patent
Defects within 30 days from the date of notification of the
Purchaser’s Written Notice (Rectification Works); and
(c) upon the completion of the Purchaser’s Rectification Works, the
Purchaser may recover the Cost (Purchaser’s Rectification
Works) from the housing developer by serving a written
demand on the housing developer [Purchaser’s Demand
(Housing Developer)] and the housing developer “shall
reimburse” the Cost (Purchaser’s Rectification Works) to the
Purchaser within 30 days after the receipt of the Purchaser’s
Demand (Housing Developer);
(6) Clause 25 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) and Clause 27 [Schedule I]
do not apply to defects in a housing accommodation which are not
apparent to a Purchaser within 24 calendar months after the date
the Purchaser has taken vacant possession of the housing
accommodation. The meaning of Patent Defects in Clause 25 (Suits
No. 43 to 45 and 47) and Clause 27 [Schedule I] (defects which
“shall become apparent” within 24 calendar months after the date
the Purchaser has taken vacant possession of the housing
accommodation) seems to be slightly different from the meaning of
patent defects as explained in the following two cases -
(a) Sigma Elevator (defects that can be discovered through
reasonable inspection and testing); and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
109
(b) Dua Residency Management Corporation (defects which are
“reasonably discoverable” in the sense of being known or
detectable upon reasonable observation); and
(7) as explained in the above sub-paragraphs (1) to (5), Clause 25
(Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) and Clause 27 [Schedule I] do not afford
any ground for a housing developer to avoid liability to a Purchaser
for breach of a Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) and/or
Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship). This
interpretation is supported by the following cases -
(a) in Raja Lob Sharuddin Raja Ahmad Terzali & Ors v Sri
Seltra Sdn Bhd [2008] 2 CLJ 284, the Court of Appeal
construed clause 23 in a Statutory SPA which is substantially
similar to Clause 25 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) and Clause 27
[Schedule I]. Azmel Maamor JCA (as he then was) decided as
follows in Raja Lob Sharuddin, at [24] to [26] -
“[DLP]
[24] The defendant strenuously contended that the
plaintiffs’ action should fail because the defects were
discovered after the expiry of the [DLP]. The learned judge
had also accepted this as a strong ground to reject the
plaintiffs’ claim. The Defect Liability Clause is contained
under cl. 23 of the Sale and Purchase agreement which
reads:
…
The question that we have to determine is whether this cl.
23 should be construed and applied against purchasers of
houses. To do that it would be incumbent upon us to trace
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
110
the purpose for which cl. 23 was originally created. It began
with the passing of the [HDA] and the regulations made
thereunder. In 1982 the [1982 Regulations] came into force.
And reg. 12(1) [1982 Regulations] provides that every
contract of sale for the sale and purchase of a housing
accommodation together with the sub-divisional portion of
land appurtenant thereto shall be in the form as prescribed
in Schedule E. Regulation 12(1) further provides that no
amendment to any such contract of sale shall be made
except on the ground of hardship or necessity and with the
prior approval of the controller. In other words all the
provisions in the sale and purchase agreement are actually
statutory requirements which must be strictly complied
with. Clause 23, in particular, is meant to be an additional
protection for house buyers, without affecting or limiting
their rights under the common law. This was the ruling
made by the Privy Council in City Investment Sdn. Bhd. v.
Korperasi Serbaguna Cuepacs Tanggungan Bhd. [1988] 1
MLJ 69. In that case Lord Templeman said: But the [HDA]
and the Rules were designed to improve and supplement
common law remedies and do not expressly or by
implication deprive a litigant of a contractual remedy which
is not dealt with under the Rules.
…
[25] In the Federal Court case of Teh Khem On &
Anor v. Yeoh & Wu Development Sdn. Bhd. & Ors. [1996] 2
CLJ 1105, Peh Swee Chin FCJ said: Again, the
vendor/builder and in fact, other defendants, all have joined
in a common submission by way of defence that the
damage occurred after the [DLP] mentioned in cl. 23 of P1. I
share the view espoused by Lord Denning in Hancock &
Ors v. Bul Brazier Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 901; [1966] 1 WLR
1317, to the effect that such clause similar to cl. 23 in our
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
111
instant appeal about making good structural defects
discovered within six months would not take away the right
to sue in respect of such defects which were not
discoverable with such six months, and that further in
regard those defects discovered within the six months, the
provision of an express remedy of making good the same
defects will not ipso facto take away the rights of any
purchaser which normally follow at common law in the
case of a breach of contract. It is pertinent to mention that our
cl. 23 provides for 12 months instead of six months. The same
principles would apply. Thus the said line of defence also
fails.
[26] On the basis of the ruling made by the above
two cases the reliance of the [DLP] as a defence by the
defendant should be totally rejected. …”
(emphasis added); and
(b) the Court of Appeal in Chrishanthini Angela Regina
Sebastiampillai v View Esteem Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 LNS 2212
has construed clause 29 of Schedule H which is in pari materia
with Clause 25 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47). According to See
Mee Chun JCA in Chrishanthini, at [28], [30], [31] and [32] -
“[28] A careful consideration of clause 29 SPA would
show that it is not intended to bar a purchaser from
asserting the common law rights to claim for damages
under the SPA. The legal framework of clause 29 is such
that it is a but a mechanism for the purchaser to ensure
that defects which shall become apparent within 24 months
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
112
after VP are rectified. This is provided the 30 days’ notice is
received.
…
[30] There is no provision embedded in clause 29 to
bar the purchaser from looking to common law for relief
even when the purchaser had initially invoked the
operation of the clause. …
[31] We are fortified in arriving at this finding with
reference to Raja Lob Sharuddin where at pages 102-104,
the following was stated: …
[32] We have found it necessary to reproduce the
above paragraphs in extenso as we adopt in toto the
principles stated therein that clause 23 which is similar to
our clause 29, is intended to be an additional protection to
house buyers without affecting their rights under the
common law. Although the Respondent sought to
distinguish the case in that the claim there was filed after
the defect liability period, it cannot detract from the clear
principle established that the clause in question could not
be construed and applied against house buyers given that
its clear intention was to be an additional protection and
could not possibly limit the rights of house buyers under
common law. This was construed against the backdrop of
[HDA] and its Regulations/Rules being a social legislation.”
(emphasis added).
93. Premised on -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
113
(1) the interpretation of Clause 25 (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) and
Clause 27 [Schedule I] - please refer to the above paragraph 92;
and
(2) the Court of Appeal judgments in Raja Lob Sharuddin and
Chrishanthini
- this court unhesitatingly reject the Defendant’s reliance on the expiry
of DLP as a ground to exclude the Defendant’s liability for All
Defects (6 Bungalows).
K(5). Can Defendant rely on CCC (Project)?
94. Mr. Rohan had made a far-reaching submission. The CCC (Project)
stated in our National Language as follows, among others:
“…
Saya dengan ini mengeluarkan [CCC] untuk [6 Bungalows] setelah
berpuas hati bahawa bangunan/bangunan-bangunan itu telah siap
menurut pengetahuan dan kepercayaan saya kerja/kerja-kerja itu
adalah mengikuti [SUBBL] dan pelan-pelan yang diluluskan. Saya
dengan ini memperakui bahawa bangunan/bangunan-bangunan itu
adalah selamat dan layak untuk diduduki.
…
1. Butir-butir [principal submitting person]
Nama: [Ar. Kam]”
(emphasis added).
According to Mr. Rohan, in view of the above contents of the CCC
(Project), the Defendant was not liable to the Plaintiffs for All Defects (6
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
114
Bungalows). Mr. Rohan had relied on the following two High Court
judgments:
(1) the decision of Prasad Sandosham Abraham J (as he then was) in
Allan Kinsey & Anor v Sunway Rahman Putra Sdn Bhd & Anor,
Dekon Sdn Bhd (Third Party) [2015] 4 CLJ 624; and
(2) Lim Chong Fong J’s (as he then was) judgment in Bergamo
Development (M) Sdn Bhd v ECK Development Sdn Bhd & Anor
[2018] MLJU 555.
95. I am of the following view regarding the effect of a CCC:
(1) SUBBL are made by the Selangor State Authority under s 133 of the
Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (SDBA); and
(2) neither SDBA nor SUBBL concern Statutory SPAs. More
importantly, SDBA and SUBBL do not provide for any defence in the
form of the CCC to any housing developer who faces a suit by
Purchasers that Statutory SPAs have been breached by housing
developers. If otherwise, this will be contrary to the Object (HDA).
96. In view of the reasons stated in the above paragraph 95, I cannot accept
the above contention by Mr. Rohan. Furthermore, SD12 testified that Ar.
Kam did not even inspect the 6 Bungalows before he signed the CCC
(Project). Worse still, the Defendant did not even call Ar. Kam as a
defence witness and the Plaintiffs were thereby deprived of their right to
cross-examine him with regard to the contents of the CCC (Project).
97. Bergamo Development is not a decision regarding Statutory SPA.
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
115
98. With regard to Allan Kinsey, this case can be easily distinguished from
the 6 Suits because there was no evidence to prove any breach of the
Statutory SPA by the housing developer in Allan Kinsey. I reproduce
below the relevant part of the judgment in Allan Kinsey, at [33] to [35]:
“[33] The court is of the view that all the evidence and documents
point to the irresistible conclusion that the said property had been
constructed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with
the relevant laws and regulations. The first defendant has delivered
vacant possession of the said property with inter alia the support of a
certificate signed by the first defendant’s architect (see p. 38 bundle
B2) certifying that the said property been duly constructed and
completed in accordance with all relevant acts, by-laws and
regulations and that all conditions imposed by the appropriate
authority in respect of the issuance of the certificate of fitness for
occupation had been duly complied with.
[34] The plaintiffs’ expert reports whilst dealing with the issue of
cracks, does not focus on the first defendant’s obligations under cl.
14. Whilst the findings might be relevant in support of a plea for
breach of duty, alas since the plaintiffs relies by way of its pleading
on a breach of cl. 14 of the principal agreement, the report is of little
assistance to the plaintiffs.
[35] It is therefore the view of the court that the first defendant
had complied with its contractual obligations under cl. 14 of the
principal agreement. …”
(emphasis added).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
116
K(6). Whether Defendant can rely on Plaintiffs’ Inspection of 6
Bungalows (Delivery of Vacant Possession), CRM Checklist,
Inventory Checklist, Genuine DRFs/FFs, no prior notification of
defects by Plaintiffs and equitable estoppel doctrine
99. I reproduce below the relevant part of DRFs:
“DEFECT RECTIFICATION FORM
…
UPON COMPLETION OF RECTIFICATION WORKS
We hereby agree that all defects have rectified satisfactorily.
Signature of customer [Plaintiff]: Representative of [Defendant]
Name: Name:
Date: Date: ”
(emphasis added).
Certain DRFs and FFs had a stamp “RESOLVED” on those documents
[DRFs/FFs (“Resolved” Stamp)].
100. Mr. Rohan had contended that the Defendant was not liable to the
Plaintiffs for All Defects (6 Bungalows) because -
(1) the Plaintiffs did not complain to the Defendant of any defect in the 6
Bungalows -
(a) during the Plaintiffs’ Inspection of 6 Bungalows (Delivery of
Vacant Possession); and
(b) when the Plaintiffs signed CRM Checklist and Inventory
Checklist with regard to the 6 Bungalows;
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
117
(2) the DRFs/FFs (“Resolved” Stamp) proved that the Defendant’s
Rectification Works had been satisfactorily carried out;
(3) prior to the filing of the 6 Suits, the Plaintiffs did not notify the
Defendant of certain defects in the 6 Bungalows. The Defendant
was only informed of certain defects in the 6 Bungalows in the
reports of SP8, SP9 and SP10 (after the filing of the 6 Suits and
before the commencement of Trial); and
(4) in view of the matters stated in the above sub-paragraphs (1) to (3),
the Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming for All Defects (6
Bungalows).
101. I am not able to accept the Defendant’s detailed submission stated in
the above paragraph 100. My reasons are as follows:
(1) a Purchaser has a right under s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953
(LA) to file a suit for a breach of Statutory SPA within six years from
the date of the housing developer’s breach of the Statutory SPA
[Purchaser’s Right to Sue Housing Developer (6 Years
Limitation Period)]. There is nothing in HDA, HDR and Statutory
SPAs which has abridged the Purchaser’s Right to Sue Housing
Developer (6 Years Limitation Period).
In view of the Purchaser’s Right to Sue Housing Developer (6 Years
Limitation Period), the Plaintiffs could claim in the 6 Suits for any
defect in the 6 Bungalows provided that the 6 Suits were filed within
the six-year limitation period stipulated in s 6(1)(a) LA even though -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
118
(a) the Plaintiffs did not complain to the Defendant of any defect in
the 6 Bungalows -
(i) during the Plaintiffs’ Inspection of 6 Bungalows (Delivery of
Vacant Possession);
(ii) when the Plaintiffs signed CRM Checklist and Inventory
Checklist with regard to the 6 Bungalows; and
(iii) before the institution of the 6 Suits; and
(b) certain defects in the 6 Bungalows were only brought to the
Defendant’s attention in the reports of SP8, SP9 and SP10
(after the commencement of the 6 Suits);
(2) the court cannot accept the truth of the contents of the DRFs/FFs
(“Resolved” Stamp) because the Plaintiffs had proven on a balance
of probabilities the existence of All Defects (6 Bungalows) - please
refer to the above paragraph 79;
(3) certain Other Defects (6 Bungalows) -
(a) were not apparent to the Plaintiffs within 24 calendar months
after the Plaintiffs had taken vacant possession of the 6
Bungalows within the meaning of Clause 25 (Suits No. 43 to 45
and 47) and Clause 27 [Schedule I];
(b) could not be discovered by the Plaintiffs through reasonable
inspection and testing (as explained in Sigma Elevator); or
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
119
(c) could not be “reasonably discoverable” by the Plaintiffs in the
sense of being known or detectable upon reasonable
observation (please refer to Dua Residency Management
Corporation)
[the above defects are collectively referred to in this judgment
as “Latent Defects (6 Bungalows)”].
It is only in the interest of justice for the Defendant to be liable
to the Plaintiffs for the Latent Defects (6 Bungalows);
(4) the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be invoked by the
Defendant against the Plaintiffs in the 6 Suits because -
(a) the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot apply in view of the
application of HDA and HDR in the 6 Suits by way of the
Statutory SPAs. I rely on the following judgment of the Supreme
Court delivered by Hashim Yeop Sani CJ (Malaya) in Hotel
Ambassador (M) Sdn Bhd v Seapower (M) Sdn Bhd [1991] 1
MLJ 404, at 407 -
“On the question of issue estoppel we agree with the
learned judge that on the facts of this case the appellants
cannot invoke the doctrine of issue estoppel. There can be
no estoppel as against statutory provisions.”
(emphasis added);
(b) the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot shield the Defendant
from the effect of the Defendant’s 3 Breaches (SUBBL) [which
supports the Defendant’s breach of the Housing Developer’s
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
120
Obligation Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) and
Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship) - please
refer to the above sub-paragraph 79(5)]; and
(c) the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based on justice and
equity. If I have applied this doctrine to bar the Plaintiffs from
claiming for any remedy for All Defects (6 Bungalows), this
would have caused an injustice and inequity to the Plaintiffs;
and
(5) if the court accepts any one or more of the contentions advanced by
the Defendant in the above paragraph 100, this is tantamount to
allowing the Defendant to circumvent the Housing Developer’s
Obligation (Materials) and Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good
Workmanship) pursuant to Clause 13 (Suits No. 45 and 47) and
Clause 15(1) [Schedule I]. Such an outcome clearly defeats the
Object (HDA).
L. Can Plaintiffs recover Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows) for Other
Defects (6 Bungalows) [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)]?
L(1). Whether SP9, SP10, SP16 and SD13 were competent to provide
expert evidence on Rectification Cost (Other Defects)
102. Mr. Rohan has submitted that only a person who has training,
qualification or experience in quantity surveying can give an expert’s
view on the Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)]. With respect, I
am not able to agree. My reasons are as follows:
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
121
(1) as explained in the above paragraph 65, premised on Era
Kemuncak Jaya, the court does not need expert testimony to
decide on the quantum of Rectification Cost (Other Defects)
{Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)]}. The court, of
course, may refer to expert opinions when the court ascertains the
Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)]; and
(2) if this court has accepted the above contention, this has far-reaching
repercussions. This means in all cases concerning rectification of
construction defects, claimants have to call QSs to give their expert
testimonies to prove rectification cost. As explained in Era
Kemuncak Jaya, there is no such requirement in s 45(1) EA or any
written law. Worse still, this will increase costs and may impede
plaintiffs’ fundamental right of access to justice.
103. Contrary to Mr. Rohan’s submission, I accept SP9 and SP10 as
competent experts under s 45(1) EA to assist the court to decide the
Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)] in Suits No. 43 to 47. This
is because SP9 and SP10 are qualified and practising architects who
have sufficient knowledge and experience in the construction industry to
proffer their expert views on the Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other
Defects)] in Suits No. 43 to 47 [Expert Opinions of SP9 and SP10
(Rectification Cost)].
104. SP16, as a qualified and practising QS, is a competent expert pursuant
to s 45(1) EA to give an expert opinion on the Quantum [Rectification
Cost (Other Defects)] in Suit No. 49 (SP16’s Expert Opinion). Similarly,
I accept that SD13, a qualified and practising QS, is competent to give
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
122
an expert view on the Quantum (Rectification Cost) (SD13’s Expert
Opinion).
L(2). What is Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)] to be
awarded by court?
105. According to the Expert Opinions of SP9 and SP10 (Rectification Cost),
the following sums of money should be awarded as Quantum
[Rectification Cost (Other Defects)] for Suits No. 43 to 47:
(1) for Bungalow (Suit No. 43) - RM 680,970.00;
(2) for Bungalow (Suit No. 44) - RM 780,960.00;
(3) for Bungalow (Suit No. 45) - RM 841,060.00;
(4) for Bungalow (Suit No. 46) - RM 731,780.00; and
(5) for Bungalow (Suit No. 47) - RM 826,450.00.
106. Based on SP16’s Expert Opinion, a sum of RM 509,280.62 constitutes
the Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)] for Bungalow (Suit No.
49).
107. In comparison to -
(1) the Expert Opinions of SP9 and SP10 (Rectification Cost); and
(2) SP16’s Expert Opinion
- SD13’s Expert Opinion provided a far lower sum of Quantum
[Rectification Cost (Other Defects)].
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
123
108. In view of the High Purchase Prices, I make the following findings of
fact:
(1) the Rectification Cost opined by SP9, SP10 and SP16
[Rectification Cost (Opinions of SP9, SP10 and SP16)] “naturally
arose in the usual course of things” from the Defendant’s breach of
the Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) and Housing
Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship) [Defendant’s Breach
(6 SPAs)] within the meaning of the 1st Limb [Section 74(1) CA];
(2) the Rectification Cost (Opinions of SP9, SP10 and SP16) would
have been known to the Plaintiffs and Defendant, when they made
the 6 SPAs, that the Rectification Cost (Opinions of SP9, SP10 and
SP16) was “likely to result” from the Defendant’s Breach (6 SPAs)
as understood in the 2nd Limb [Section 74(1) CA];
(3) the Rectification Cost (Opinions of SP9, SP10 and SP16) is just and
reasonable to compensate adequately the Plaintiffs for the Other
Defects (6 Bungalows). In other words, the Plaintiffs are not unjustly
enriched by the Rectification Cost (Opinions of SP9, SP10 and
SP16); and
(4) SD13’s Expert Opinion regarding the Quantum [Rectification Cost
(Other Defects)] is far too low and cannot compensate adequately
the Plaintiffs for the Other Defects (6 Bungalows). Furthermore, this
court cannot attach any weight to SD13’s Expert Opinion due to the
following reasons -
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
124
(a) SD13 did not inspect the 6 Bungalows. It is difficult for the court
to believe an expert who had not personally visited the 6
Bungalows and had no first-hand knowledge of the Other
Defects (6 Bungalows) when the expert provided an estimate of
the Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)];
(b) SD13’s report was prepared in late 2021 but he admitted during
cross-examination that he had used rates which were
applicable in 2018 (2018 Rates). The court can take judicial
notice that cost of rectification work can only increase (not
decrease) by the passage of time because such a fact is -
(i) “subject of common and general knowledge and its
existence or operation is accepted by the public without
qualification or contention”; and
(ii) “so sufficiently notorious” for which the court may assume
the existence of the matter without proof
- please refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court
delivered by Syed Agil Barakbah SCJ in Pembangunan
Maha Murni Sdn Bhd v Jururus Ladang Sdn Bhd [1986]
2 MLJ 30, at 31 to 32.
At the time of the preparation of SD13’s report, the Plaintiffs
were waiting for the court’s decision in the 6 Suits and the
Plaintiffs’ Rectification Works had yet to commence. An honest,
competent and professional expert should have used the rates
which were applicable at the time of the preparation of the
expert’s report (Current Rates). By deliberately relying on 2018
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
125
Rates and by omitting to consider the Current Rates, SD13 had
dishonestly conducted an under-estimation of the Quantum
[Rectification Cost (Other Defects)].
In this regard, I cannot accept Mr. Rohan’s contention that
SD13 had properly relied on 2018 Rates because he was
appointed by the Defendant to give an expert view in 2018. This
is because if there is any delay in the preparation of an expert’s
valuation report (deliberate or otherwise) and the Current Rates
are higher than 2018 Rates, it is incumbent on an honest,
competent and professional expert to use the Current Rates. If
otherwise, parties, learned counsel and experts will be
“emboldened” to delay the preparation of valuation reports
which is dissonant with justice and the duties owed by learned
counsel and expert to disclose all material facts to the court;
and
(c) SD13’s report did not state that he had many discussions with
SD5 regarding the Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)]
[Discussions (SD13-SD5)]. During cross-examination, SD13
admitted that certain parts of SD13’s Opinion were based on
the Discussions (SD13-SD5). As SD13’s Opinion was premised
on, among others, the Discussions (SD13-SD5), SD13’s report
should have disclosed such a material fact {SD13’s
Concealment [Discussions (SD13-SD5)]}. SD13’s
Concealment [Discussions (SD13-SD5)] has -
(i) effectively undermined SD13’s credibility as an expert
witness; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
126
(ii) caused an injustice to the Plaintiffs because Mr. Pereira
had been deprived of his right to cross-examine SD5 on
the contents of the Discussions (SD13-SD5).
109. As explained in the above paragraph 108, I find as a fact that the
Plaintiffs have discharged the legal and evidential burden to prove the
Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)] as opined by SP9, SP10
and SP16.
L(3). Can Plaintiffs claim for Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows),
including Loss of Rental (6 Bungalows)?
110. The Plaintiffs had adduced expert evidence from SP11 and SP12
regarding their Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of Rental
(6 Bungalows).
111. In view of the above claim by the Plaintiffs, Mr. Rohan had called SD1 to
give an expert opinion regarding the Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6
Bungalows) and Loss of Rental (6 Bungalows) allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiffs.
112. I accept Mr. Rohan’s submission that the Plaintiffs (Suits No. 43 to 47)
have no basis to claim for Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and
Loss of Rental (6 Bungalows) because -
(1) the Defendant’s Breach (6 SPAs) did not render the 6 Bungalows
not fit for human habitation. In fact, the Plaintiffs had failed to
adduce any evidence that the Plaintiffs could not reside in 6
Bungalows due to the Defendant’s Breach (6 SPAs). Consequently,
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
127
the Plaintiffs had failed to discharge the legal and evidential burden
to prove Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of Rental
(6 Bungalows) on a balance of probabilities;
(2) Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of Rental (6
Bungalows) are too remote to be recovered by the Plaintiffs in the 6
Suits due to the following reasons -
(a) the Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of Rental
(6 Bungalows) did not naturally arise in the usual course of
things from the Defendant’s Breach (6 SPAs) as required by the
1st Limb [Section 74(1) CA]; and
(b) the Plaintiffs and Defendant would have known, when they
made the 6 SPAs that the Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6
Bungalows) and Loss of Rental (6 Bungalows) were not likely to
result from the Defendant’s Breach (6 SPAs) within the
meaning of the 2nd Limb [Section 74(1) CA]; and
(3) this court has awarded the Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air
Conditioners)] and Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)]
[collectively referred to in this judgment as the “Award (Total
Damages)”] in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant. If I
have awarded Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of
Rental (6 Bungalows) in the 6 Suits, this will be tantamount to an
unjust enrichment of the Plaintiffs at the expense of the Defendant.
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
128
M. Whether Plaintiffs can claim pre-judgment interest on Award (Total
Damages)
113. Section 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956 (CLA) and O 42 r 12 RC are
reproduced below:
“s 11 CLA Power of Courts to award interest on debts and
damages
In any proceedings tried in any Court for the recovery of any debt or
damages, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that there shall be
included in the sum for which judgment is given interest as such rate
as it thinks fit on the whole or any part of the debt or damages for the
whole or any part of the period between the date when the cause of
action arose and the date of the judgment:
Provided that nothing in this section -
(a) shall authorize the giving of interest upon interest;
(b) shall apply in relation to any debt upon which interest is payable as of
right whether by virtue of any agreement or otherwise; or
(c) shall affect the damages recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of
exchange.
O 42 r 12 RC Interest on judgment debts
Subject to rule 12A, except when it has been otherwise agreed between
the parties, every judgment debt shall carry interest at such rate as
the Chief Justice may from time to time determine or at such other
rate not exceeding the rate aforesaid as the Court determines, such
interest to be calculated from the date of judgment until the judgment
is satisfied.”
(emphasis added).
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
129
114. It is not disputed that the court has the following discretionary power to
award interest on a judgment sum:
(1) by reason of s 11 CLA, the court may award pre-judgment interest
on any judgment sum “at such rate as it thinks fit on the whole or
any part of the … damages for the whole or any part of the period …
between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of
judgment” - please refer to the judgment of Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as
His Majesty then was) in the Federal Court in Lim Kar Bee v Abdul
Latif bin Ismail [1978] 1 MLJ 109, at 120; and
(2) according to O 42 r 12 RC, the court may order a judgment debtor to
pay to the judgment creditor post-judgment interest at the rate of 5%
per annum (pa) on a judgment sum from the date of the oral
decision of the case until full payment of the judgment sum.
115. I have delivered my oral decision for the 6 Suits on 9.12.2022 [Date
(Oral Decision)].
116. Mr. Pereira has invited the court to grant pre-judgment interest on the
Award (Total Damages) from the dates of the accrual of the causes of
action vested in the Plaintiffs for the Defendant’s Breach (6 SPAs)
[Accrual Dates (Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action)]. According to Mr.
Pereira, the Accrual Dates (Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action) were the dates
when the Defendant delivered vacant possession of the 6 Bungalows to
the Plaintiffs.
117. I am not able to grant pre-judgment interest on the Award (Total
Damages). On the contrary, this court exercises its discretion under s 11
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
130
CLA and O 42 r 12 RC to order the Defendant to pay interest at the rate
of 5% pa on the Award (Total Damages) from the Date (Oral Decision)
until full satisfaction of the same. The reasons for this exercise of
discretion are as follows:
(1) the Plaintiffs have yet to incur any expense to rectify All Defects (6
Bungalows). A grant of pre-judgment interest on the Award (Total
Damages) will amount to an unjustifiable windfall for the Plaintiffs;
and
(2) as explained in Linsun Engineering Sdn Bhd v Shin Eversendai
Engineering Sdn Bhd [2023] 4 MLRH 466, at [61], this court’s
award of interest at the rate of 5% pa on the Award (Total Damages)
is higher than the bank interest rates which prevailed at the time of
the Accrual Dates (Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action). In other words, the
Plaintiffs cannot claim to be prejudiced by the court’s refusal to grant
pre-judgment interest on the Award (Total Damages) in the 6 Suits.
N. Costs of 6 Suits [Costs (6 Suits)]
N(1). Should court certify fees for 2 counsel in favour of Plaintiffs?
118. Mr. Pereira had applied to the court to certify under O 59 r 14(1) RC for
fees of two counsel to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as Costs
(6 Suits). According to O 59 r 14(1) RC -
“The fees for more than one counsel for one party or set of
defendants shall not be allowed unless the Court or Judge at the
hearing so certifies.”
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
131
(emphasis added).
119. It is decided in Singham Sulaiman Sdn Bhd v Appraisal Property
Management Sdn Bhd & Anor and another case [2018] 10 MLJ 187,
at [115], as follows:
“[115] Regarding the court’s power to certify fees for 2 counsel
under O 59 r 14(1) RC, I am of the following view:
(1) the court has a discretion pursuant to O 59 r 14(1) RC to certify
fees for more than one counsel. The court’s exercise of
discretion is based on the particular facts of the case at hand
and does not constitute a binding legal precedent from the view
point of stare decisis doctrine;
(2) I refer to Barwick CJ’s judgment in the 4-1 majority decision of
the High Court of Australia in Stanley v Phillips (1966) 115 CLR
470, at paragraph 16, which decided that the court may allow
fees for more than one counsel where the court is satisfied that
“the nature and circumstances of the case are such that the
services of two counsel are required if the case is to be
presented to the court in such a manner that justice can be
done between the parties”. It is to be noted that the High Court
of Australia is its apex court; and
(3) the court should be wary in certifying fees for more than one
counsel because as explained by Vincent Ng Kim Khoay J (as
he then was) in the High Court in Pen Apparel Sdn Bhd v Leow
Chooi Khon & Ors [1995] 4 CLJ 606, at 616-617, “the process of
litigation is solely to enable a litigant to have his rights litigated,
rather than to permit him to acquire monetary gains”. Costs is
not a remedy in itself. Excessive costs amounts to an
unjustifiable windfall and impedes a party’s fundamental right of
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
132
access to justice as provided in Article 5(1) Constitution - please
see the Federal Court’s judgment in Sivarasa Rasiah v
Badan Peguam Malaysia [2010] 3 CLJ 507, at 514-515.”
(emphasis added).
120. Notwithstanding the fact that the 6 Suits raise novel legal issues (please
refer to the above paragraph 21), premised on Singham Sulaiman, I
decline to exercise my discretion under O 59 r 14(1) RC to certify fees for
two counsel to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as Costs (6
Suits). This decision is based on the following reasons:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the 6 Suits do not require the
services of two counsel to represent the Plaintiffs so as to enable
this court to decide the 6 Suits in a just manner; and
(2) if I have certified fees of two counsel to be paid by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff as Costs (6 Suits), there is an unjust enrichment to the
Plaintiffs in respect of the Costs (6 Suits).
N(2). Quantum of Costs (6 Suits) [Quantum (Costs)]
121. By virtue of O 59 rr 2(2), 3(2), 16(2), (3), 19(1) and (2) RC, with regard
to the Quantum (Costs), I exercise my discretion as follows:
(1) as the Plaintiffs have largely been successful in the 6 Suits, “costs to
follow the event”, namely, the Defendant shall pay Costs (6 Suits) to
the Plaintiffs on a standard basis. Determination of costs on a
standard basis pursuant to O 59 r 16(2) and (3) RC does not entitle
the Plaintiffs to claim Costs (6 Suits) on a “time cost” basis - please
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
133
refer to Allan Lee Mason & Anor v Jeremy Keith Smeeton & Ors
[2016] 1 LNS 1593, at [81] and [82];
(2) in respect of issues which the court has found in favour of the
Plaintiffs against the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim from
the Defendant the fees of the relevant experts as “Out of Pocket
Expenses”. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim from the
Defendant the expert fees for SP8, SP9, SP10, SP13, SP14 and
SP16; and
(3) the Defendant is entitled to deduct the following sums from the
Quantum (Costs) -
(a) two questions which the court has decided in favour of the
Defendant against the Plaintiffs, namely -
(i) the Defendant’s use of Red Balau timber in the 3
Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47 and 49); and
(ii) the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claim for Loss of
Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of Rental (6
Bungalows); and
(b) the expert fees paid by the Defendant for -
(i) SD1 [to give his expert view regarding the Plaintiffs’ claim
for Loss of Use/Enjoyment (6 Bungalows) and Loss of
Rental (6 Bungalows)]; and
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
134
(ii) SD4’s Expert Opinion with regard to the timber used by the
Defendant to construct the 3 Bungalows (Suits No. 45, 47
and 49).
122. Taking into consideration the reasons stated in the above paragraph
121 as well as the considerations provided in O 59 r 16(1)(a) to (c), (e)
and (f) RC, this court exercises its discretion to determine the Quantum
(Costs) as follows:
(1) the Defendant shall pay RM90,000.00 as the Quantum (Costs) for
each of Suits No. 43, 44, 45 and 47; and
(2) a sum of RM100,000.00 shall be paid by the Defendant as the
Quantum (Costs) for each of Suits No. 46 and 49.
123. In accordance with O 59 r 24 RC, I award interest at the rate of 5% pa
on the Quantum (Costs) for the 6 Suits from 30.3.2023, the date of
determination of the Quantum (Costs) [Date (Determination of Costs)]
until full payment of the same.
O. Summary of court’s decision
124. In brief, the 6 Suits are allowed with the following judgment:
(1) the Defendant shall pay the following damages to the Plaintiffs -
(a) the Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air Conditioners)] - please
refer to the above paragraphs 72 and 73; and
(b) the Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)] - please see
the above paragraphs 105, 106, 108 and 109;
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
135
(2) interest at the rate of 5% pa on the Award (Total Damages) from the
Date (Oral Decision) until full payment of the Award (Total
Damages) shall be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs - please
refer to the above paragraph 117;
(3) as explained in the above paragraphs 121 and 122, the Defendant
shall pay the Quantum (Costs); and
(4) interest at the rate of 5% pa on the Quantum (Costs) shall be paid
by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs from the Date (Determination of
Costs)] until full realization of the same.
P. Conclusion
125. The 6 Suits do not concern a “mismatch of expectations” (in the words
of Mr. Rohan) but involve the Plaintiffs’ right to claim damages for the
Defendant’s breach of its Housing Developer’s Obligation (Materials) and
Housing Developer’s Obligation (Good Workmanship) under the
Statutory SPAs.
126. The Defendant should have instituted third party proceedings under O
16 r 1(1)(a) RC against the Main Contractor for an indemnity or
contribution with regard to -
(1) the Quantum [Damages for Defects (Air Conditioners)]; and
(2) the Quantum [Rectification Cost (Other Defects)]
- for which the Defendant was liable to the Plaintiffs.
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
136
127. I must end this judgment with the court’s gratitude to Mr. Pereira and Mr.
Rohan for their able assistance in these 6 Suits (which has lightened
considerably my task in the preparation of this written judgment).
WONG KIAN KHEONG
Judge
Court of Appeal, Malaysia
DATE: 14 JANUARY 2024
Counsel for Plaintiffs Mr. Colin Andrew Pereira & Mr. Gary Wong Kin Wai
(in 6 Suits): (Messrs Goh Wong Pereira)
Counsel for Defendant Mr. Rohan Arasoo A/L Jeyabalah
(in 6 Suits): Ms. Amy Hiew Kar Yi & Ms. Pan Yan Teng
(Messrs Harold & Lam Partnership)
S/N kuxvHIBHP0WHExyynT4s5Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 201,204 | Tika 2.6.0 |
AB-24NCvC-21-02/2023 | PEMOHON PREMALATHA A/P RAMA GOVINDA RESPONDEN PREMAVATHY A/P BALAKRISHNAN | Civil procedure - Originating Summons - Included in the prayers was a mandatory injunction for the Defendant to give effect to a previous High Court Judgment - Judgment affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal - Leave to appeal to Federal Court was denied - Failure to comply with Judgment and Orders - Whether the Court was wrong to grant the prayers sought - Omnibus prayer - Inherent powers of the Court to prevent injustice - Application allowed | 11/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2ee3031c-54fe-4961-8654-adae37c89eef&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TAIPING
DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN
SAMAN PEMULA NO: AB-24NCVC-21-02/2023
Dalam perkara mengenai Penghakiman
bertarikh 9.8.2018 bagi Guaman Sivil
No. AB22NCVC-14-06/2017 di
Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Taiping,
Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia.
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Hartanah
sebuah rumah (Aset Perkahwinan)
yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik
individu GM 10265, Lot No. 81958,
Seksyen 30, Tempat Telok Gadong
Besar di Bandar Klang, Daerah Klang,
Negeri Selangor Darul Eshan yang
mempunyai alamat di No. 62, Lebuh
Peria, Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang,
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Senarai
Aset-Aset Harta Pusaka Dr.
Ganeshwaran a/l K.T. Balakrishnan
(No. Kad Pengenalan: 640223-07-
5399), Si Mati di bawah Geran Probet
bertarikh 12.10.2016 yang dikeluarkan
oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di
Shah Alam bagi Saman Pemula No:
BA-32NCvC-536- 09/2016.
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 53
Akta Relif Spesifik 1950.
Dan
11/11/2023 23:13:10
AB-24NCvC-21-02/2023 Kand. 41
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan 7
dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4
KaedahKaedah Mahkamah 2012.
ANTARA
PREMALATHA A/P RAMA GOVINDA
(No. K/P: 770409-06-5848) …PLAINTIF
DAN
PREMAVATHY A/P BALAKRISHNAN
(NO. K/P: 570813-08-6302) ...DEFENDAN
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
[1] This Court decided on 22.8.2023 to allow the Originating Summons
(“the OS”) in this case filed by the Plaintiff with costs. The Defendant filed
a Notice of Appeal against the Court’s decision on 19.9.2023. This
Grounds of Judgment contains the reasons for allowing the OS.
[2] The prayers in the OS sought for the following orders from the Court:
“1. Bahawa Defendan dikehendaki untuk mengambil tindakan dan/atau
melaksanakan yang berikut, dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari
tarikh Perintah ini, bagi tujuan melaksanakan dan/atau mematuhi
Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping bertarikh 9.8.2018 bagi
Guaman Sivil No: AB-22NCVC-14-06/2017:-
(a) Memfailkan suatu permohonan untuk meminda Senarai Aset-
Aset Harta Pusaka Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l K.T. Balakrishnan (No.
Kad Pengenalan: 640223-07-5399), Si Mati di bawah Geran
Probet bertarikh 12.10.2016 seperti yang dicadangkan di
Lampiran A yang dilampirkan bersama dengan Saman Pemula
ini;
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
(c) Melaksanakan turunmilik dan mendaftarkan Defendan sebagai
wakil/wasi kepada Harta Pusaka Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l K.T.
Balakrishnan (No. Kad Pengenalan: 640223-07-5399), Si Mati
atas Hartanah sebuah rumah yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik
individu GM 10265, Lot No. 81958, Seksyen 30, Tempat Telok
Gadong Besar di Bandar Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor
Darul Eshan yang mempunyai alamat di No. 62, Lebuh Peria,
Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan (selepas ini
dirujuk sebagai "Aset Perkahwinan tersebut"), dan seterusnya,
melaksanakan pindahmilik setengah (1/2) bahagian Aset
Perkahwinan tersebut daripada Defendan selaku Wasi ke atas
nama Plaintif selaku Benefisiari kepada setengah (1/2) bahagian
Aset Perkahwinan tersebut di bawah suatu amanah; dan
(c) Memberikan satu set kunci yang lengkap bagi Aset Perkahwinan
tersebut kepada Plaintif supaya Plaintif dapat mengakses Aset
Perkahwinan tersebut.
2. Bahawa sekiranya Defendan gagal untuk melaksanakan perkara 1(a) di
atas dalam masa yang ditetapkan, Plaintif mempunyai hak untuk
memfailkan suatu permohonan bagi meminda Senarai Aset-Aset Harta
Pusaka Si Mati di bawah Geran Probet bertarikh 12.10.2016 seperti
yang dicadangkan di Lampiran A,
3. Bahawa Defendan dikehendaki membekalkan salinan Suratan Hakmilik
(“Title Deed”) bagi Aset Perkahwinan tersebut kepada Plaintif, dalam
tempoh empat belas (14) setelah Suratan Hakmilik yang mencerminkan
pemindahan setengah (1/2) bahagian Aset Perkahwinan tersebut ke
atas nama Plaintif dikeluarkan, bagi tujuan rekod dan simpanan Plaintif;
4. Bahawa Defendan dikehendaki untuk membayar jumlah sebanyak
RM31,200.00 kepada Plaintif daripada Estet Si Mati, yang merupakan
jumlah kos dan fi alokatur yang telah diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah
Tinggi Taiping (melalui Penghakiman bertarikh 9.8.2018 di Guaman Sivil
No: AB-22NCVC-14-06/2017) dan Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
(melalui Perintah bertarikh 11.2.2020 di Permohonan Sivil No: 08(f)-339-
08/2019(A));
5. Bahawa Notis Pengendorsan sebagaimana dalam Borang 83 Kaedah-
Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dimasukkan ke dalam perintah ini;
6. Bahawa segala kos yang terlibat bagi melaksanakan perintah ini dan kos
permohonan ini ditanggung oleh Defendan;
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
7. Lain-lain relif yang dianggap patut dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah Yang
Mulia ini.”.
[3] The brief reasons listed by the Plaintiff in the OS were:
“1. Seperti yang dihakimi di bawah Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping
bertarikh 9.8.2018 (yang disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah
Persekutuan), Plaintif sebagai seorang isteri/balu mempunyai hak dan
kepentingan ke atas Aset Perkahwinan tersebut, yang mana Si Mati adalah
memegang setengah (1/2) bahagian hartanah Aset Perkahwinan tersebut atas
dasar Amanah bagi Plaintif.
2. Defendan selaku Wasi dan pemegang amanah di bawah Wasiat Si Mati
bertarikh 14.2.2016 bagi Harta Pusaka dan Estet Si Mati masih enggan
dan/atau gagal dan/atau abai untuk mengambil tindakan yang selanjutnya dan
yang diperlukan, untuk mengiktiraf hak dan kepentingan Plaintif sebagai
seorang pemilik yang memiliki setengah (1/2) bahagian hartanah Aset
Perkahwinan tersebut, dan juga membayar kos dan fi alokatur yang
diperintahkan kepada Plaintif selaku pihak yang menang dalam litigasi,
walaupun Defendan telah berulang kali dituntut oleh Plaintif dan/atau
peguamcara Plaintif untuk berbuat demikian.
3. Terdapat prejudis yang dialami oleh Plaintif yang diakibatkan oleh
Defendan atas representasi palsu Defendan, di mana Defendan telah memberi
harapan kepada Plaintif bahawa Defendan sememangnya mengiktiraf hak dan
dan kepentingan Plaintif selaku pemilik yang memiliki setengah (1/2) bahagian
hartanah Aset Perkahwinan tersebut dan juga mempunyai niat untuk
menyelesaikan perkara ini secara aman damai dengan Plaintif.
4. Walau bagaimanapun, perbincangan bagi perlaksanaan perkara ini
yang dijalankan di antara pihak-pihak melalui peguamcara-peguamcara
masing-masing tidak membuahkan apa-apa hasil yang positif (“did not yield
any positive results”) dan sehingga kini, Defendan juga gagal dan/atau abai
dan/atau enggan untuk mengambil tindakan yang selanjutnya dan yang
diperlukan, menurut terma-terma Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping
bertarikh 9.8.2018 tersebut.”
[4] The OS was filed on 8.2.2023 together with the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in
Support (Encl. 2) . The Defendant’s Affidavit in Reply (Encl. 12) was only
filed on 26.4.2023 after leave was granted by the Court on 11.4.2023
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
pursuant to the Defendant’s application in Encl. 6 to obtain an extension
of time to reply to Encl. 2.
[5] The Cause Papers for Encl. 1 were as follows:
i. Saman Pemula dated 8.2.2023 (Encl. 1);
ii. Afidavit Sokongan Plaintif affirmed by Premalatha A/P Rama
Govinda on 8.2.2023 (Encl. 2);
iii. Afidavit Jawapan Defendan affirmed by Premavathy A/P
Balakrishnan on 26.4.2023 (Encl. 12);
iv. Afidavit Balasan Plaintif affirmed by Premalatha A/P Rama
Govinda on 10.5.2023 (Encl. 13); and
v. Afidavit Jawapan Kedua Defendan affirmed by Premavathy
A/P Balakrishnan on 24.5.2023 (Encl. 14).
FACTUAL MATRIX
[6] The Plaintiff was the lawful wife of Dr. Ganeshwaran A/L K T
Balakrishnan (“the Deceased”). The couple had a matrimonial home
which was a double storey terrace house at No. No.62, Lebuh Peria,
Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“the Property”). The
Deceased passed away on 14.3.2016. During his lifetime, the Deceased
had drawn up a Will and named his mother as the Executor of his estate.
However, if his mother was unwilling or unable to act, then his sister, the
Defendant, would be appointed as Executor. In the Will dated 14.2.2026
he had bequeathed his possessions amongst his family members
whereas the Property was to be given entirely to the Defendant. He did
not leave anything for his wife. A Grant of Probate was obtained by the
Defendant at the Shah Alam High Court on 12.10.2016.
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[7] The Plaintiff challenged the Will and claimed the Property and other
ancillary orders vide Suit No. AB-22NCVC-14-06/2017 at the Taiping High
Court. On 9.8.2018, after four days of trial, the High Court gave judgment
in favour of the Plaintiff (“the Judgment”) and made the following orders:
“1. “Wasiat bertarikh 14.2.2016 yang dibuat oleh Si Mati, Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l
K.T. Balakrishnan adalah sah dan berkuatkuasa.
2. Hartanah sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 62, Lebuh Peria, Taman
Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan yang dipertikaikan bukanlah
harta Si Mati, Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l K.T. Balakrishnan sepenuhnya dan
harta itu dipegang sebahagian untuk amanah bagi pihak Plaintif dan
bahagian itu tidak boleh dijadikan subjek wasiat Si Mati.
3. Si Mati, Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l K.T. Balakrishnan memegang Setengah
bahagian (1/2) bahagian hartanah yang beralamat di No. 62, Lebuh Peria,
Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan itu sebagai amanah
untuk Plaintif.
SEDEMIKIAN DAN ADALAH SELANJUTNYA DIHAKIMI BAHAWA:-
4. Plaintif sebagai isteri kepada Si Mati, Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l K.T.
Balakrishnan mempunyai hak dan kepentingan ke atas Aset Perkahwinan
yang beralamat di No. 62, Lebuh Peria, Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang,
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
5. Si Mati, Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l K.T. Balakrishnan dan/atau Estet Si
Mati/Defendan dan mana-mana wakil, agen atau ahli keluarga Defendan
memegang Setengah bahagian (1/2) Aset Perkahwinan yang beralamat di
No. 62, Lebuh Peria, Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan
atas dasar amanah untuk Plaintif sebagai pihak yang mempunyai hak
benefisial berdasarkan sumbangan yang dibuat secara peribadi dan
melalui sumbangan ibu bapa Plaintif ke atas Aset Perkahwinan tersebut
dan/atau sebagai pihak yang mempunyai hak dan kepentingan sebagai
seorang isteri yang sah ke atas Aset Perkahwinan tersebut.
6. Kos sebanyak RM15,000.00 tertakluk kepada 4% Alokatur dibayar kepada
Plaintif daripada Estet Si Mati.”
[See Exhibit “PRG-3” of Encl. 2 at pages 40-42]
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
[8] The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the
Judgment. On 23.7.2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed with costs the
appeal of the Defendant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of
Appeal, the Defendant applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
However, on 11.2.2020 the Federal Court dismissed the leave application
and further ordered the cost of RM15,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant
to the Plaintiff.
HEARING OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS
[9] Therefore, as Defendant’s leave to appeal to the Federal Court has
been dismissed, the Judgment is thus valid, binding, and enforceable.
The Plaintiff contended that based on the Judgment and Orders of the
High Court, Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court, the Plaintiff was
entitled to the following from the Defendant:
(a) ½ ownership of the matrimonial property that is located in No.
62, Lebuh Peria, Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul
Ehsan;
(b) Costs (including allocator fees) of RM 15,600.00 which is the
cost ordered by the High Court of Taiping; and
(c) Costs (including allocator fees) of RM 15,600.00 which is the
costs ordered by the Federal Court.
[10] Nevertheless, the Defendant took the stand that the entire
Judgment very simply held that a half share in the said Property was
initially held on trust by Dr.Ganeshwaran (“untuk amanah bagi pihak
Plaintif”) and subsequently any representative, agent or family member
held the said half share in the said property on trust for the Plaintiff (“atas
dasar amanah untuk Plaintif”). Nothing more and nothing less. This was
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
exactly what the Defendant’s counsel summed up at the hearing of the
OS, despite including the RM31,200.00 costs owed by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff in the parties’ discussions to settle the matter within the time
span of 5 years after the Judgment was obtained. Their respective
solicitors’ numerous communication letters on a STRICTLY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE BASIS were exhibited by the Plaintiff in Exhibit “PRG-6” of
Encl. 2. The Defendant also acknowledged that they were in discussions
to break the deadlock “created” by the Judgment. The gist of the
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT was that, in order to resolve
this matter with some finality, the Defendant would purchase outright, the
Plaintiff’s beneficial interest in the said Property for a sum of
RM300,000.00 and this sum would be paid by the Defendant to the
Plaintiff together with the outstanding Costs of RM31,200.00.
[11] It was the Plaintiff’s contention in her written submissions that-
“(a) the Defendant had repeatedly given false hope to Plaintiff by repeatedly
assuring Plaintiff that Defendant intended to buy the ½ ownership of the
said property from Plaintiff, even giving false assurance such as stating
that “the money is already in the bank account of the Defendant” despite
the fact that the Defendant fully knew that she never intended to do so;
(b) throughout the whole negotiation process, Defendant had repeatedly
caused undue delay by failing to comply with the deadlines imposed by
Plaintiff by relying on the usual “due to unforeseen circumstances” or
“accidental foresight” or “overlooked”, where in reality, the Defendant
had no intention whatsoever to comply with the said Judgment or to buy
the Plaintiff’s ½ ownership of the said property. An example of this would
be where it took approximately two (2) years and four (4) months for the
Federal Court Order to be faired and filed as the Defendant had
repeatedly failed to do so and in fact, it was the Plaintiff herself who had
taken the action to file the said Federal Court Order herself; and
(c) throughout the whole attempted settlement stage, Plaintiff was the one
who had constantly taken the initiative to attempt to reach an amicable
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
settlement with Defendant despite the fact that Defendant was the one
who had to comply with the terms of the said Judgment.
[12] Due to the constant stalling, repeated delays, and empty promises
of Defendant, Plaintiff finally decided to call off all settlement negotiations
with Defendant at the end of the year 2022 as it had been approximately
two (2) years and nine (9) months since the settlement talk began
between both parties which clearly yielded no positive results
whatsoever. This culminated in the filing of the OS to compel Defendant
to comply with the terms of the Judgment, which included a mandatory
injunction. To date, the Plaintiff still has not obtained what she is lawfully
entitled to pursuant to the Judgment dated 9.8.2018.
[13] The Defendant contented that the Plaintiff in Enclosure 1 sought
reliefs that were never granted under the Judgment and hence, Encl. 1
must be dismissed with Costs. It was further contended that the Plaintiff
has mislead the Court by erroneously claiming that the Plaintiff was
entitled to half-ownership of the Property. Counsel argued that the
Plaintiff was entitled to merely a half-share of the Property which will be
held on trust for her by the Defendant. Then he tried to justify the delay
by citing the various Covid-19 lockdowns despite the Defendant’s sincere
attempts to settle this matter amicably. After all the on-going negotiations
between the parties during the period between March 2020 until
December 2022, it was the Plaintiff who had unilaterally and
unreasonably withdrawn from inking a concluded settlement reached
between the parties.
[14] It goes without saying that the Plaintiff denied they had ever
reached a settlement as otherwise we would not be here.
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
EVALUATION AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT
[15] The Plaintiff submitted that based on case laws, a mandatory
injunction ought to be granted in this case in the manner as outlined in
the OS because if the mandatory injunction is not granted, the Plaintiff
would continue to suffer injustice: Sritama Industries (M) Sdn Bhd v.
Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Malaysia (regarding the estate of a
bankrupt, Murugan a/l Singaram) [2019] MLJU 1897.
[16] The Plaintiff submitted further that the so-called “defence” relied on
by Defendant was clearly not a valid defence at all to the non-compliance
of the Defendant and a total disregard and disrespect of the Judgment as
well as the Orders of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal
Court (which did not grant leave to appeal the decisions of the 2 superior
courts): ESPL (M) Sdn Bhd v. Harbert International Est Sdn Bhd
[2003] MLJU 81.
[17] In the case of Golden Star & Ors v. Ling Peek Hoe & Ors [2021]
MLJU 75 it was held that:
“[62] The Court of Appeal in Thiruchelvasegaram A/L Manickavasegar v.
Mahadevi A/P Nadchatiram [1998] 4 CLJ 883, observed that a party could
not ignore or refuse to comply with a Court order on the ground of nullity.
In another case Hup Soon Omnibus Co Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Lim Chee @ Lam
Kum Chee [2018] 1 CLJ 641 the Court of Appeal emphasised the importance
of a court order that it must be obeyed as ordered unless set aside or varied
and not just a mere technicality that can be ignored. Before us, on the facts
and evidence we find that there was a blatant and flagrant disobedience
of the order of the Federal Court.
[63] Despite having exhausted all the avenues to appeal their case, the
Respondents were recalcitrant by insisting on litigating by filing the applications
for review as well as for the stay. From the time the Federal Court Order was
granted until the 1st Review application was filed one year 2 months had
lapsed followed by the filing of the 2nd and 3rd Review applications. It is
apparent to us that the Respondents have unabashedly refused to
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
comply with the High Court Order affirmed and reinstated by this Court.
The non-compliance of a court order, and in this case an injunction, is a
serious matter. Such behaviour to our mind, showcased total disregard
and disrespect of the order granted by the Federal Court which
tantamount to clear contempt of this Court’s order.”
[Emphasis added]
[18] It is clear from the evidence adduced in the present case that there
was no settlement agreement signed between the parties. In Syarikat
Kemajuan Timbermine Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan Darul
Naim [2015] 3 MLJ 609, Azahar Mohamed FCJ held that for any potential
agreement to be binding, the execution of the said agreement has to be
done and completed. Here, the last event that took place was on
19.12.2022 where the solicitors of the Defendant had once again informed
the Plaintiff that they will meet with the Defendant to “discuss on the
amendments of the Settlement Agreement”. After the Plaintiff had
amended the said settlement agreement on 15.11.2022, the Defendant
did not revert to the Plaintiff in time. In the case of Gumusut-Kakap Semi
Floating Production System (L) Ltd v. Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd
[2017] MLJU 877 the High Court held that without prejudice
communications can be admitted in order to illustrate the inordinate delay
that one party had caused to the other.
[19] This Court agreed with the Plaintiff’s averments that “the only
‘defence’ that the Defendant was able to muster with regards to the non-
compliance of the Defendant was that parties have almost reached a
“settlement” to this matter and just before the settlement is reached, the
Plaintiff had pulled out of all settlements and commenced this suit against
the Defendant.”. Nevertheless, based on the communications between
the parties’ solicitors, it appeared that the Defendant was the one who
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
had caused an inordinate and inexcusable delay to the attempted
settlement between both parties: refer to Sia Sung Ho v. Usaha
Cendera Cerah Sdn Bhd [2007] 4 MLJ 452 where the Court discussed
the terms “inordinate delay” and “inexcusable delay”.
[20] Upon perusal of the Cause Papers, the Court found that the
Defendant had admitted to the terms of the Judgment where the
Defendant had acknowledged that the Plaintiff was entitled to ½
ownership of the matrimonial property that is located in No. 62, Lebuh
Peria, Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. More than
three years since the conclusion of the proceedings in the Federal Court,
the Defendant has till to date failed to do anything whatsoever to reflect
the Plaintiff’s ½ ownership of the said property such as:
(a) Giving access to the Plaintiff to the said property such as
providing the keys of the said property to the Plaintiff;
(b) Amending the title deed of the said property to reflect the ½
ownership of the Plaintiff to the said Property; and
(c) Amending the list of assets of the late Dr. Ganeshwaran a/l
K.T. Balakrishnan (No. Kad Pengenalan: 640223-07-5399) to
reflect the ownership of the Plaintiff towards the said property.
[21] Therefore, this Court concluded that:
(a) the Defendant has not complied with the terms of the said
Judgment;
(b) the Defendant has caused delays to the attempted settlement
between both parties;
(c) the Defendant has not paid the total costs of RM 31,200.00
to the Plaintiff; and
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
(d) the inaction of Defendant has deprived Plaintiff of the fruits of
her litigation.
[22] Despite the Defendant’s claims of a sincere intention to settle the
matter, the Court found that the Defendant's conduct was unreasonable
when she claimed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs in the
OS which was based on the Judgment and Orders of the superior courts.
This demonstrated the Defendant’s disrespect of the validity and
enforceability of the said Judgment as well as the inherent powers of the
High Court in granting the reliefs prayed.
[23] This Court was referred to the case of Cheah Theam Kheng v.
City Centre Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) and other appeals [2012] 1 MLJ
761, where Abdul Malik Ishak JCA had referred to Wee Choo Keong v.
MBf Holdings Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [1993] 3 MLJ 123 and
Hadkinson v. Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567 and held as follows:-
“[84] … Obedience to the High Court order dated 26 July 2001 is a requirement
of the law. Abdul Hamid Omar LP in Wee Chao Keong v MBf Holdings Bhd &
Anor and Another Appeal [1993] 3 MLJ 123; [1993] 3 CLJ 210, SC, at p 212
aptly said:
Obedience to court order
It is established law that a person against whom an order of court has
been issued is duty bound to obey that order until it is set aside. It is not
open for him to decide for himself whether the order was wrongly issued
and therefore does not require obedience. His duty is one of obedience
until such time as the order may be set aside or varied. Any person who
fails to obey an order of court runs the risk of being held in contempt
with all its attendant consequences.
[85] Continuing at p 213, Abdul Hamid Omar LP succinctly said: Orders
of court must be treated with respect and require strict obedience.”.
[24] This Court agreed with the Plaintiff that the reliefs sought in Encl. 1
reflected the terms of the Judgment, in particular to reflect the fact that ½
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
ownership of the said property belonged to the Plaintiff. The Court cannot
agree with the Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff was only entitled
to the ½ share held on trust by the Defendant, “nothing more and nothing
less”. Even though the Property was being held on trust by the Defendant
for the Plaintiff, this does not detract from the fact that sooner or later, the
Defendant would have to transfer the ½ share of the Deceased (which the
Defendant was holding on trust) to the Plaintiff because it did not belong
to the Defendant. The Plaintiff was entitled to the physical Property per
se. The Plaintiff was also entitled to a total cost of RM 31,200.00 from the
Defendant for the litigation fees from the previous court proceedings.
[25] Having considered the cause papers, submissions and authorities,
the Court decided in favour of the Plaintiff as she has proved on a balance
of probabilities that she was entitled to ask for the prayers in Encl. 1 due
to the failure of the Defendant to carry out the orders in the judgment dated
9.8.2018. The Defendant submitted that all these actions were going to
take some time to carry out. The Court agreed and pointed out that prayer
No. 2 onwards were consequential actions, except Nos 4 and 6. The Court
then varied the timelines in Encl. 1 by giving in Prayer Nos. 1, 3 and 4,
thirty days (30) days to take the actions required to give effect to the
orders. On 19.9.2023, the Defendant filed the Notice of Appeal to the
Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision.
[26] During a clarification session on 26.9.2023 (because they could not
agree on the wordings in the draft Order), after hearing further
submissions from both counsels, the Court stated:
“Perintah dipinda seperti berikut:
i. Perenggan 1(a) dipinda dengan mengubah 30 hari ke 45 hari
dari tarikh perintah (22.8.2023);
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
ii. Perenggan 1(b) dipinda dengan menambah 90 hari selepas
tamat tempoh 45 hari di perenggan 1(a);
iii. Perenggan 1(c) dipinda dengan menambah 90 hari selepas
tamat tempoh 45 hari di perenggan 1(a);
iv. Perenggan 2 dipinda dengan mengubah 30 hari ke 45 hari
dari tarikh perintah (22.8.2023).
[7] The amendments to the Court order dated 22.8.2023 were
necessary to allow ample time for the Defendant to comply with the
Judgment of 9.8.2018. It was made before the Order was perfected.
[28] It is noted that the Defendant in the Notice of Appeal to the Court of
Appeal stated she was appealing against the decision of the Court “...yang
membenarkan keseluruhan tuntutan RESPONDEN (Plaintif) dengan Kos
dan di dalam mengarahkan perlaksanaan Penghakiman Mahkamah
Tinggi Taiping bertarikh 9-8-2018 di dalam Guaman Sivil No.AB-
22NCVC-14-06/2017 tersebut telah memberikan perintah-perintah
selanjutnya yang tidak diperturunkan di dalam Penghakiman Asal
Guaman Sivil No.AB-22NCVC-14-06/2017 tersebut…”. She is alleging
that this Court does not have the powers to make such orders.
[29] This Court made the consequential orders which in effect were NOT
to vary the original Judgment but the prayers sought in Encl. 1 were
consequential actions necessary to enforce the Judgment. These
consequential orders were granted upon the last relief prayed for in Encl.
1 which states “Lain-lain relif yang dianggap patut dan sesuai oleh
Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.”. This Court has referred to and cited
extensively the following case to show that this prayer No. 7 cannot be
disregarded lightly as it is an “omnibus prayer”.
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
[30] In the case of Teo Ai Hock v. Tew Boon Chin & Ors [2023]
MLRHU 1664 Leong Wai Hong JC has explained the term “Any other
relief which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant” where His Lordship
stated:
“Analysis Of The Court
[84] A prayer that is normally inserted in a Notice of application or a
Statement of Claim is "Any other relief which this Honourable Court
deems fit to grant". This is known as an omnibus prayer.
[85] In the two applications filed before me by the plaintiff [Enclosure 40] and
defendants [Enclosure 52] respectively, parties have prayed for "Any
other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant".
[86] Can I therefore rely on this omnibus prayer to grant The Order to
Convene an AGM which I have set out above?
The Scope And Ambit Of The Prayer "Any Other Relief Which This
Honourable Court Deems Fit To Grant"
[87] I begin by making the observation that both the plaintiff and defendants
have expressly and clearly in no uncertain terms asked me to give "Any
other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant".
[88] Can the appellant now say I cannot make The Order to Convene an
AGM? Caselaw would suggest the contention of the plaintiff has no leg
to stand on, to use an apt English idiom to describe his contention.
[89] Caselaw from the highest courts of the land suggests that the omnibus
prayer 'Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant'
must not be treated as a mere ornament to pleadings devoid of any
meaning. Such a prayer allows the court to award such relief as is
appropriate in the circumstances of the case so long as the relief is not
inconsistent with a relief which is expressly asked for. [See Lim Eng Kay
v. Jaafar Mohamed Said [1982] 1 MLRA 71; [1982] 2 MLJ 156; [1982]
CLJ (Rep) 190 at p 160 FC, Salleh Abas FJ, Tan Tek Seng v.
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1 MLRA 186;
[1996] 1 MLJ 261; [1996] 2 CLJ 771 at 301E CA, Gopal Sri Ram JCA
and Ritz Garden Hotel (Cameron Highlands) Sdn Bhd v. Balakrishnan
Kaliannan [2013] 5 MLRA 349; [2013] 6 MLJ 149; [2013] 7 CLJ 413;
[2013] 5 AMR 758 FC, Hassan Lah FCJ]
[90] In Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar Mohamed Said [1982] 1 MLRA 71; [1982] 2
MLJ 156; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 190, Salleh Abas FJ said at p 160:
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
We cannot see how the respondent should be deprived of his right
by a purely technical error on the part of his solicitors, who were
not up-todate with this aspect of legal technicalities. In any case
prayer (e) in paragraph (7), 'Any other relief which this
Honourable Court deem fit to grant' must not be treated as a mere
ornament to pleadings devoid of any meaning. We think that this
prayer and the prayer for "loss of earning" in para 5(a) should
entitle the court to make such an assessment.
[91] In Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor
[1996] 1 MLRA 186; [1996] 1 MLJ 261; [1996] 2 CLJ 771 at 301 E CA, Gopal
Sri Ram JCA said:
"In his statement of claim, the appellant has also prayed for 'further or
other relief as this Honourable court thinks fit.' In Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar
Mohamed Said [1982] 1 MLRA 71; [1982] 2 MLJ 156; [1982] CLJ (Rep)
190 at p 160, a prayer in a statement of claim read 'Any other relief which
this Honourable court deems fit to grant'. Salleh Abas FJ (as he then
was) said that this prayer 'must not be treated as a mere ornament to
pleadings devoid of any meaning'.
I am of the view that the same may be said of the like prayer in the
present case. This court should, in my judgment, award the appellant
such relief as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
In arriving at this conclusion, I have not overlooked the decision in
Mokhtar v. Arumugam [1959] 1 MLRH 514; [1959] 1 MLJ 232 CA, where
the following statement of principle from the judgment of Fry J in Cargill
v. Bower (1878) 10 Ch D 502 at p 508 was applied:
You cannot, under a general prayer for further relief, obtain
any relief inconsistent with that relief which is expressly
asked for.
As it happens, there is, in the present case, no inconsistency
between the relief which I propose to award to the appellant
and the other relief he has expressly claimed.
[Emphasis added]
[92] Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar Mohamed Said and Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya
Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor CA were both subsequently cited with
approval by the Federal Court in Ritz Garden Hotel (Cameron Highlands)
Sdn Bhd v. Balakrishnan Kaliannan [2013] 5 MLRA 349; [2013] 6 MLJ
149; [2013] 7 CLJ 413; [2013] 5 AMR 758.
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
[93] This is what the Federal Court in Ritz Garden Hotel (Cameron
Highlands) Sdn Bhd v. Balakrishnan Kaliannan said via Hassan Lah FCJ:
"[19] Lastly it was submitted (by the plaintiff) that the term 'proceeding'
in s 11 of the Civil Law Act 1956 should not be narrowly interpreted. The
term must be defined to include the whole gamut from pleadings to
judgment. The judgment finally determined what the nature of the
proceeding was regardless of what labels or categories the parties put
up. The relief or remedy that a judge orders may be different from what
the parties asked but that remedy is what defines the proceeding.
... [21] With respect I am unable to agree with the contention by the
defendant that the proceeding tried in the High Court was not for the
recovery of any debt or damages, as the remedies sought by the plaintiff
were for rescission of the agreement, for the deposit of M250,000 to be
forfeited, for rectification of the land register and for damages. It is to be
noted that in prayer (G) of his statement of claim the plaintiff prayed for
'Lain-lain dan/atau apa-apa relif dan/atau perintah berlainan atau
berlanjutan yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini fikirkan suai dan manfaat
(Any other or further relief or order which this Honourable court deems
fit): This omnibus prayer must not be treated as a mere ornament to
pleadings devoid of any meaning (see Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar Mohamed
Said [1982] 1 MLRA 71; [1982] 2 MLJ 156; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 190. In Tan
Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1
MLRA 186; [1996] 1 MLJ 261; [1996] 2 CLJ 771 Gopal Sri Ram JCA at
p 301 said:
"In his statement of claim, the appellant has also prayed for
'further or other relief as this Honourable court thinks fit.' In
Lim Eng Kay v. Jaafar Mohamed Said [1982] 1 MLRA 71;
[1982] 2 MLJ 156; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 190 at p 160, a prayer in a
statement of claim read 'Any other relief which this
Honourable court deems fit to grant'. Salleh Abas FJ (as he
then was) said that this prayer 'must not be treated as a mere
ornament to pleadings devoid of any meaning'.
I am of the view that the same may be said of the like prayer
in the present case. This court should, in my judgment,
award the appellant such relief as is appropriate in the
circumstances of the case.
[Emphasis added]
...
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
[97] Similarly, in Yap Kian @ Yap Sin Tian v. Poh Chin Chuan & Ors [2015]
MLRHU 1380; [2016] 7 MLJ 805 HC, the defendants there have filed encl 45
seeking various declaratory and injunctive relief against the plaintiff there.
[98] The High Court judge Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J after dismissing encl 45
invoked the court's inherent powers and proceeded to give consequential
directions for fresh elections to be held.
[99] His lordship said:
[10] Having done that, I must however add that the dismissal of encl 45
does not preclude the court from giving consequential directions to give
effect to the terms of the Orders dated 20 January 2015 and 20 March
2015. The court may, pursuant to its inherent powers, make
consequential orders or directions to give effect to its decisions or
orders,...
[11] Having looked at the evidence presented in the affidavits it did
appear to me that the Plaintiff had not complied with the spirit and letter
of the terms of the Consent Order dated 20 January 2015 and the Order
dated 20 March 2015. In fairness to the Plaintiff, it may have arisen from
a misinformed reading of both the aforesaid Orders and the
interpretation as to who constitute the CC. To remedy this, I clarified the
Orders and issued further directions to the parties, for reasons that will
become apparent shortly, so that there would be proper adherence to
the Orders....”.
[30] Order 92 r. 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, which is in the intitulment
of the OS, provides for the inherent powers of the Court as follows:
Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92, r. 4)
4. For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules
shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any
order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the
process of the Court.
[31] The blatant disregard and disrespect of the Defendant of the
Judgment and the Orders of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal
Court in this case is a clear situation where this Court will and has invoked
the inherent powers under Order 92 r. 4 in granting the prayers in Encl. 1
to prevent an injustice to the Plaintiff who has been denied the fruits of the
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
litigation and to give effect to the Judgment dated 9.8.2018. Can the
Defendant then question the Court’s discretion in invoking its inherent
powers and claim that this Court has exceeded the orders of the High
Court in that Judgment? Borrowing a phrase from the case of Teo Ai Hock
(supra), “the Defendant does not have a leg to stand on”.
CONCLUSION
[32] Premised on the above considerations, the Court found that the
Plaintiff has proved her case on a balance of probabilities against the
Defendant. Therefore, the Court allowed the application in the OS, with
amendments, and costs.
Order accordingly.
Dated 11 November 2023
Sgd.
NOOR RUWENA BINTI MD. NURDIN
Judicial Commissioner
High Court of Malaya, Taiping
Representations
For the Plaintiff:
Mr. Chan Wei Yang
Messrs. Josephine, L K Chow & Co., Petaling Jaya
For the Defendant:
Mr. Vengetraman S/O Manickam
Jeyaratnam & Co., Ipoh
S/N HAPjLv5UYUmGVK2uN8ie7w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 40,463 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BL-22NCC-6-05/2023 | PLAINTIF T.E.M. COMBUSTION SDN BHD DEFENDAN LATEX FORM SDN. BHD. | - Aturan 14 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012- Defendan perlu menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya isu fakta atau undang-undang yang memerlukan bicara penuh- Samada barangan yang dijual oleh Plaintif tidak mengikut spesifikasi dan tidak berkualiti dan menyebabkan pelanggan Defendan mengalami kerugian- Defendan tidak pernah menafikan atau membuat sebarang aduan secara bertulis kepada Plaintif bahawa barang-barang itu tidak berkualiti dan tidak mengikut spesifikasi- Defendan ada membuat bayaran atas sebahagian invois-invois tersebut tanpa bantahan | 10/11/2023 | YA Puan Norliza Binti Othman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=31e1f766-3d25-4e8c-be50-efdf4f07a4a9&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KLANG
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
GUAMAN NO.: BL-22NCC-6-05/2023
ANTARA
T.E.M COMBUSTION SDN BHD PLAINTIF
DAN
LATEX FORM SDN BHD DEFENDAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
[LAMPIRAN 11]
Ini adalah permohonan Plaintif untuk memasukkan penghakiman terus
terhadap Defendan untuk sejumlah RM 2,615,125.43 setakat 12.4.2023
dan perintah untuk faedah pada kadar 1.5% sebulan keatas
RM2,615,125.43 dari 13.4.2023 hingga tarikh penghakiman dan faedah
5% setahun dari tarikh penghakiman hingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh
dan kos.
10/11/2023 16:11:31
BL-22NCC-6-05/2023 Kand. 31
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
A. ALASAN-ALASAN PERMOHONAN
[1] Atas permintaan Defendan, Plaintif telah menjual dan menghantar
serah pelbagai barangan kepada Defendan seperti didalam
pesanan belian (PO), invois-invois Plaintif, pesanan penghantaran
(DO). [Lampiran 12 ekshibit TEM-1].
[2] Adalah menjadi satu terma jualan barangan Plaintif kepada
Defendan bahawa Plaintif berhak mengenakan faedah dengan
kadar 1.5% sebulan atas mana-mana tunggakan yang tertunggak.
Terma ini dapat dilihat melalui invois-invois dan penyata akaun yang
telah diserahkan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan.
[3] Adalah juga menjadi terma didalam invois yang dikemukakan
bahawa “any discrepancy must be informed within 14 days” dan
setakat tuntutan ini difailkan difailkan, Defendan tidak pernah
mengemukakan sebarang aduan berkenaan barangan yang telah
dihantar serah mempunyai kecacatan (defects) atau tidak mengikut
spesifikasi dalam tempoh 14 hari dan tanpa aduan yang
dikemukakan dalam tempoh tersebut , barangan adalah diterima
dalam keadaan sempurna.
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[4] Sekiranya ada aduan dari pelanggan Defendan melebihi dari
tempoh tersebut dan tanpa aduan terdahulu kepada Plaintif, maka
ianya adalah pertikaian antara Defendan dan pelanggan Defendan
tanpa melibatkan Plaintif.
[5] Setakat 12.4.2023, Defendan masih terhutang dengan Plaintif
sejumlah RM2,615,125.43 beserta faedah pada kadar 1.5%
sebulan dikira dari 13.4.2023 sehingga penyelesaian penuh.
Berdasarkan kepada PO,invois-invois, DO dan penyata akaun,
menunjukkan terdapat permintaan bagi pelbagai barangan,
malahan Defendan ada membuat bayaran bagi sebahagian dari
permintaan tersebut.
[6] Ekoran dari keengganan Defendan membuat bayaran , Plaintif telah
menghantar notis tuntutan bertarikh 13.4.2023 menuntut jumlah
yang tertunggak. Sehingga kini, Defendan enggan membuat
sebarang bayaran walaupun notis tuntutan telah diserahkan kepada
Defendan.
B. JAWAPAN DEFENDAN
[7] Plaintif berpengetahuan penuh bahawa barangan yang dijual dan
dihantar serah kepada Defendan dan/ atau pelanggan Defendan
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
adalah “Blower” dan “Burner” yang akan digunakan dalam
pemasangan mesin sarung tangan getah di kilang pelanggan
Defendan. Plaintif telah menyerahkan barangannya secara
langsung kepada pelanggan Defendan iaitu Mah Sing Healthcare
Sdn Bhd, Iconic Medicare Glove dan lain-lain.
[8] Defendan telah menerima aduan daripada Mah Sing Healthcare
bahawa penggunaanr gas bagi setiap mesin telah mencapai
330MMBtu setiap hari iaitu lebih tinggi daripada tahap standard
yang sepatutnya berada pada 240 sehingga 260 MMBtu. Kesan
daripada ini adalah penggunaan barangan Plaintif iaitu “Blower” dan
“Burner” tidak dapat berfungsi dengan lancar dan mengalami
kecacatan.
[9] Pada ketika itu, Mah Sing Healthcare Sdn. Bhd. telah meminta
Plaintif dan Defendan untuk mengurangkan penggunaan gas.
Plaintif dan Defendan telah menanggung kos modifikasi sebanyak
RM 500,000.00 bagi menyelesaikan masalah tersebut namun ianya
masih gagal diselesaikan. Perkara ini menyebabkan Mah Sing
Healthcare Sdn. Bhd. menyalahkan Defendan dan menuntut
gantirugi sejumlah RM4,030,000.00 daripada Defendan. Ini adalah
kerana barangan yang dihantar oleh Plaintif tidak menurut
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
spesifikasi dan mengalami kecacatan. Pihak Mah Sing Healthcare
Sdn Bhd juga mengenakan caj sebanyak RM 4,000,000.00
terhadap defendan bagi kos perlantikan kontraktornya sendiri untuk
menyelesaikan masalah ketinggian penggunaan gas tersebut.
[10] Satu lagi pelanggan Defendan iaitu Iconic Medicare juga mengalami
masalah yang sama seperti Mah Sing Healthcare iaitu penggunaan
gas yang tinggi daripada “blower” dan “burner” yang dijual Plaintif
tidak mencapai spesifikasi yang sepatutnya dan ini menyebabkan
mesin sarung tangan tidak dapat beroperasi pada tahap maksimum.
Akibatnya, pihak Iconic Medicare juga telah menuntut gantirugi
daripada Defendan walaupun semua ini berlaku kerana kesalahan
Plaintif.
[11] Defendan menafikan terma faedah lewat bayartan sebanyak 1.5%
sebulan tidak pernah dimaklumkan kepada mereka oleh Plaintif.
Pada setiap masa, hubungan kontraktual antara Plaintif dan
Defendan tidak tertakluk kepada sebarang caj faedah lewat
bayaran.
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[12] Pada setiap masa material, Plaintif berpengetahuan penuh bahawa
barangan yang dihantar serah kepada Defendan dan/ atau
pelanggan Defendan adalah digunakan untuk tujuan pemasangan
mesin sarung tangan getah maka kecacatan yang berlaku adalah
tidak berkemungkinan timbul dalam tempoh 14 hari tersebut. Terma
didalam invois Plaintif bahawa “any discrepancy must be informed
within 14 days” adalah terma tidak adil kepada Defendan dan
merupakan motif Plaintif untuk mengelakkan liabiliti. Aduan yang
timbul adalah akibat daripada kecacatan barangan Plaintif, maka
pertikaian adalah melibatkan Plaintif secara langsung.
[13] Defendan menegaskan bahawa Plaintif gagal membekalkan
barangan yang berkualiti dan cacat apabila dipasang dan/atau
digunakan oleh Defendan dan/atau pelanggan Defendan; maka
Plaintif tidak berhak untuk menuntut baki yang tertunggak.
C. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH
[14] Undang-undang berkaitan permohonan dibawah Aturan 14
Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 adalah jelas, setelah Mahkamah
mendengar hujahan dan berpandukan affidavit yang difailkan oleh
pihak-pihak, didapati tiada sebarang isu-isu untuk dibicarakan yang
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
ditimbulkan oleh pihak lawan maka satu penghakiman wajar
diberikan yang memihak kepada Plaintif.
[15] Didalam Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail [1992] 1CLJ Rep
14; [1992] 1 MLJ 400 di mukasurat 408, Mahkamah Agung
memutuskan :-
“Under an O. 14 application, the duty of a judge does not end as soon
as a fact is asserted by one party, and denied or disputed by the other
in an affidavit. Where such assertion, denial or dispute by the other is
equivocal, or lacking in precision, or is inconsistent with undisputed
contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent, or
is inherently improbable in itself, then the judge has a duty to reject such
assertion or denial, thereby rendering the issue not triable”.
[16] Mahkamah Rayuan didalam kes Malayan Banking Bhd (formerly
known as ‘Mayban Finance Bhd’) v Boo Hock Soon @ Boo
Choo Soon [2013] 2 MLJ 843 memutuskan bahawa Defendan
perlu menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya isu fakta atau undang-
undang yang memerlukan bicara penuh untuk menentang suatu
permohonan penghakiman terus. Kes tersebut memutuskan:-
“[17] Now an application for summary judgment housed in O14 of the
Rules of the High Court 1980 (“RHC”) is a special procedural device to
curtail and curb the need for a full trial. It is the best way to disposed off
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
an action especially where the defendant’s defence is clearly
unsustainable in law or on the facts….
[18] In challenging the O14 application, all that a defendant needs to
do is to show to the court that there is a triable issue of fact or of law
(Malaysian Assurance Alliance Bhd v Yeam Sai Ming & Ors [1996] 5
MLJ 345). It is not sufficient for the defendant to just raise an issue
because the issue that is raised must be an arguable issue which
requires a trial in order to determine it, once and for all (voo min En
& Ors v Leong Chung Fatt [1982] 2 MLJ 241 (FC).”
[17] Adalah jelas dari otoriti diatas, setelah Mahkamah mendapati pihak
Plaintif telah memenuhi kriteria-kriteria yang ditetapkan dibawah
A.14 kaedah 2 KKM 2012, tugas Hakim yang mendengar
permohonan tidak berhenti setakat itu sahaja. Penelitian harus
dikembangkan merangkumi pembelaan dan afidavit yang difailkan
oleh pihak lawan. Defendan tidak perlu menunjukkan keseluruhan
pembelaan beliau telah dibuktikan dan dikemukakan, ianya
memadai dengan menunjukkan satu isu sahaja sebagai isu untuk
dibicarakan atau selayaknya dibawa ke perbicaraan penuh.
[18] Didalam permohonan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Defendan hanya
membawa satu isu sahaja iaitu barangan yang dijual oleh Plaintif
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
tidak mengikut spesifikasi dan tidak berkualiti dan menyebabkan
pelanggan Defendan mengalami kerugian.
[19] Plaintif menghujahkan barangan telah dihantar serah kepada
Defendan di alamat yang diarahkan oleh Defendan. Pesanan
Penghantaran(DO) membuktikan bahawa barang-barang tersebut
telah diterima oleh wakil Defendan dan mereka telah memeriksa
barangan itu dan ianya dalam keadaan baik dan tanpa sebarang
kecacatan. Cop syarikat diturunkan untuk mengesahkan “I/we
hereby acknowledged that we have checked/inspected the goods
delivered to our premises are in proper working conditions”. Adalah
jelas apa yang diperkatakan oleh Defendan bahawa barangan yang
dihantar serah oleh Plaintif tidak menepati spesifikasi dan tidak
berkualiti adalah satu pemikiran terkemudian.
[20] Selain itu, Defendan tidak pernah menafikan atau membuat
sebarang aduan secara bertulis kepada Plaintif bahawa barang-
barang itu tidak berkualiti dan tidak mengikut spesifikasi. Isu barang
tidak mengikut spesifikasi dan tidak berkualiti ditimbulkan apabila
Plaintif memfailkan tuntutan ini.
Inilah yang diperkatakan didalam Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd
Ismail (supra):
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
“ Where such assertion, denial or dispute by the other is equivocal, or
lacking in precision, or is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary
documents or other statements by the same deponent , or is inherently
improbable in itself , then the judge has a duty to reject such assertion
or denial , thereby rendering the issue not triable”.
[21] Mahkamah ini mendapati dari mula barangan dihantar serah
kepada Defendan, tiada sebarang aduan dikemukakan dan segala
kecacatan yang ditimbulkan oleh Defendan mengenai barangan
Plaintif hanyalah selepas tindakan ini difailkan. Inilah yang
diperkatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan didalam kes Paradise
Boulevard Sdn Bhd v Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks
Pandan Safari Lagoon [2021] MLJU 2889: -
“ [37] When viewed in totality, the averments and arguments raised by
the first defendant are considerably inflicted by various shortcomings
that do little, if at all to advance its resistance to this summary judgment
application. The defendant also did not dispute the invoices sent by the
Plaintiff and only raised its complaints after the writ in the main action
was filed. This also suggests the issue raised by the defendant
contesting this summary judgment are an afterthought”.
[22] Didalam tindakan ini, Defendan mendakwa terdapat aduan dari
pelanggan-pelanggan Defendan berkenaan barangan yang
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
dihantarserah oleh Plaintif yang mengakibatkan pelanggan-
pelanggan Defendan mengalami kerugian. Sekali lagi tiada
sebarang aduan dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan oleh Plaintif
untuk sebarang kecacatan jika ada. Mahkamah bersetuju dengan
hujahan Plaintif bahawa tanggungjawab Plaintif hanya menghantar
barang yang dipesan oleh Defendan. Plaintif tidak terlibat dan
bukan privy kepada sebarang kontrak yang dimasuki oleh Defendan
dan pelanggan-pelanggannya. Selain itu, Plaintif mengemukakan
bukti bahawa invois-invois telah mula dikeluarkan kepada Defendan
sejak tahun 2021 dan Defendan ada membuat bayaran atas
sebahagian invois-invois tersebut tanpa bantahan. Defendan ada
membuat bayaran sebanyak RM 100,000.00 pada 14.2.2022 dan
pada tahun 2021, mereka membuat bayaran sejumlah RM
1,246,432.00 dan ini bukanlah satu jumlah yang kecil sekiranya
Defendan mendakwa barangan yang dihantar serah oleh Plaintif
tidak mengikut spesifikasi dan tidak berkualiti. Pada pandangan
Mahkamah, jika dari awal barangan yang dihantar serah oleh
Plaintif tidak berkualiti maka tiada isu bayaran harus dijelaskan oleh
Defendan, namun ini sebaliknya yang berlaku.
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
[23] Plaintif juga telah menghantar surat tuntutan bertarikh 13.4.2023
kepada Defendan menuntut jumlah yang terhutang. Defendan tidak
membalas surat tersebut walaupun mengakui ada menerimanya.
Defendan setakat menafikan kandungan surat tuntutan Plaintif
didalam affidavit balasan kepada permohonan penghakiman terus
ini. Mahkamah merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan
didalam David Wong Hon Leong v Noorazman bin Adnan [1995]
4 CLJ 155 di mukasurat 159 dimana diputuskan:-
“During argument, we registered our surprise at the learned Judge’s
reluctance to enter judgment for this sum of RM 100,000.00. After all,
the appellant had failed to respond to the letter of 17 September, if there
had never been an agreement as alleged, it is reasonable to expect
a prompt and vigorous denial. But, as we pointed out, there was no
response whatsoever from the appellant”.
Didalam satu lagi keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi iaitu JEC
Designbuild Sdn Bhd v Bunga Kembang Sdn Bhd [2007] 1 AMR
578 di mukasurat 586 -587 diputuskan: -
“ a defendant’s failure to reply to the plaintiff’s demand for payment of a
debt, would support a summary judgment application against that
defendant in respect of the debt”.
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
Oleh itu jika benar, barangan yang tidak mengikut spesifikasi dan
tidak berkualiti dihantarserah oleh Plaintif yang didakwa oleh
Defendan menyebabkan pelanggan-pelanggannya mengalami
kerugian; maka sebelum Plaintif menghantar tuntutan, Defendan
sepatutnya terlebih dahulu membuat tuntutan terhadap Plaintif
menuntut gantirugi.
[24] Defendan mendakwa mereka tidak mempunyai pengetahuan
berkenaan jumlah faedah sebanyak 1.5% yang dikenakan oleh
Plaintif atas mereka untuk bayaran yang terakru. Terma ini
dinyatakan didalam invois-invois yang telah diakui terima oleh
Defendan dan ada diantara invois-invois ini telah dibuat bayaran
Defendan. Oleh itu, dakwaan Defendan bahawa Plaintif tidak
berhak untuk menuntut faedah 1.5% ini adalah tidak berasas.
[25] Kesimpulannya, berdasarkan alasan-alasan diatas, Mahkamah ini
memutuskan tiada sebarang isu untuk dibicarakan yang ditimbulkan
oleh Defendan. Plaintif berhak atas jumlah yang tertunggak dan
terakru. Oleh itu, Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif untuk
memasukkan penghakiman terus keatas Defendan [Lampiran 11]
selaras dengan Aturan 14 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dengan
kos sebanyak RM5000.00
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
Bertarikh 23 Oktober 2023
t.t.
(NORLIZA BINTI OTHMAN)
HAKIM
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA
KLANG
PEGUAMCARA BAGI PIHAK PLAINTIF
: Tetuan Lua & Mansor
No. 11-1, Tingkat 1, Jalan PJS 11/28,
Sunway Metro, Bandar Sunway,
46150 Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan
PEGUAMCARA BAGI PIHAK DEFENDAN : Tetuan Tee Tai Tzian & Sim
No. 52B, Tingkat 2, Pelangi
Avenue, Jalan Kelicap 42A/KU1,
Off Jalan Meru,
41050 Klang,
Selangor Darul Ehsan
S/N ZvfhMSU9jE6UO/fTwekqQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 17,363 | Tika 2.6.0 |
B-02(A)-1872-10/2021 | PERAYU Tenaga Nasional Berhad RESPONDEN 1. ) TRANSFORMER REPAIRS & SERVICES SDN. BHD. 2. ) Lim Choon Seng 3. ) CHAI LEONG HUAT | This appeal discusses the main issue of whether an execution creditor can lawfully seize and sell movable property in the possession of an execution debtor pursuant to a writ of seizure and sale issued by the court (WSS) when the movable property does not belong in equity to the execution debtor (Main Issue). | 10/11/2023 | YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c470551f-a13d-4c64-bd49-786198d73704&Inline=true |
10/11/2023 14:12:56
B-02(A)-1872-10/2021 Kand. 78
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N H1VwxD2hZEy9SXhhmNc3BA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 10,451 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-25-427-07/2022 | PEMOHON PBLT SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN 1. ) LEMBAGA JURUTERA MALAYSIA 2. ) SAFF CONSULTANTS | Administrative Law — Rules of natural justice — Disciplinary proceedings — Whether rules of natural justice contain any inalienable fundamental right — Whether rules of natural justice variable — Whether rules of natural justice connote adversarial procedures of a court of lawProfessions — Engineers — Disciplinary proceedings against — Whether Engineer's Board free to decide on disciplinary procedure — Whether the Board is bound by the finding of a High Court on a related civil claim and affirmed by the Court of AppealAdministrative Law — Remedies — Certiorari — Breach of natural justice found - Whether court must remit case to the Engineer’s Board when the end-result is already known – Whether the Engineer’s Board Whether it will be a sheer waste of time | 10/11/2023 | YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=da4132a1-bcb3-42e4-9c9f-18dc8bf3b969&Inline=true |
10/11/2023 10:25:37
WA-25-427-07/2022 Kand. 47
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N oTJB2rO85EKcnxjci/O5aQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA—25—d27—07/2022 Kand. 47
1n/11/202] 10:25-37
DALAM MAMKAMAH YINGGI MALAVA DI KUALA LUMPUR
(BAMAGIAN RAVLIAN DAN KUASA.-KUASA KNAS)
PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN N0 WA 25-42741712022
Dahm pevkam mengenax suzlu permnhanan
mm, mm lam. pevmmh eumumn
nemenaan inapmusau Lemhzga Jurmere
Mam... yzmg mlwmn mun Famnhon pm.
as o 24:22
Dan
cum panm mu-vgenax Alurin sa.
Kaadalrkaadarl Mankamah 2012
Dan
Dalam Derkaua menamav Akli Pumaltaran
Jumlev: «:57 aan/alau pemmmn-pevaunsn
22A 22: 22c, 22 din/nun 24 Fevamram
Peraluran Fendaflnran Juml5ra1990
Dan
Saksvfin 25(2) Akla Mahkamah Kehakmun
1954 flan Pelenggan ‘ mum kepada ma
Mnhkamah Kahaknman 1954
ANTARA
FELT snu arm ...PEMoHoN
DAN
1. LEMBAGA JLIRUYERA MALAVSIA
2. SAFF CONSULTANTS ...RESPONDEN-RESFONDEN
JUDGMEN1
Yhe factual background
[11 The appneam company is a developer 51 qulnen and relaxed
vacnmes «or me Ruya\ Malaysxan Ponce (“PDRM'j mmugnum
Malaysa
[3]
[3]
I4!
[5]
[6]
[7]
[6]
in 2tw7, the applicant engaged trie 2'"! respondent to provide
protessienal services H1 corlrtechort with trie itesign and supervision
or meerianreal works in one or the applicant‘: piuiects, The slroyecl
is known as Cadsngsn Pambangunan ser-mile /bu Ptyabnl Pairs
Daemri selarna, 1 UN! Kuarters Ke/as C, 4 Unit Keles F,
Kemtldarlan-Ksmudarlan Lain dan Ker] Ksna rrtfrasm/klul t1r alas
Lo! 5419, Lot 3200 dart Lot 3473. Mt/kim Sslamai Peralr Derur
Rrdzuarl (“the Fmjecl”).
The documents related to trie Project executed by the parties are
the Letteroi Appointment t1a|ed 340.2007 and the Memnrandtmt of
Agreemznl oateo I1 12 2007 (collectively “Consultancy
Agreement‘)
The 2"“ respondent is a sole proprietorsriip and a pmvlder oi
mechanical electrical consultancy‘ energy management
wrtsullartcy and proieet management consultancy services.
Accnrdtng |D the terms and conditions M the appolrtlmenli the 2"‘
respondents duties tndude preparing interim and final payment
certificates In respect at the said Pruied
Vlde a letter dated 610 2021, the applicant wmle to the 1“
respenoerit and tiigtiligtited an issue ovev lrie eertltieatlon made by
lne 2-’ respondent (“the 6.10 zozt letter’). in trie letter. tne applicant
requested the 1* respondent to investigate trie 2'“ respondent's
professtnnal oondud
me 15- respondent, the Board or Engineers Malaysia (“the Board‘),
is a 5lalUlDI’Y buoy eslabltsrled under trle Registration of Ertglneers
Ac! t967 t“REA'). Its statutory duty is to regulate (ha pmfessiortal
uorlduct ano practice at registereo engineers. uimioii include tiie 2"“
respondent, in seteguam trie satety and interest at trie public.
The bases or trie applicants grteyarioes as retlected iii trie
5.10.2021 letter, are as lallmvs:
(a) The 2"“ respondent rieo breached rts wnlraclual and tertious
duty timer tlie Cnnstmanw Agreement by tiaving negligently
assessed and recnrnmendsd trie payment for materials and
work done by the electrical sub-commuter. wliicn was relied
on by trie superinlenaing omoer (“son in tlie issuance at
N eUE2rOB5EKutxiu/D526
“Nair s.n.i n-vlhnrwm be u... m may i... nrtmrrnflly MIMI dun-vlnrll r.. nFlt.ING WM!
[40] However, the only error made by the Board is in its taiture to give
the opportunity tor the applicant to have accss In ttie 2“
respondents reply Ftmher, the Board dtd not assign any reasons
in arriving at rts impugned decision The Board could have Said that
me matter tiad been iinatty adiudicated by the court 01 Appeat and
that it muld riot depart trorri the Itndings or teas and law ot the
eppettate court
[At] on the authority at the cases cited heretnhelc1e,Ihere was ttieretore
e etear hvaach otttie pnnciptee oi naturat justice and the irncugned
decisrcn is also tainted with proeedurat impropriety
[42] i take cogniserioe at teamed counsel tor the epoticanrs argument
that the issue oetore this court is not on the duestmri of merits but
the decision-making process
[43] I belteve that is the gerieret pmpctstlton of the law. there are
however. instances where the court, in a iudiciat review apptioatron,
can go imo ttie merits at the impugned decision The law is summed
up oy Gopal sri Rani JCA (tater FCJ) in detivenrig the iudgrrient at
me rrien supreme court in Kurrrpurerr Peungs-Irtg Salangor and
V Zlld bhv HQIIMOIII1 Noh [IifiT] 1 MLJ 739 SC:
untri vety reeentiv, it who ganeratly triorrghithui
when a decisrdrr 5 enatierrged on grounds
at vi/ednerouryunreaedriaoieness, the min is
mrtflnod In an eximtrlaltnn at the demiori
name-processand rtut the rrienrsoi the
decision iuati Yhnt irr .r. arm! pwrpelualnd or
adherence to a narrow doclrtnatle approach
wtlhuul ntulyutg tater iudrcrat prortorrneerrrenu
that had addressed the stthpect rrie teiiaey or
Ihe daetririe Ihrlt rudreet revrew is atwayi
eonltned In the ductltort rt\aktrtVD7\‘xassar\d
never with trie menls was tlxefl untuded by the
llrtdtvtatk decision at mi. calm MR Rm
charmrr v we /nduslnal courts AnoI[19Y7]
i ML! 145 rc
[44] in RReme charrdrari Eusctt Chin CJ referred to the celebrated work
et MP Jam and SN Jam in Principles oIAdrrirrirsti—atrt»e Law 14"‘ Ed,
1993)‘
IN ena2roa»5EKuixtt:t/used
“Nntze Smut nuvthnrwttt r. u... w my the nflmnattly MIMI dnuuvtntit r.. aFtt.tNG Wm!
in Hull‘ yearime courts have nor locked HDDII
lnelr lask in siicri a iiioensnieei nieiirier and
have iended Io iimid MIN ioiiel aeooiulr-d le
me engency omie srriiaiiori nioy rim lried lo
l.iliir ma roller iii iieceidince wilri ine dlmnndl
or [Militia in me cireiiinslaiiees el lne speeiris
case, lay down giiioaiirus. go iiiio lne rneills
and avail ai iiim to uiliile lne logicei
miiseqiieiiees M Ihell‘ mi niiiiig an (M law
in a Vew cases lrie supreme odurl, while quasning a disciplinary
order an aoceunl ol leilure of nalural iiislice, pronibned e lresh
nearing by lne aulnonly and ordered reinslalanienl
Fliidliigu
[45]
[A6]
[471
[43]
[A9]
niis leaves nie with lne urlarwiabla lask ol making my findinge on
lriis application tor iiidicial review.
Having lound lriei mere was i! omen or via principles :2! na|ura|
iosliee and pmuedural irripiopnery in me iiiidugned decision, lrie
logical consequence would be lor me In reniil lne ineller in lrie
Board «or lrie Board In ronear lrie corrldleinl as prayed liy me
applieenl
Should I Mm]! lha mailer lo Ihe Board’) Wl|h respecl, as in R Rama
cliarrdreii, lo do lnis will oenalnly Involve coriliniied and prolonged
llligallon on eiid.resull miieri is already KHONII ll will be a sneer
was|e at Iirne, A5 I alluded in earlier‘ [ha Euuld cannot. by my
slrelich or legal iniegiiielion depail liorri irie delerriiiiialion M llie
High Courl in Sun No 13 as emiiiied by lne Cowl olnopeei.
in me circunislances, an order lor llie niauei to he ierniried In lrie
laoeid will do greal riarrn and iniusliee lo llie 2"“ respondent, II will
be an exercise iii lulilily.
I am lailoring lrie reliel in accordance wiln lrie demands el iuslice in
lne eircunielerioes oi lrie specific silualioii as in Khls case.
IN eUE2rOB5EKmxibi/D526
«nil. s.r.i nuvlhnrwm be ii... m may i... nflmnnflly mi. dnuuvlnril r.. AFVLING Wm!
[50] rue aural-cam has eamsd a pyrmic victory am in he light a! my
findmgs. that \s not enough for me to rerun the mailer to the Board
[511 Thu. application ws dismissed um I am makmg an unusual order
dnrectmg me Board to pay cos|s ol mmanoa to the applicant
subject In allacalur Thu: SIIEH be no order as In oasis agai I ma
2"“ respondenl
T-rum: 1n Ntwomhnr znzz
LA
(WAN AHMAD FARID BIN WAN SALLEH)
Hakxm
Mahkamuh Tlnggx Kuma Lumpur.
mnawmau
aw Fmak Pemmvsm mm: Lo: nan Fen,.1eremyOm Knznan Van
Tuluan smx Ln 5 Box
am pm Rnnmden u
Eng! Pmak Responder: 2 may Em Am1anAl\ N mm, Am: sflmn.
TnruunA mm 1. Co
m unazrosfizxmxuz-/asza
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
interim Payment eertnfrcetes end Ivlease oi payments tn the
sub-oonlraclnr: and
(o) The 2"“ respondent, In assessing and recommending the
payments In tat, included payment tor matevla|s that were not
dellverad. used rates that were higher than the rate in the bill
otdusntrttes and included suhste payments lorwdrx that
the st.tb—eenIrat:lnr had not completed.
[91 Subsequent to the 610.2021 letter. the applicant lodged a torrnat
edmptaim agalrts1 the 2-” respondent dated 23102021 to the
Beam. me oumplalnl, enllllad Aduan Tar/Iadap Orang Berdaflar,
was rnnde under reg 22A of the Raulslralton or Engineers
Regulations «esp.
[10] Alter a series at exchanges ol tettera and documents, the Board
responded to the applicant vide an email dated 1542022. The
email enclosed a letter dated 14.4.2022. The letter states inrer a//a
astollows.
Adaiah dtmaklumkan seretan rnandapat
dsnlusan dannada Resdonden nan nnnllalan
kg alas sdnsn terseout, psmbenlangzrt hes in.
fllhllfl fll fl-Ilnm Muyuarat Ltzmbaqi Jurtnet-3
Malaysia pada I3 Mac zuzz
Lembiga Junnvla Malaysia datam rnesynarat
lersehul teen lwbmululhlrl lulu: has ramadap
Responden
Suktnrlya pir-ax mart Malt belvuuhllt dwgan
tepnrusan Iunsbtn, Dlhak man Dellu
mengamuhkln hukll suupngsn yang bnrtam
mean endencaldatarn rnaea 14 nan dzn Iallkh
wral llll untuttrndatan sorentsny.
[11] In short, the Board, at its meeting held an 13.3.2022. decided that
mere was no case against the z- respondent (-the Impugnad
decision”!
[12] The applicam look umorage tn the manner the Board made the
impugned declslcrl In a letter dated 27.4.2022, the applicant wrote
tn the Board to put on record that ll was never infvmted or pmvlded
with the purported clanncatien made by the 2" respondent.
rn ena2ros5EKuixtu/used
«war. snn mmhnrwlll r. t... w my r... nflnlrrsllly mime dnuuvtnrrl r.. .nune p-mat
According to the applicant in the said letter. it was never given the
upponunity to review or respond to the same.
[ta] In any event the applicant asserted that no grounds at the
impugned dec on oithe Board were provided In them.
[14] After another series of exchanges 0! letters, it was quite apparent
that the applicant was dissansned with the results irom the Board
[15] Aggneved. the applicant wmrrterleod this applicatron lpr iudtcial
review.
[18] The Board finally replied to the ap lcanl on 15 7 2022. the same
day this appllcalmn tor iudicial review was filed. The letter states
that
we mmpla n|hasb9eninVSAlgalet1lhomnghly
lotlpwirig the st. ant Upsrallng Proeedun in
receiving mniplaiiit and other new evladence
given will be rimaniaied alter the Cmlfl'l
dociwn as not to sutzitidipe the aligning piitin
proceeding
No explanation was made as to what the Board rneant try “me
pngoing court proceeding"
The Judicial Review
[17] The application tor tuoicial review is supported by the amdavit oi
Nazlhah trinti Mohd Raehid in Encl 3 |“AlS—3'] Puart Nazihah is the
Senior Manager of the applicant company.
[18] in the application tor tiid '
lotlowing ralieia
ravleuv. the applicant itotight the
lay That the applicant I73 granted leave to apply tar an order at
Certiorari to quash the impugned decision
thy Al|arrtI|lv3Iy, the applrcartl tie granted leave to apply lor a
declaration that the lrnptionad deasion is null and void and
liable to be set aside.
IN pUE2rOB5EKulxll:t/DSJG
«wit. s.i.i nurlhnrwlll be ti... m mm i... nflfllhnllly siiii. m.i.n n. nFluNG mi
ici Tnai ine up "item be granied leave to apply ior an order 0!
Mandamus dirzcling lhe Board to
(i) ienear ine appiicanrs oonipiaini dated 2eio.2o2i
iorinwiiri:
(ii) iurriisn ine appiicantwitri irie olanncaiion provided by me
2'-*1 respondent mai 5 reierred in in ine Boards iener
dared 14 4 2022 ("ine said cianfica|ion"):
in) provide me appiicani an oppanuriny to respond no me
said cianficaliori; and
(IV) prevrue a reasoned decision upon me ounclusian onlie
appii¢‘an|'S mmpiairil dated 23.10 2021.
[19] Leave in commence iudioiai review was granied by iriis coun on
1 1.5 2022
[20] The grounds of ine applrcanfs app|ICa|mri can be summarised as
roiiows
iai The Board had iaiieo to provide me appiicani wllh any
opporlunity In oammenl on me purpaned clarification
furnished by Ihe 2"” respondent, Learned eourisei ior the
appiicsn| submilled mat me Board nad eiieoiiveiy oreecneu
|he pnncipia oi aulfi s/mam panem II is Ihe appiiulnll case
that the nun-ubsawarioe 01 ||1iS principle would Inviiidals the
mercise of power: Dalfihmflll bin Ibllhlm v Majlis
Maayul IKer.!]rnn NogIIIPar1Is in Or! izonsi 4 cu 533
0A In Me Privy Cnuncii case or e Surindur srngn Kind: v
Tin sovunnmrronne iredemrorr afMaIaya[1962]1 MLJ
m we, ine board was oi ine View inai ine judge or wnoever
i'ia$ I0 adrudicale mus| not hear or receive representations
from one side behind the back or me uiiier
in) Learned oounsei suoniiiied mei a pu in body nus a dury |o
give reasons ior its decision, even it no express provision in
me s|aIule requires me same. My allerilwn was inen drawn Io
ine iudgnieni or via couri ol Appeai in Fnrbudanarl
Purgurunn rreuisas 5 ors V Danni Enndar Km]:
Lumpur 5 are [2021] 3 ML! 1 GA. Mary Llm JCA (naw FCJJ
reiiaraied ine weir-seiiiad preposilian rnai reasoned dacisron
5
rn uUE2rOB5EKuixiu/052G
“Nair s.i.i ruvihnrwiii .. u... m may i... nflninaiily siiii. dnunvinril wn aFiuNG Wflxi
can be an addiiional consiiiuenl onrie aoneepl Mlalmess‘ and
where lrie reasons nave id be given so iriai Ihe rigm ol appeal
may be pmpeny arid nieaningiully exercised.
(c) ii is me applicanrs case lriai having ailorded lne applicanl inc
legilimaie axpecialion oi supnrlliing lresn evidence Vlde as
leuer dated 14.4 2022. me aoard wnrloi be allowed (a deleai
crie same. Learned counsel found siippon in tire said
proposiiian In irie iudgnienl at me Own on Appeal in non:
seriml (J5) Sdn and v Perigar-li Tlnlll den celian mgurl
Jolior. Malaysia & ors [2011] 5 rlll_l 116 CA The Boaid.
according io learned counsel, nad kept irie applicant in irie
dark and lailed la provlde lne applicani wiili iis grounds or
decision. Learned counsel suhrrlmed inai |l'le lailiire riad
rendered in praciically Impossible ler ine applrcani id sumnli
lrssn evidence Aaacidinp io laamad caunsel. lnis was in
breach oi irie applicanrs legiilmate expeclaiion
‘nu Board’: response
[21] The aoaid nas filed an a9‘fidavi| in reply in End 21 (‘A|R~21“)mmugri
lr DrMsgalZuhairy bln Megal ‘raiudd lr Dr Megal is me Registrar
onric Board
[22] in essence, lr Dr Mega! elilnned as (allows
(a) his procedures adopled by me Board at irie preliminary
assessmeni stage when a oornplaini is reeelved are internal
and need nnl aedisclosad id in appllcant. The Board isunder
no legal or siaiuoory oolipalidn lo pmvlde any onriaiicn
related io me assessnienl and me grounds 0! [IS decision lo
ine applioani
in) Tris Board has no elaluiory ooligaiion io ordvlde lne appllcani
any opperiiiniiyio respond ie any inlerinaliori given try me 2”
respondeni in me Board
(C) The preliminary assessor presumed
Professional Premise oorn
Io assisi irie Board in inaiiers perlalrllng io irie proieselanal
IN aUE2rOB5EKulxlu/DSJG
“Nair s.r.i In-rlhnrwlll i. u... M may i... nflfllrrnllly MVMI dnunvlnnl VII aFluNG Wml
conduct and elhics 07 regIs1er9d persons nude! 012 REA The
przc confirmed trre nnding ottne prsurrmnery assamr
Id) The 30 rd did not make any decision within the meaning oi
“dents n under 0 53 r 2(4) of ttre Ruies or court 2012
|“ROC') and me app||can| is not ‘adversely aflecled" by tne
dacrsron.
(e) Tne appiicanrs ground 0! breach at tegitrrrrata expectation Is
baseless.
[23] For me aioresard reasons, the Board urged this Courlto dismiss Ihts
applicalion ior judtaal review
The 2" respond-rrt's ruponu
[241 Thagist uitrre 2"’ respondents case is tnet the suprect matteraf |he
applicants pornpiairrt agarnat the 2"“ respondent at the Board rs tne
sama subject matter wnrch was litigated at the High Court Kuala
Lumpur SIM Nu. WA-22C-1102/2019 (‘suit No. 13“)
[25] me cause 0! action against the 2"‘ respondent in suit No 13 was
that the 2"“ respondent was In breach at contract and negligent in
me course at its pmlessional duty In respect of trra Pmiacl. The
deim against tne 2"“ respondent was dismissed py tne High court
an 3a.6.zu21. Aggneved, the apphcanl appealed to the Cnurl pi
Appeai on 17 2 2022, the court at Appaai drsrrrissed me
apptrcenrs eppeai wrm costs.
(251 it was only on 134.2022 met Ihe Board made tne impugned
decision. which was nommunicaleti m the applicant Ihe nex| day.
[27] In the rasuit‘ Ieamed oourrset lorlhe 2'“ respondent arep Invited this
ooun to dismiss the judicial revrew apptrcatron.
IN enazrosfizxurxru/used
«ma s.r.i mmhnrwm .. .r... w my r... nflmnnflly MVMI dnuumrrl VII mum v-mat
nu arulynls
[28] I lhlnk me appllcanrs case agalnsl the Board rs that ll was ndl glverl
the nghl ll: be lreard and mat the Board ned lalled to we any
gmunds on me unpugned declsron.
[29] In snon, awarding lo the applrcenl, me impugned decrsioll ls lalrlled
wnn procedural nnpropnely and breach of the pnrlclples dl rlaluval
yuslloe
[an] ln para an OVA|Sr<3. Puan Nazlnan made a lull and [rank dlsclosure
aboul sun No.13 and me deasldn of me coun o1Appeal In amrrrung
me findlng al lrre Hlgh coun In dlsrnlsslrrg me appllcsrrrs clarrn.
However. Fuan Nazlhah insis|ed lhaISui| No. 13 Is drslrncl lrmr Ihe
edrnplsrnl made agamsl me 2'” respdndanl a( me Board. For one
aedardlng lo Puan Na1ihah,SulINo. 13 is a ervll denn, whereas me
carnplurnr agairls| me 2"‘ respondenl edneerned alleged
prolesslnrlal rrnscdnducl under the REA and1he199O Regulauons.
[31] Secondly, Puan Nazlhah assened men lnrs ludicial review
applicallon concerns lne alleged lailuru dl me lauurd |o observe
procedural prupnety and «he rules drnslural luslioe VI arriurnd al me
impugned decislon
[32] The ques1lon that arlses I51 rs rl «me that the civll clarrn agalrrsl me
2"‘ respondent (who ls me 5'" delendenl m suil No 13) rs drslmcl
lrdrn |he complarnl rnade againsl the nrnr al the Beam
[33] Let us examlne para :4 cl me slalernenl ul clann agarnsl me 2''’
respondent al sun No. 13, Much I reproduce here for clarily
laal Salerumyn dun dmn. np. .uu mdaan.
Ple. lnlemnhdkarl bahuvm uelandan
«es |elah aiqalabsldan/alau renlnggel
untlk menlalankan lufih—|uqu-tngal
nmlaslonalrlya Sehagal Jululera
Pamndln; knpada Halnm din mun
memungkirl aanlalzu melakukan
kecualan (‘hm meal allxantmclnnd/0!
neanwenr)
ru enazrosfizxmxlu/aszn
mu. s.n.r nuvlhnrwm .. u... m my r... nflnlrrnfily mm: dnuuvlnnl VII mum Wm!
Bull:-hull: Knmunuklrzn Kama
mm... K-zuullu
up I. mam um mum |emvn( dun/llau
nyara (‘Mia/»evlarn1/alexpvass mm bag.
Mevmrmdum D5 bahawa neceman x..
s max» menggunaksn kesevnua
xemaman, pagan dun kolamtan yang
rmmauhuh mam malllulnlknn
mamammmm prMtsu>na\ neceman
K56 kupadn FIHIHIW.
my Namun begun. pemmdmavan yang
dlblnkin om Dtflandnn Ke-5 mm.
mat. memuaskan
1c; Sears Imususnya. Deflendan Kn«5 man
mangauhkln flan/anau menynranknn
bayaran yang bertebnhan unluk new
mama Defmdzm pmama, Dsleman
K24 an mm high kerpakma yang
duabnkan danlzlau umuk mm-bman
yam] no-x ammnum
(up Kllan daflvadanyn. Pmnunam. [mum
bawr Ddendan panama, Delmdarl K9
2 dun Rm
[341 As alluded to samer, \n the 5.10.2021 Vener to me Beam. me
appllcanfs wmplalmwas anchored on meauegea negligsnoe nflhe
2"" raspandenl m
(a) Assessmg and reuommendmg lhs mammals and work-done
and Iesuhed in ms vssuanee of Imarim Paymem cemficales by
me so: and
am In asssssmg and rawmmending ma paymenu cw malanals
that wem not defivered.
[35] Wvlh respect‘ I cannot apprecxale (he
of semen against the 2"“ respondent m sun No. 13 and ms oomplainl
made in Ihe Board In the 5.10.2021 lens!
5.
sm unazrosfizxmxuz-/aszn
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
[35] ln ms graunds ofiudqmant rn dllrmlsslng ma plainlilrs clalm WI sun
No. 13‘ my learned brvlher Lml cnorrg Fang .I (now JCA) wok
aogrrlaarroa that cause cl acllan agalnsl the 2"-= lespnrlden| and
remarked as lolllrws:
my ma Flnlnllfl lurlnar Ixmlandad lnal |ha
rlmr Ddendam nreamed as mn|ra:lu.nl
as well as Iamous dury by navlrlg
carelessly certified ind/or raoommlrlded
rne aaymerrl ldr malzvlals and work dam
urrdar lhe Eldclmal Sub-Oonlum wma.
rasunad lna s 0 lsslmg celllfitales and
wmveumn lbs Plalnnn mada vaymem
fllrecllyho 1h: Second Dalendzm
The learned Judge also took cogrllsanna al lne allegallon mada by
me appllcanl mat the rnalerlals oerlmed by me 2"’ raspormerrl were
less lrrarr |he rnalerlal dellvered
[371 Fmm lna grnunds ol judgrnerll vflhe learned Judge ln Sui| No 13‘
ll ls clear mar he had addressed lhe lwo mam rssues raised by me
Ippllcam. wrricrr wars rallaraled as me naaar. ol Ihe oorrrplarnls
rnade lo lhe Board The learned Judge concluded as lalluws
lsnl ln um pmmlm, Imamiuru lmd mal and
nuld lnal IM3 Fmn De4evldarl| VS nl7l
nfifillqanl an (M mewsrlllnculnn ul lhe
saaand nalandarrrs lnlarlm paymerll
oerrmcam by reasm m are rllm
uarandanl lraa a Imilad may only m are
cenlfwalnn umoess as well as me! me
rm: Drflrldarll dlu nal branch mar
llmlled duly Issumsd Mum msullsd m
rne damaaa smlemd by ma nlanllll
[as] In slrcrv, lne learned Judge had wmplelely absolved me 2"“
rasporrdarrllrarn any oorrlraelual breach or Imlicus an whlch was ll:
be me basla ol ma mrnplalrll ln lhe 6 10.2021 lealar la ma Board
[39] One can be forglven i7 one were Io conclude mat the appllcant
arlamplad 10 relillgale ma manar which had already bean
detemwled by me caun al Appeal‘ wmcn alarmed ma flrldlngs of
{he Hlgh Court In Sull Na. 13. I cannol imaglne the Board could
deparl from me findmgs made by the learned Judge and hold lnal
lhe 2“ respondent was professlonally negllgenl.
lo
ru anazrosfizxmxlu/usan
“Nana Smal nuvlhnrwlll .. u... w my r... nflnlrrallly mm: dnuuvlnnl vu .nuua war
| 1,748 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-22NCvC-353-08/2022 | PLAINTIF KASRAN BIN YAHYA DEFENDAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD | Practice and Procedure – Striking Out – Res Judicata and Estoppel – Res Judicata in the wider sense – Rules of Court 2012, Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d). | 10/11/2023 | YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=620d9f78-569e-4847-83cf-7138f11461ca&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)
GUAMAN NO: BA-22NCvC-353-08/2022
ANTARA
KASRAN BIN YAHYA
(NO. K/P: 650311-11-5193 … PLAINTIF
DAN
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD
(No. Syarikat: 196001000142 (3813-K) … DEFENDAN
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This was an application by the Defendant to strike out the Plaintiff’s
Writ and Statement of Claim pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or
(d) of the Rules of Court 2012.
[2] The Plaintiff, Kasran bin Yahya, has filed this action (“Suit 353”)
against the Defendant, Malayan Banking Berhad, in this Court. The
Plaintiff’s causes of action are premised on, inter alia, fraud, breach of
duty, abuse of process and conspiracy to injure. The Plaintiff is seeking a
10/11/2023 11:33:16
BA-22NCvC-353-08/2022 Kand. 43
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
number of declarations and damages amounting to about
RM200,000,000.00.
The Central Issues
[3] The dominant issue in this application is whether this is a proper
case whereby this Court should invoke its powers under Order 18 rule
19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 to dismiss Suit 353.
[4] In determining the above principal issue, this Court will have to first
contend with a number of subsidiary issues, namely,
(a) whether Suit 353 indeed discloses no reasonable cause of
action;
(b) whether Suit 353 is undeniably scandalous, frivolous or
vexatious; and/or
(c) whether Suit 353 is an abuse of the process of the Court.
[5] The position taken by the Defendant is that the answers to the above
questions are in the affirmative and expectedly, the Plaintiff has taken the
converse stand.
The Case for the Plaintiff
[6] In resisting the Defendant’s Notice of Application, the Plaintiff raised
the point that he had resigned as a director of Seribong Engineering Sdn
Bhd (“SESB”), a company that was granted various facilities (loans) by
the Defendant, on 1 August, 2006.
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[7] The Plaintiff further pointed out that he had stood as a guarantor for
the loans amounting to only RM500,000.00 but additional loans were
granted by the Defendant to SESB after he had resigned from SESB.
[8] Most importantly, the Plaintiff underscored the fact that this present
Suit 353 is predicated on the “discovery of new information/document”.
The Case for the Defendant
[9] The crux of the Defendant’s submissions in support of its Notice of
Application to strike out this Suit 353 is premised on the doctrine of res
judicata. It is the Defendant’s contention that this doctrine prohibits the
Plaintiff from re-litigating the present claim which had been duly
adjudicated upon in the Sessions Court of Shah Alam in Summons no.
B52-NCC-35-02/2015 (“Suit 35”).
[10] In that said Suit 35, the Defendant has succeeded in obtaining
judgment in a claim for the outstanding sum on a loan that the Defendant
had given to SESB and the Plaintiff was found liable as guarantor for that
loan.
[11] The Defendant further drew this Court’s attention to the following
pertinent background facts, namely:
• that the Defendant had commenced Suit 35 in February 2015 in
the Sessions Court against the Plaintiff as guarantor for a loan
granted to SESB in which SESB had defaulted in the various
facilities granted by the Defendant;
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
• that the Defendant had obtained summary judgment against the
Plaintiff in Suit 35 in September 2015;
• that the Defendant had obtained Receiving and Adjudication
Orders against the Plaintiff in December 2016;
• that in 2020, the Plaintiff had filed an application for, inter alia, an
extension of time to appeal against the summary judgment and
that application was dismissed;
• that the Plaintiff then proceeded with an appeal at the Court of
Appeal;
• that prior to the hearing of the appeal at the Court of Appeal, the
Plaintiff had also filed an application to adduce further evidence;
• that both the above applications were dismissed by the Court of
Appeal;
• that the Plaintiff had also filed a collateral action against the
defendant bank and several officers of the defendant bank vide
High Court of Shah Alam Civil Suit No. BA- 22NCvC-474-
11/2020 (“Suit 474”);
• that although a judgment in default was duly obtained in Suit 474,
this was subsequently set aside: and
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
• that the Plaintiff did not appeal against that decision and did not
pursue the matter further and in fact on 27 May 2021, the Plaintiff
filed a notice of discontinuance of Suit 474.
[12] Based on the above factual background, it is the Defendant’s
contention that the issues raised in this present Suit 353 are similar to
those that been or should have been ventilated in the previous
proceedings and thus this present Suit 353 is caught by the doctrine of
res judicata in the wider sense.
[13] The Defendant has also raised the defence of limitation in support
of its Notice of Application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement
of Claim.
Application of the Law and Principles to the Present Matter
[14] The law and principles governing the Striking Out of a Writ and
Statement of Claim, as laid down in Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) – (d) of the
Rules of Court 2012, are uncontroversial and are well established.
[15] This Court takes cognizance of the fact that no evidence shall be
admissible on an application under the first of the four available
limbs/paragraphs of Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 and
that this provision is only to be invoked in clear and obvious cases. Both
parties have cited the seminal case of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v
United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 2 AMR 1969; [1993] 4
CLJ 7; [1993] 3 MLJ 36.
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[16] It is incumbent on this Court to examine the factual matrix of this
case to see if any of the grounds relied on by the Defendant in this present
application has indeed been made out.
[17] Mindful of the pertinent background facts as adumbrated in
paragraph [11] and guided by the authorities in cases such as Lin Wen-
Chih & Anor v Pacific Forest Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor [2020] ANEH
1868; [2020] 1 LNS 2104; [2021] 4 MLJ 367; [2021] 2 MLRA 376, Kluang
Wood Products Sdn Bhd & Anor V Hong Leong Finance Bhd & Anor
[1998] 4 AMR 4225; [1999] 1 CLJ 1; [1999] 1 MLJ 193; [1998] 2 MLRA
221 and Akitek Tenggara Sdn Bhd v Mid Valley City Sdn Bhd [2007] 5
AMR 453; [2007] 6 CLJ 93; [2007] 5 MLJ 697; [2007] 2 MLRA 584, this
Court is in agreement with the Defendant that this present Suit 353 is
caught by the doctrine of res judicata in the wider sense.
[18] On this ground alone, this application by the Defendant to strike out
the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim should be allowed.
[19] Be that as it may, the three matters raised by the Plaintiff in
paragraphs [6], [7] and [8] above warrant further due consideration.
[20] On the point that the Plaintiff had resigned from SESB and that he
had stood as guarantor for the loans amounting to only RM500,000.00 but
additional loans had been granted by the Defendant to SESB after he had
resigned from SESB, this Court makes reference to Clause 12 and Clause
13 of the Guarantee which provide that “ … the guarantee herein shall be
a continuing guarantee” and “This Guarantee shall not be determined or
in any way prejudiced by Any change on the constitution of the Customer
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
or any of the undersigned, whether by retirement, expulsion, death … ”
respectively. These clauses bind the Plaintiff.
[21] A vital point is that the liability of the Plaintiff had never been
increased but remained at RM500,000.00.
[22] On the submission by the Plaintiff that this present Suit 353 is
predicated on the “discovery of new information/document”, this Court is
of the considered view that the said new information/document was never
concealed from the Plaintiff.
[23] Counsel for the Plaintiff urged this Court to take note of the maxim:
“Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria”; which according
to counsel means: “A person having done wrong cannot take advantage
of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a
competent court.”
[24] Henceforth the question: Has the Defendant “having done wrong”?
[25] Having considered the totality of materials available before the
court, this Court is of the considered view that the Defendant in the instant
Suit 353 had all along acted in accordance with their statutory and
contractual rights in all the proceedings preceding this action.
[26] In response to the maxim highlighted by counsel for the Plaintiff, the
riposte is: Is qui nihil mali fecit, iure petere potest.
[27] The Defendant in the present Suit 353 who has done nothing wrong
can claim justice. This is a proper case for this Court to exercise its powers
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
to Strike Out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim pursuant to Order
18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012.
[28] The Notice of Application by the Defendant in Enclosure 10 is
allowed with costs of RM10,000, subject to allocator.
Dated: 6 November, 2023
sgd
[CHOONG YEOW CHOY]
Judicial Commissioner
High Court of Malaya
Shah Alam
Counsel:
Periasamy Karuppan with Aundre Onn for the Plaintiff
(Messrs. Periasamy & Co.)
SY Ng with Noor Azanida Alladin for the Defendant
(Messrs. Raja, Darryl & Loh)
S/N eJ8NYp5WR0iDz3E48RRhyg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 10,794 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-25-429-07/2022 | PEMOHON NATHAN & OLIVER HOLDINGS SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia | Administrative Law — Judicial review — Application — Application for review of decision of the Minister of Finance — Application for refund under the Goods and Services Act 2014 (“GST Act”) and the GST (Exempt Supply) Order 2014 (“Exempt Order”) – Subject property thought be a commercial land and later discovered as residential – Whether GST paid refundableStatutory interpretation – Whether Court can be allowed to be used as an instrument to perpetuate illegality | 10/11/2023 | YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=521d9563-91bf-4ac5-99b2-90c741e3305f&Inline=true |
10/11/2023 10:10:56
WA-25-429-07/2022 Kand. 28
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Y5UdUrRxUqZspDHQeMwXw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA—25—d29—U7/2022 Kand. 28
12/11/2023 10:12-55
DALAM MAHKAMAH TWGGI DI KUALA LUMFUR
(EAHAGIAN KUASA KHAS)
PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHA§ MAN NO WA 5-4210112012
Dawn pevkzm Penman 53 Kaeuah 12)
Kaudarrkaedah Mahhamnh 2012.
Dan
Dawn pevkam named: an mm a. bawlh
Seksyen 25 narevvggan 1 ma Mar-kaman
Kanakxman was».
Dan
Dam nsnara Item 1 Jadual Akm
Mahkamzh Kzhaluman mu,
Dan
Dalam perkam remedl dan re\I21 m bawah
Ssksyen on an 44 Ann Rahal sp-cm
1250‘
u...
Dnlam peflura Slksyan mm Akln Cult-x
Earanq Gan Pemlmmaxan mm.
Dan
Dalam Delkava 5eksyan 54 Am Cukaw
Baum; flan Parklmmanan 2014.
Dan
Da\zm Derkara Seksyan 51 Akla Cukaw
Bavinn din Psmmmauan 2014
Dan
Dam pelkan Pumtih 211) Penman Cuk;-JV
aamng dun Pevkhhmalnn (Fambukalan
D\kecuaIkan)2ll1I
Dan
Dahm Pam u m my Juana! Pmamu
Pemlah cum Bunny dan Perxrmmatan
wamzmauan Dlkscualkanjzflu.
1
sm v5uauvR.xuuZKnDHu-Mwxw
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
Dan
Dalam pelkara Arum 97 Pmermagzan
Pa/sekmuan.
Dan
Dalam porkava saksmr 4 ma Memefl
Kawxngln AP-mamsaurraru ‘F511
Dan
Dahm vemara Seksyen m Ana Pmoedur
xmnyan 1957,
ANTARA
NATHAN ar OLIVER HOLDINGS sun BHD
(No. Syarlkalz 122A223«D) ...PEMOHON
DAN
1. MENTERI KEWANGAN‘ MALAVSIA
2. KEMENYERIAN KEWANGAN, MALAYSIA ...RESPONDEN-
3. KERAJMN MALAYSIA RESPONDEN
JUDGMENT
[11 The (acts Veadmg lo «ms appncacrorr «or pudmnal rewew are not very
much m dispute. They are as faHaws
[21 In 2011. the appncanl cnmpany acquired a 3-smrey hemage
properly m Lebnh Armeman,GaMgs1uwn, Fulau Fmang Irom Keng
Fall Sdn End (‘the said Properly‘) The apphcanfs pnsnion is that
an an malenal «mes. Keng Fan Sdn Ehd (“Ksng Fall’) represented
an ma appumnu mm the sand Property is a oDmmercia\ pmpefly
2
sm v5udurR.xLluZKnDHu-Mwxw
3%.. smm nnuhnrwm .. med w my r... mrmu-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG vmm
{3}
[41
[5]
[5]
U]
Para 3 our»: recnals el lha sale and Purchase Agreement (‘SPA’)
dared 5.4.2017 beiweell lha applrmnl and Keng Fan states as
lpllaws
WHEREAS we Vandal ncrarry acknowledge.
ruprunm .na .3... lnnl ms vmor ls a Demon
regrslered pnwanr rc lne Goods and Sewlces
Yax. me sard Pmpeny ls . uumrnevclll prop!!!)
and hence lhe sale and pmchau L71 rna sald
Prolxrly n suhpen In Goods and Servlces Tax
(hamnanel cam ~esfl
slnua lna sam Properly was relenea In as under are calegury ol
'cnmmerc |' in me SPA, lha applrcarrl vald me Goods and sales
Tax('G5T'lolRM3oc,o00l'1ne GST Sum”). which was calculated
at me rare 6*/. M lrre purchase price nl RM5,noo,ooo.oo.
Upon the aoqulsltlorl, me applicant company sought in lease om lne
sald Properly as a hlgrrend load and beverage rue“) auuel
Aooordrng In lne appllcanl, a prpspeclrve (mam was rnleresled ln
renllng lrra sald Property, The pmspecllva lananmld a due dllrgence
exerclsrr arm drsmvared |ha| lhe snld Pmpeny was classrlied as
“res'lderr|la|" by me Mauls Bandariyl Pulau Pinang ('MBPP“).
Upon analner anqulry, MBPP conrlrmea mar me sad Pvuperiy was
classified as “l'esldarlllIl". The classlfrcallon was based on me
reaems olassessmem kepl by MBPF Tne lecler, daled 24 3.2019,
srares lr-rrer alia as lallows
Bemzssrkan reknd Mauls sapem yang
dmyalaknn aalanr cm. lnknrrln mandnpall
perils kegunaarr senasn bingunln ml aaalan
sebzlgnl R30 Iallu Rlmralr rerap ems
Dildaurkzrl xxx Tapak wm... Dunn:
George Town. lorrasl bangurlan lnr |erIeIsk
aalnrn Dafllrrklmgirl spsuar Zone (Resrflanlral
menayl
Aggrieyad by me cannnnamn made by MBPP, lne spelrunl saugnl
a relunu at me GST Payrnerrr from llre Royal Cuuoms Department
pl Fenang (‘JKDM Pulau Plrlang“) The reason lar seelnng me
reluna was lnal GST is nor chargeable for lne wrweyanw of a
resldenlial properly.
3
am v5udurR.xL1uZ‘nDHu-Mwxw
“Nair s.n.r ...n.ryn .. HIGH m yaw r... nflfllnnllly mrnln dnuurlnrrl VII arlum war
[5] However. the JKDM Ptrlau Ptnang directed the annlicanttp seek the
retund lmm the Respondents.
[9] The 1“ respondent is the Minister at Finanee (‘the Minister‘). The
2"“ respondent is the Ministry ot Finance The 3'" respondent is the
Guvcrnlllertl ei Malaysia.
[10] Acting on the direction, the applicant. through lls solicitors. applied
to the 2'-1 respondent to relund the GST Sum inde its letter dated
15.7 2020. The letter concluded as tpllaws
Hence. by vlrlua er the tmrr py the Felting
city Council sLI|lng1h5 usagn is residential and
placing reliance ripen the edeipe :11 the cimarnr
Omoer. he wnte thie lintar In yvu tp humbly
request tartne at-prenerrttonet dlseratrrrr, umich
ll tor the HM GST Payment to D1 rehrnded by
the Royal crrnprns in Perrarrg to am etienr
uirernty
[I1] untprtrrnately, the 2” respondent reiected the applicants
application was Ils letter dated 5.4.2021.
[12] Further appeals by the spplicam were lo no avail.
[13] In a letter dated 21.4 2022. the 2"“ respondent replied as lpllowa
Pemmhalllrl vlltnk |ull! yulg mswnltlll Inak
grrani. methane. Oilvnr Htzidlnqs sun and nnmk
rrrenuaparvan hayzran ballk cukral bamng den
pertthrdriratan rear) penirrntah nmsooma
retah when pcnrrntrartaan oteh vs Merttert
Kawungarl dun dlmaklvmklri peitaw.
pennehpnrn terseptrt tiaark tslrrlrrstun
For brevity, lhe two letters dated 54.2021 and 2t 4.2022 will be
relerred to as the "MaF Letters‘.
[14] Aggneved. the applicant cprrinreneed an application tor judicial
review tor a declaration that the deer ens (‘the irnpugned
decisions’) made by the Minister through the MDF lellers are null
and void. The applicanl seeks an order at mandamus tor the
respondents I0 withdraw the impugned decisions In the alternative,
the spplrcantaleo seeks an prderploertipran to quash the impugned
declsiarts
rn Y5udUrR.ttLltzZ‘nDHD-Mwxw
“Nair s.ii.i nuvlhnrvtlll be tr... m min i... riirii.iiri MVMI flnulvllnl p.. hFlt.ING vtmxl
The gudlclal review
[151
[15]
[1 7}
Tne appllc lion lor iudiclal revlew ls euppaned byllle amdavll oi Ng
Dee Land In Encl 3 (‘AIS-3“). Ms Ng ls the director of me appllcanl
company
Leave lo commence judbcla review was granted by one cpurl an
22.5.2022.
The grounds or lhe appllcanrs appllcallon can be sumlrlarlsed as
lcllows
(al The Sam Pmpen categorised as “resldentlal' slnae ll has
the calegory of usage as ‘re5Idenlla|'l the Iransler nnhe same
pursuant |o the SPA does Hal aflrad the imposlllorl of (he
GST
lb) The respondents‘ lnlervrelaflon anal me Goods and Ssrvlnes
AC1 2014 (‘GST Act‘) and lne GST (Exenlpl Supply) Omar
2014 l-Exempl OM97“) look lnlp me mlenlion as opposed lo
the auual classlndellpn ollhe properly ls unleaslple
la) The GST IS a proadaased oansumpllorl lax based on a va|us—
added epndepl In one eneunlslences, me concern! is lnal
businesses may recover lne GST Incurred on edsls and
buslness expenses Irom lne Goverrlmem: Lendmse
Dovnlopmlrn Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Kenn Plnganll
Kes In! 4 Armr [2022] 1 LNS 1312.
ld) In any eyenl. any ellelnpl Io calagpnse lhe said Properly as
“cdlnlnerclar would be In Danllaverlllon onne appllcable law
In respecl or lawn plannlng Llndev s lam pl me Town and
Cmmlry Plannlng Am 1975 (“TCP Aer). no person shall use
any land orbullding ulherwise man In mnlormlly wim lne local
plan.
(e| Paras 1 and 2 pl me aempl Order should be lrllerprelad as
lncludlng lands malare pmcially calegorlsed by me govemlng
local aulhorily. ln this case. me MEPF. as resldennal and
lnerepy IS an slernpl supply.
5
am v5uduvR.xulzZKnDHueMwxw
«ma s.n.l nnvlhnrwlll be p... a my l... nflnlnnllly sun. dna-vlnrll wa mulls Wml
in Tnsia was a deprlvallon of me applicants lagiiinieie
expecialion that GST is exeniplad iipin all Ilansachuns of
leslde prapeflbesi Mums Porbuldl n Fulilu Flnilrlg v
syaiikai ssku/sums-unis sorpspuna sung-l Gnlupor
Dengan Tanpgung-n mm} 3 cu 65 Fe.
(g) Tne Minialei nas failed ip give any reasons |o ma applicant in
am ing an me impugned decisions. ll is pan pr pmpaduiai
raiinass and settled pniicipla at public Law and naiuial iusiioe
«nail is public decision-mlklng body mus( give iaaspns in
ainying ai iis decision; cliang Tah Sin y Manml Dllilm
Nogui & Anal [za22} 9 cm ms,
The mpond-nw ralponse
[15]
[19]
[20]
The iespondenis‘ pasillon ls lnai «oi me applicant io rely on para 2
oi ine Exampl order, the applicant must be able lo pmve lnai ilie
said Fiolaem is lntended for iesidenllal use
Yhe laaniad SFC was duiia candid in her submission sria inviiad
ltiis coun lo inlarprel paia 2 of ilie Exempt order
(I) wneinai ii snpiild be iead subieci la lha classmaaiipn dune
building; or
in Whether me exainplion is supiscl lo the purpose aluse dnna
bulldlng as urged by me raspondams.
Para 2 at me Exempt oidsi pmvides lliai the supply 0! goods
deiennined as an exempt supply include:
Any puildinpoipiennesioina exlam min using
used lpi Ieslduntlal purposes‘ desogned pi
mnpllsd nu ma pi lmlrldnd in pa use as
dwelling elicludirlg hotel. Wm, noaidinp muse oi
siiiillai esiaplisnnieni pi slssplng
acppninipdailaii
The learned SFC submlllsd lhll the purchase 01 hulldlng-Mlalbd
pipperiy is only exeinpiad when inianded lei iesldaiiiial use.
According to ine learned src, ma phrase any pin/ding oipieniises
In the extent of It being used fur residential purpose: was made
5
sin V5udL1vR.iiUuZ‘nDHDuMwxw
“Nair s.ii.i In-vlhnrwlll be ii... M yaw i... nflfllnnllly MIMI dun-vlnrll VII nFluNG Wml
[2‘l
[22]
[23]
The
[24]
without any relerence Io Ins seIegory of use W are Issue document
or lIl|e mm“) of Ine subyecx propeny In Ine absence eI sucn
Ielsranue, Ine learned sI=c urged InIs ceun In g an urdmary
rrIeanIrI§ Ia Para 2.
My au.erIlIan was men drawn (0 me Judgmenl of Ins Federal Cnurl
In Pnlm Gil Rnslalcll and Dtvtloflflllnl‘ BolrdM lys I G Anor
v Premium Vegetable oIIs sun and [21104] 2 cm 255 PC The
Federal cbun. aner nevung reierred to me Iudgmem 0! me Pnvy
ceuncn ||'| Ilangln v Inllnd Ruvdnua carnrn/ss/on-rII97I1 AC
739 PC, nsId Inar me corvecl approach to be adapted by a court In
Inlerprenng a Iaxmg sIaIuIe would be four-prong:
(aj First, the words are k: be gwen men ordInary meanmg
(hi seeondIy, bne has In Ibek nrerery at what Is cIearIy sand.
Naming Is to be read In and nuwng Is lo be imphed.
(c) TnrrdIy, Ina omen or me eons(rucIIorI or a sIaIuIs Is to
aseerlam the wIII of me legislature. It may‘ lhere4oIe, be
presumed IneI nelmev InIusIIce nor absurdny was Innended
(d) Fbunmy. Ine hlslory eren enaumenl and me masons InaI Ied
In Its bemg passed may be used as an am In IIs conslruclmn
In the cIIcums1arIces. me Iearned src urged Inis Court to irnerpreI
para 2 or me Exemp| order by gIvIng IIs ommary meamng wIInbuI
Ine need to ImpIy anylhmg
Fur Ine aluresand reasons, me Ieamed SFC urged |hIs coun Ia
dIsrn-se Ihe applrcaubn Ier judIeIaI rewsw
nalyiil
Let me begm by Inalyslng wneI me upphcam dId illev aoquving me
sad Property In para 12 eI AIS-3, Mrss Ng asserted mal me
eempeny nad secured a prospecllve IenanI, ens JeIIrey srumada
Kain a smgeporean, who was InIeresIed In Isasing Ine sald Property
as a mgn-end Fara ouIIe1.
7
srn vfiudurmuulwnnuamwxw
«wee s.n.I n-nhnrwm s. u... M mm he br1mn.H|y mm: dun-mm wa mum v-mm
[25] There is therefore, no doubi lhal me applicanl cumpany intended
Ia use llie Said Propeny «or commercial purposes unlonunalely.
in did nol malei-ielise due lo lne lam llia said Pmpen zoned lor
res emial Duruases
[25] Due la vie legal inipedimenl, |he applicant could nol proceed wiln
ils irilenlion In lease me properly. ll Ihe applieanl did that ii would
pa open lo a possible proseoulmrl under s lam oi llie TCF Am.
Having lnal in mind, I carvlm reepacllully aoeede no me learned
SFC's irwilallon lo give an ordinary meaning lo pare zollne Exonipl
Order sinoe |o do lhal would mean lriis coun will allow ilsellle pa
used as an lnelnimenl lo perpeiuaie illepalily.
[271 In one oinsurnslances pl lrie case, lrie aoplioanl nad no onoioe ouno
use Ihe said properly «or a residenlial purpose and nothing more.
sinw the applicanl cannon use lne said Properly lor oommereial
purposa, il would be wrong lo inioase me GST on me company
sinoe me supply or lne said Properly IS oaupm under lne exemplion
envisaged in para 2 enne Exempt Order
[291 To inlerprel olherwna wnuld prpduoe an iniuslioe and absurdlly.
The applisanl would suller lor navinp paid lna esw pul aould not
use me said Prepeny lor ooinmeroal purposes due lo lha legal
oonslralnls. Aomrdlng In lne lriird approacn in me Palm Oil
Rsssarcll case‘ il lne lileral inlerprelalian would resull in iniuslioe
and absurdity, il lies Io be avoided.
Findings
(29) For me aileresaid reasons, llie impugned decisions are lainled wim
Wedrlesbury unleasonableness and A/llsmlnlc error Ia make it
amenable in judicial review Tne impugned decisions are. mereiore,
null and void.
[30] An order M Cefllnrali is therefore issued to quash lhs impugned
declyorls. I am making a lurlrierprderlerlrie respondenls lo relund
me as sum lo liie appllcam company.
[31] Tnere snail be no order as to coals.
a
sru v5udurR.xuuZKnDHueMwxw
“Nair s.n.i nuvlhnrwm be u... re may i... miimiiu siiii. dnumlnrll VII nFluNG Wm!
[:2] In View ulmy findings, I will not address me remwnmg wssues tamed
by me applicant.
Tarik
0 Novamhu 202:
L4
(WAN AHMAD FARID BIN wm SALLEH)
Haldm
Mahkamah Tmggx Kuala Lumpur
Pihakpmak:
Bagi Plhak Pemohon Azzuan Shah hm Abd Ra1ak&
Choo Dee we.
Teman Chuo Des Wet
Eagi Pmak Responden: Famh Shuhada bum Ramh SFC
Jabmn Peyuam Negara, Pulra;aya
9
sm v5uauvR.xuuZKnDHu-Mwxw
_«m.. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
| 1,227 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-28JM-22-12/2021 | PEMOHON SYED IBRAHIM & CO RESPONDEN 1. ) Trans Fame Offshore Sdn Bhd 2. ) Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd PENCELAH 1. ) BAP RESOURCES SDN BHD 2. ) PENGIRAN DATO AWANG DAUD BIN AWANG PUTRAPIHAK TERKILANBEN LINE AGENCIES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD | Application by the Judicial Manager of the Respondent for a declaration that a call on a Bank Guarantee is in contravention of sections 410, 411 and 414 of the Companies Act 2016. Whether the call on the Bank Guarantee amounts to taking a step to enforce a security over the First Respondent’s property. | 10/11/2023 | YA Tuan Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b8b9bb3a-ce16-4672-8b19-6f9a5898c77b&Inline=true |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-28JM-22-12/2021
In the matter of Trans Fame Offshore Sdn
Bhd (formerly known as Transfame Sdn Bhd)
[Company No: 199501010606 (339807-A)];
And
In the matter of Judicial Management
pursuant to sections 404, 405, 406, 407, 408,
410, 411 and the Ninth Schedule of the
Companies Act 2016;
And
In the matter of the Companies (Corporate
Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018.
BETWEEN
SYED IBRAHIM & CO
[Applying as a law firm] … APPLICANT
AND
1. TRANS FAME OFFSHORE SDN BHD
(DI BAWAH PENGURUSAN KEHAKIMAN)
(dahulunya dikenali sebagai Transfame Sdn Bhd
[(No. Syarikat: 199501010606 (339807)] … FIRST RESPONDENT
2. MALAYSIA MARINE AND HEAVY
ENGINEERING SDN BHD
[No. Syarikat: 14558-P] … SECOND RESPONDENT
AND
1. BAP RESOURCES SDN BHD
[Company No.: 201201003655 (977180-U)]
2. PENGIRAN DATO’ AWANG DAUD BIN AWANG PUTRA
[I.C No.: 601019-13-5647] … INTERVENERS
10/11/2023 16:41:37
WA-28JM-22-12/2021 Kand. 139
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
[1] This application in Enclosure 59 is made by the Judicial Manager of
the First Respondent for the following orders (quoted verbatim):
1. Bahawa Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd
(No. Syarikat: 14558-P(“MMHE”) dicantumkan/ditambah
sebagai Responden di dalam tindakan ini;
2. Selanjutnya daripada perenggan (1), tajuk (intitulement
Saman Pemula No WA-28JM-22-12/2021 hendaklah dipinda
untuk menambah MMHE sebagai suatu Responden dalam
prosiding ini;
3. Suatu deklarasi bahawa MMHE dalam memanggil Jaminan
Bank No. 248PG098813 yang diisu oleh United Overseas
Bank (Malaysia) Bhd (“UOB”) pada 5.12.2019 dan luput pada
13.9.2021 dalam jumlah RM5,150,000.00 (“Jaminan Bank”)
yang diberikan oleh Responden, telah melanggar seksyen
410, 411 dan 414 Akta Syarikat 2016;
4. Selanjutnya daripada perenggan (3), suatu perintah agar
MMHE memulangkan jumlah wang RM5,150,000.00 kepada
Responden dalam masa 21 hari dari tarikh perintah ini.
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[2] Prayers 1 and 2 were allowed by consent of the parties. However, I
dismissed prayers 3 and 4 in Enclosure 59. My grounds for
dismissing prayers 3 and 4 are as given below.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[3] For ease of reference, I shall hereafter refer to the parties as
“MMHE” (Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd) and
“TFO” (Trans Fame Offshore Sdn Bhd). TFO’s judicial manager
will be referred to as “the Applicant”, where appropriate. MMHE
had appointed Trans Fame Offshore Sdn Bhd (“TFO”) as a
subcontractor to perform the works as contained in a Letter of
Award dated 19.07.2019.
[4] Pursuant to the said Letter of Award, a performance bond in the
form of a bank guarantee dated 05.12.2019 issued by United
Overseas Bank Berhad (“UOB”) in the sum of RM5,150,00.00
(“the BG”) was provided by TFO to MMHE.
[5] On 30.11.2021, MMHE called on the BG, which resulted in UOB
paying RM5,150,000.00 to MMHE.
[6] Thereafter, TFO’s solicitors issued a letter of demand dated
02.12.2021 to MMHE seeking for the refund of RM5,150,000.00.
MMHE had via its solicitors’s letter replied to the said demand.
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[7] TFO avers that MMHE’s act of calling on the BG is in contravention
of s.410, s.411 and s.414 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA”), and
thus the said sum of RM5,150,000.00 was unlawfully obtained by
MMHE and ought to be refunded to TFO. The relevant provisions
relied on by the Applicant are given below:
(a) s.410
“During the period beginning with the making of an application for a
judicial management order and ending with the making of such an order
or the dismissal of the application:
(b) no steps shall be taken to enforce any… security over the
company’s property… except with leave of the Court and
subject to such terms as the Court may impose…”
(b) s.411
“(4) During the period for which a judicial management order is in
force:
(d) no steps shall be taken to enforce security over the
company’s property…except with consent of the
judicial manager or leave of the Court and subject to
such terms as the Court may impose…”
(Emphasis added)
(c) s.414
“(1) On the making of a judicial management order, the judicial
manager shall take into his custody or under his control all the
property to which the company is or appears to be entitled.
(3) The judicial manager of a company shall:
(a) do all such things as may be necessary for the management of
the affairs, business and property of the company; and
(b) do all such other things as the Court may order.”
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[8] It is the contention of the Applicant, as the judicial manager of TFO,
that MMHE’s call on the BG was tantamounts to enforcing a security
over TFO’s property. Thus, the act of calling on the BG is in
contravention of sections 410 and 411 of the CA.
THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
[9] The primary issue for this Court’s decision is whether the monies
paid by UOB to MMHE under the BG are property of TFO and if the
answer is positive, then the next issue is whether MMHE’s act of
calling on the BG and receiving the monies from UOB amounts to
enforcing a security over the “company’s property”.
[10] In order to determine whether TFO has proprietary rights over the
monies paid under the BG, I first have to determine whether the
monies are the property of UOB or TFO.
[11] The Applicant avers that the monies are the property of TFO and
not UOB based on the letter dated 01.12.2021 from UOB, which
states:
“Please be informed the aforesaid sum of RM5,150,000.00 together
with RENTAS charges of RM9.00 has been paid from the following
amount
(1) …account no 2093043678 amounting to RM1,591,100.23
(2) Non checking account no 2093061278 amounting to
RM3,558,907.77.”
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[12] The Applicant further contends that had UOB not paid out on the
BG, the monies in the above account would be paid back to TFO.
FINDINGS BY THE COURT
[13] I am of the view that the calling of the BG by MMHE and the
receiving of the monies under the BG is not tantamount to taking a
step to enforce security over TFO’s property for the following
reasons:
(a) the monies in TFO’s account held by UOB in the name of TFO
are in fact deposits made by TFO with UOB. Furthermore,
section 2 of the Financial Services Act 2013 defines a deposit
and a depositor as follows:
‘deposit’ means a sum of money accepted or paid on terms under
which it will be repaid in full, with or without interest or any other
consideration in money or money’s worth, either on demand or at
a time or in circumstances agreed by or on behalf of the person
making the payment and the person accepting it…
‘depositor’ means a person entitled to the repayment of a deposit,
whether the deposit was made by him or any other person…
(b) The relationship between a bank (in this case, UOB) and its
customer is defined in the seminal English case of Foley v Hill
and others [1843-60] All ER Rep 16, where the House of Lords
held:
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
“The relationship between a banker and his customer who pays
money into the bank is that of a debtor and creditor, the banker
being liable to repay the customer the money which he holds for
him when required to do so by the customer. When a customer
pays money into his account at a bank it ceases, to be his money:
It becomes the banker’s money and he can deal with it as his own.
He is not vis-à-vis the customer in the fiduciary position as a
trustee or quasi-trustee holding the money for the customer as a
cestui qua trust.”
(c) The principle enunciated by the House of Lords above was
followed by the Indian High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the
case of Haryana Telecom Ltd v Aluminium Industries Ltd
LNIND 1995 AP 179, where the issue of whether a principal
(who procures a bank guarantee) has any proprietary interest
in the money paid under a bank guarantee was examined and
decided on. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in hearing the
appeal involving the issues, inter alia, whether taking steps to
enforce any bank guarantee amounting to proceedings for
execution, distress or the like, against any property of the
sick industrial company pursuant to the Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, has ruled as
follows:
“(5) The bank guarantee cannot be said to be the property of
the first respondent herein simply because it is indirectly
going to be affected by enforcement of the said bank
guarantee by the writ appellant. Similarly, proceedings to
encash the bank guarantee cannot be said to be covered by
the phrase ‘execution, distress or the like’, contemplated
under section 22(1) of the Act. A similar question came up for
consideration before the learned single judge in Aluminium
Industries Ltd v Hindustan Cables Ltd (W.P No 9420 of 1992
dated 11.9.1992), which was rejected by the learned single judge
by observing as follows: ‘I will now dispose of the legal contention
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of
section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)
Act 1985, the invocation of bank guarantees is barred. Learned
counsel submits that the encashment of bank guarantees
amounts to proceedings against the properties of the petitioner
company and therefore, it is prohibited by section 22. Learned
counsel reinforces his argument by stating that the word ‘property’
bears a wide connotation in legal practice and the word ‘property’
occurring in section 22 would encompass within its sweep the
bank guarantees as well. It is difficult to accept this contention of
learned counsel … In elaborating further, I would add that the
invocation of the bank guarantee by the beneficiary under the
guarantee does not put in motion any proceedings for execution,
distress or the like against the properties of the company. It is
difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel that the bank
guarantees constitute property of the petitioner. The mere fact
that the petitioner had deposited some money with the bank
as a prelude to obtaining the bank guarantees or that the
petitioner is exposed to a future pecuniary liability as a
consequence of encashment of bank guarantee, does not
mean that the petitioner has some sort of proprietary right or
interest in the bank guarantees as such and that a proceeding
analogous to execution or distress is being taken against the
properties of the company. It may be that as a result of
encashment of bank guarantee by the first respondent, the bank
may proceed to recover the amount from the petitioner. But that
is only an indirect though inevitable consequences of invoking the
bank guarantee. In fact, that stage has not yet reached…. We
entirely agree with the reasons and the views expressed by the
learned single judge in the above case and, therefore, we do not
think it necessary to repeat the same or to give separate reasons.”
[14] (i) Furthermore, as observed by our Court of Appeal in the case of
Kumpulan Liziz Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Pembinaan Azam Jaya
Sdn Bhd [2021] MLRAU 228, a bank guarantee is regarded as a
separate contract between the bank and the beneficiary, and the
principal cannot interfere with such contract:
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
“[16] Even at the time of arguing the appeal, the petitioner’s stand is that
it is for the respondent to persuade the Bank to terminate the bonds. In
practice and in law, no banks may do that unless the beneficiaries of the
bond had agreed with the Bank as the bonds are separate and distinct
contracts between the Bank and beneficiaries to pay the sum agreed on
demand. The one who procured the bonds cannot interfere with
such a contract…”
(ii) Counsel for MMHE submits that following the above judicial
observation, to satisfy “a security over a property” within s.410 and
s.411 of the CA, TFO must show that the BG and/or the monies paid
under the BG is(are) in fact the property of TFO, which following the
dicta of the cases cited above, it(they) is(are) not.
[15] Thus, applying the principles enunciated in the above cases, I find
that in the present case, TFO has no proprietary interest or right
over the BG and the money paid thereunder. Accordingly,
encashment of the BG is not a step to enforce a security over TFO’s
property. In other words, TFO’s complaint does not fall within the
ambits of s.410 and s.411 of the CA. Therefore, consent of the
judicial manager or leave of the court is not required for MMHE’s
call on the BG. In short, MMHE did not contravene any of the
provisions of the CA as alleged by the Applicant.
[16] Lastly, under Enclosure 59, the Applicant also sought an order of
this Honourable Court for MMHE to refund the sum of
RM5,150,000.00 to TFO. MMHE’s counsel submits and I accept
that such a prayer is misconceived in law as it offends the principle
of restoration. In law, such an order of refund is consequential upon
this Honourable Court declaring that MMHE’s call on the BG was
void due to contravention of the provisions of the CA. In such event,
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
with the principle of restoration, MMHE and UOB will be restored to
their original positions and thus, the sum of RM5,150,000.00 ought
to be refunded to the payer, i.e., UOB instead of TFO, because the
said sum was paid by UOB under the BG (as a separate contract)
to MMHE.
[17] Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, I dismiss Enclosure 59 with
costs of RM5,000.00.
Dated 10th November 2023
……………t.t………………
Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz
Judge
High Court of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: LAYYIN TEH BINTI HASSAN
SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: TETUAN SYED IBRAHIM & CO
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: KENNIE ANG JOO KOON
SOLICITORS FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: TETUAN ANG ADILA
(PUCHONG) AND SIMRENJEET, TAY & CO.
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: TEO WEN CHYI
SOLICITORS FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: TETUAN SHIM &
CO.
COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENERS: CHEE WAI YEE, NOOR AKHZA
BINTI AHMAD WITH MATTHEW VAN HUIZEN
SOLICITORS FOR THE INTERVENERS: TETUAN AQEEB & CO
Cases Referred to:
➢ Foley v Hill and others [1843-60] All ER Rep 16
➢ Haryana Telecom Ltd v Aluminium Industries Ltd LNIND 1995 AP
179
➢ Kumpulan Liziz Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Pembinaan Azam Jaya
Sdn Bhd [2021] MLRAU 228
Legislation Referred to:
➢ Companies Act 2016
➢ Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018
➢ Financial Services Act 2013
Decision date: 16.02.2023
S/N Oru5uBbOckaLGWaWJjHew
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 16,451 | Tika 2.6.0 |
RA-62JSK-12-04/2021 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH HAFIZZAMI BIN ALI | i. Pada tarikh dan masa kejadian pada 27.9.2019, yang mengajak SP1 keluar dari rumah mak saudara SP1 di Kodiang kononnya untuk berjalan-jalan di Padang Besar adalah dari ajakan OKT sendiri dan bukannya SP1. SP1 pada waktu kejadian pula adalah seorang kanak-kanak yang berumur 14 tahun 5 bulan. ii. Laporan polis dibuat pada 28.9.2019, jam 2.18 petang, kurang daripada 24 jam selepas kejadian dikatakan berlaku. Mahkamah ini berpandangan adalah sukar untuk seorang kanak-kanak yang masih muda seperti SP1 berpakat dengan beberapa orang lain, mereka-reka laporan polis dan mengenakan OKT, bapa saudara sendiri yang mana SP1 telah tinggal bersama di rumahnya selama 1 bulan.iii. Sebelum kejadian, semasa kejadian dan selepas kejadian sehingga SP4 memberikan keterangan di mahkamah, SP4 tinggal di Durian Tunggal Melaka, jarang balik ke Kedah atau Perlis, lazimnya setahun sekali atau dua kali setahun serta mempunyai hubungan yang biasa sahaja dengan SP1 dan ibunya serta kurang bercakap dengan SP1. Daripada keterangan SP4 itu sendiri, dapat disimpulkan yang SP4 bukanlah rapat dengan SP1. Bagaimana mungkin SP4 boleh berpakat dengan SP1 untuk mengenakan OKT? | 10/11/2023 | Tuan Musyiri Bin Peet | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f51a4415-ebff-435b-bcda-4de889b1a4d5&Inline=true |
10/11/2023 11:54:11
RA-62JSK-12-04/2021 Kand. 74
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N FUQa9f/rW0O82k3oibGk1Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
an-susx-12-04/2021 Kand. 74
10/11/2023 11:54-H
DI DALAM MAHKAMAN sssvsu DI KANGAR
DALAM NEGERI FER|_|§
Mg. KE§ : RAAZJSK-12-(IAIZUZ1
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
HAFIZZAMI BIN ALI
ALASAN PENQHAKIMAN
Dw dalam kes mu‘ tenuaun, mm Hamamu Bin Ah Ioxmelah diluduhdengan
perluduhan dr hawah seksyen 14 (a) ma Kesalanan Seksual Temadap
Kanak-Kanak 2017. Penudunan adalah sepem berikuc
FERTUDUHAN
-MHAWA KAMU PADA 27/09/21119, JAM LEE/H KURANG soc
PETANG, EERTEMFAT DI RUMAH No 56 KAMPUNG SENA.
LORONG 7. DALAMDAERAHARAU, DALAMNEGERlPERUS,EAG/
MAKSUD SEKSUAL, TELAH MELAKL/KAN AMA/VG SEKSUAL
F/Z/KAL DENGAN MENYENTUH BAHAGIAN PAVU DARA DAN
KEMALUAN KANAK-KANAK HANVE L/MAIRA AOILA awn AZM/, NO
I
KP. o5nAo5»a&aau BERUMUR 14 TAHUN. OLEH YANG DEM/KIAN,
KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SUATU KESALAHAN YANG EOLEH
D/HUKUM DI EAWAH SEKSYEN 1415) AKTA KESALAHAN-
KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAKKANAK 2017. '
Lam bllakang ku
on telah memahon unluk mmcmkan sebaxk sahaja perluduhan
lenebul dlbacakan kepadanya OKT t2\ah drwakm elen peguam pihhannya
sendin Kesemnmlnnya pmak panaakwaan lelah memanggn aeramal 5
orang saksi sehemm menmup kesnyl
1 Kewangan sakslrsaksi pendakwaan dapalllh dmngkaskan sepem
benkul
2 Hanie umaua Aqua EmtrAzm|1SP1jyang merupakan mangsa/pengadu
dw dflam kes um menyalakan pada penghumng Dulin Dgos 2019. many:
|e\ah dnangkap men plhak pohs kemna Ievhbal dengan kes am».
Selelah Ibunya mcangkap, SP1 telah |\nggI\ nemma dsngan OKT.
Hurarsn 1—PerDualan menyenmn bolsh me/matkan pemualan
msnysnluh dsngsn msnggunakan mana-mana bahagtan badan alau
dengan suazu abjek den Do/eh mlakukan malann apa-apa sahais
remlssuk apa-apa sana/a yang dlpakar o/an slang wag menyanzun alau
karIaH<anak yang drsanmn
Human 2—Da/am menenrukan apekah yang men/ad! maksud ssksua/,
mahksmah no/an man/moangkan, anlara (am, bahagralv badan yang
uiaanmh, snaz darn Iakat perbua!-in msnysntuh avau kormsk fizikal den
semua hal keadaan lam yang Derksnaan dsngan perrakuan rm
Anma Kelerangan panting SP1 menyatakan bzhawa on ada
menyenluh kemaluannya an payudavlnya sens meramasnya semasa
kemman lersebul SP1 mengasahkan aemasa nan kqaauan, sm zen.»
nampak om membuka semav din seluar flalamnya sendm SP1 Ielah
nampak kemaman on dan keadaan kemaman om idaflah nagak paaa
masa lsrsehul. Se\epas flu‘ on having an Iepi SP1 .1. am Kalil lemebul.
Seterusnya, on cam memmas ksdua-dua piyu darn SP1 dengan
menggunakkan tangan kvinya dan menyentuh Kemaluan SP1 dengan
menggunakan langan kanannya lebih kurang 5 mvnn Selepas nu, DKT
Ielah bangun dan duduk dekal dengan kemaluan SP1 dan menmal
n
kemaluan SP1 dengan menggunakan hdih Iebvh kurang 5 mlml SeIe\ah
mu‘ on duduk di atas SP1 dan cuha memasukkan kemiminnyi ka
flalam kemaluan SP1 SP1 (elah bemndak kalak on dan membenlahu
on ma nlk pergu ks landis Selepis ke (amiss, SP1 masuk ballk ke
da\am hmk unluk mengambfl pakalan lam memakax plkalinnya di ruang
(amu.
21 Sekvanya mahkamah mv menerima kelerangan sm sehagaw banal
dan helul‘ maka mahkamah Im herpuashaln dan memuluskan plhak
pendakwaan (elem raenaya memenum elemen Im Ferhualan on .m pka
benar dllakukan orahnya aflalah salu perbuihn yang udak bevmom dan
Mada penjemsan yang munasahah unluk bemual demlklin sellm nnluk
lujuan seksual
22 Elomtn Kouga: Tmuduh molakukan perbuatan yang maribamn
konlak fizikal denq1n k:nxk—kxn.lk Ilu
Eag\ ha! ml‘ kecerangan yang mama adalin darlpada mlngsa sendln.
ianu sm sewakm memhenkan kelerangan kalt perlama dw mahkamah pada
2222022, SP1 masm rag: seorang kanak-kanak, telapl bukamah tenalu
11
nnma kerana paaa waklu nu sP1 sudah berumur 17 lahun Walaupun
demik1an,u11an kebuaksanaan (swap fllbuatlemzdap SP1 flan mahkamah im
berpuashzm dzn memmuskan SP1 vanam akan sehab dan aklbal sumpah
yang o.aka1 auarazkan 5P1 le\ah dengan pamang Vebav mencemakln a1
mahkamah lemang api yang cmakukan nleh on temadapnya di lempal
kejaduan pada |ankh flan masa Iersebm
23 1:1aa1am kes Im yuga, on merupakin urang yang dikenah oleh sP1
on «man Dana saudara SP1 yang mane sP1 lelih meunanggu on
sehagzn “Fak Uda“ Sebelnm 1ni, on pemah berkahwln dengan mak
saudava SP1 yang mkenall aebagai sm Faimz dan melahurkan 3 orang
canaya nma se1epas nu, OKTIelah beroeral dengin sni Fauuz
24 Pm wam ke1au1an pads 2792019, hanya on dan SP1 sahqa
beradz m Iempal kqaman Adflah yelas sepemmana kelerangin SP1 d1
rnankaman. on Ielah melakukzn yerbualan yang melnhalkan knnux
flz1ka\ usng-n SP1‘ uauu dengan menyenluh dzn menjllal kemaman sP1
sen: meramas huah dada SP1
NUJANAN PIHAK-PINAK
25 Amara mqzhan pmak pembelaan adalah antavz lam kerana mangsa
SP1 cuba umuk mengamayax on dengan bevpakal nenama sepupunya
Fmiaus (SP2) unluk mengenakan on yang max dllangkap belumi
dengan ibu mereka akrbat Kes pangedavan dzdah Se\aIn nu‘ SP1 juga
max herpuashah dengan on yang lldak menyemmalkan mu SP1
danpidi penuduhan mengedar man.
26 Semasa sun mm: was oleh pmak pembelain, walaupun 591
mengakul yang Ibuny: dllahan akibal dzlipada kes pengedaran dadah‘
Islam sm menalxkzn hahawa on pain! dwtahan balsam: munya a|as
kes pengedaran daflih (arsebm
27 Malah, mahkama
bevseluw dengan mqanan pihak pendakwaan
bahawa adalah musoahu unmk SP1‘ SP2 mahupun SP4‘ sm Julian: sumi
Md Jalam Ikukak mangsa, SP1) unluk msngamayai OKT memandangkan
sebelum kegaman nu‘ hubungan meveka dengan om adalah haik den
SP1 (elan (mggal Vebm kurung 1 hman m mum on sememava Immya
dilahan m penjara kerana kee dadah. Persoalannyz, semznya sw ingln
n
mengamlyal OKT. mengapa hanya selepas 1 hman mggax berszma
on, barn SP1 kcnonnya mevancang dan bevpakal dengan SP2 sena
SP4 umuk mengenakan OKT7 Se\am nu, pad: pandangan mankamah
im, aaalan muua nluk sm berpikal unluk mengenukan on Ha! ml
adalah alas faktor-{aklot sepem beflkm:
I Pada Iavikh dzn mesa kqaflxan paaa 27 9.2019. yang mengafik SP1
kaluir den rumzh mak saudara sru an Kmilang kononnyz unluk
barman-jalan di Padang Benr idalah dan ajakau on xnndlri can
I-mknnnyn sm. an pad. wlklu knjndian pull Idalah uuranu
kanakvkanlk yang buumur 14 lahnn 5 bulnn
Lapcran pom. mbua| pada 23 9.2019, ;am 2.13 pelang, kurang aanpada
241am sekepas kejaman mkacakan beflaku Mahkamah um berpandangln
zdalah Iukar Imluk secvang kanak-Kanak yang masm muda sepem SP1
berpakat dengan beberapa oring mereka-reka lapman palm flan
mengenakan OKT. bapa saudara sendm yang mana SP1 (a\ah Imgga\
bersama di rumahnya salami! bulan
m Sebelum ke|adian, yemasa kejadian dan selepas kejadian sehmgga
SP4 membenkan ketevangan an mahkamah‘ SP4 Imggal an Dunan
15
Tunggal Melaka. jarang bahk we Kedah alau Ferns, Vazlmnya setahun
sekau alau dua kah selahun sens rrvempunyaw hubungan yang blasa
sahaja dengan sm dan munyz sens kuring bevcakap dengan sm
Danpida Keterlngan SP4 nu sendm‘ dzpal mslmpulkan yang sm
bukanlah rapal dengan SP1 Elgmmana mungkm sm men berpaki|
dengin sm untuk mengenakzn om
25 man yang uemman. berdasarkan alasamalasan tersebul. mahkamah
berpuashah bahawa pmik pendakwaan lelah dzpal memenum e\emen-
elemen ucamz untuk pertuduhan nersenun. Juslevu ilu‘ plhak pendakwaan
¢e\ah benaya membukukan kes plrma lads terhadap OKT dx alas
perluduhan tersebul nan dsngan uemman, mallkamzh um Ielah
memanggu OKT membela dvi acas perluduhln lavsebul.
KES FEMBELAAN
29 on (elm memmh umuk memberikan keterangan bersnmpah dari
kanding saks selam on saksw lam mpanggu oxen pmak pembelazn
a-1a\amstenoKT,se|y Syuwim Binfi Mohd Snhn (so-2) nan anak OKT
Nur Fansya meme 15113) Amara mhsan kemrangan din on adalah
sepem benkul;
a. on new berkahwwn dua kali KaH pertima dengan Slli Fairuz aim.
Abdul Rahman uan kemudiannya mereka beroeral Selepns im‘ on
bevkahwin dengan so-2 sm Falruz aim: Abdul Ranman adalah mu
saudava kepzda mangsz SP1 dan paaa mm kejadlan OKT dan sm
Falruz maslh \ag1 suamw Is1ente1ap1 |1dak(Inggi\ sekali manakzla snz
merupakan lunang kspuda OKT pada ke|ika nu
b. OKT menyacakan sebelum kepauana hubungannya dengan sin
Kalsnm Bum Abdul Rahman (mu SP1) din zamlawan Bimi Abd
Rahman (mu SP2) admah sangax man. Han mi kerana menuvul om,
Inak ma SD3 membesav sekall dengan SP1 dan SP2
c Menunn om, pads bulan 9, 2m‘ mu SP1 kena (ingkap pclis sP1
l5\ah da|ang bequmpa dengannw kerana nak on bemlncang
dengan polvs umuk menyelesalkan masalah vbunya supaya hdak
dmahan -11 mag SP1 bemanu om, 1bunya dwangkap kes dadah
Menurm on Iagl, SP1 nmjnmpa dengannya sebab SP1 menganggap
17
munya dinngkap ada kai|an dengan on SP1 menganggap on Im
|auke dadah, nagx mafia! pads Ibunya unluk max dadah Apablla OKT
lidak bo\eh mennmng spy sm rasa keen nan dan selepas nu‘ ma
bank
Pad: wzklu dan (ankh kmadxan, menuru! on. dis memang ad: pergx
ke rumah levsebul bersamz dengun sm dengan menawkl macosum
yang mmnggang men on Tetapx, OKTI\dak masuk ke da\am mmuh.
Hanya SP1yang masuk ke dalzm mmah alas alasan unluk mengamun
buku-huku dan peraman sskolah sm memandangkan o><'r akin
duduk m mmahnya di Pulau Pmung Tuwan dia berada .1. Perils
sebenamy: adalah alas umszn me\aw:t anlknya (spa) yang sedzng
be\a]ar di sekmah berasrama penun di Pevhs
on jugs menaflkan luala yang herwama oven (aksibxt P6) digunakan
untuk m2nge\ap hadan SP1 aelepss SP1 mend! Sebzhknya tuna
telsebul merupikan Kain buruk yang mgunakan unmk mengelap
koluvan dan swsa makanan dx rumahnya
Ke|er2ngan nan men oxr. Sew Syazwam Bum Maud Sobn (SD~2)
pu\a menyatakan pada waklu lenebut dvi merupakan (unang kepada
xx
on than lelah mamanankan nleh on umuk memaga rumah («empac
kqadnan) lenebul memandangkin OKT Ielah Iinggal an Pulau Plnang.
Walau bagaimanzpun, snz «max Inga! sama ma SP1 ada namr ke
mmah «emebm pada lankh kemman, 21 9 2019, (elem so:
menya|aKan pads waktu nu‘ ma pelgi keua dzn liadz an mmah. sm
ma mengesahkan Iuzla vs nu mgunakan sebagai kam buruk Imluk
msngalap Iamm
g Kelevingan flan anak swung on Nu! Fansya lninie (snap
menyalakan pad: 2019 hubungan so: adalah rapa| «emu :e\epas
kejaaian, hubungan merzka memadn max raps! flan swt (e\ah block
nombor maven sua pads whalsapp so: ma lldak dapal
mengesahkan kejzdizn pada 2792u19 ken u pad: waklu mu as
sedang bersekolah an sekolah israma an Ferhs SD3 |uru| menyalakan
Iua\a P6 xm admah kam buruk umuk ma lap kakl.
DAPATAN MAHKAMAH DI AKHIR KES FEMEELAAN
ac Secava nngkas, daripada kelsrzngan bersumpah OKT, dapal
dlslmpulkan hahawa OKT menafxkan bahawa dia telah mewakuxan
pevbualan amang seksua\ |erhadap mangn, SP1 OKT selanjumya
19
menegaskan bahawa mangsa spa yang mereka—reka cema aan
membual laporan pnhs Ila: sebab svw max puas hali kevana «max
membanlu ibu SP1 um um SP2 yang lelah dllahan uleh pmax pahs alas
kes uadah on ma menyalakan Iuiia PS lersebut hukamah Kain man.
unluk mandl camp: mgunakan sebagai kam buruk unluk lap kmnran
dzn lap kakw Keuamngan on Im fllsokung uleh mennya suz den anak
sulungnya 5m.
31 D: aalam ks: ml, se\epas kes pambewaan anump, diflam membua|
kepuwsan sama ada on maapan bersalah atau man, mankamah mi
lelsh merwuk kepada kes MAT v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (19e3)1 MLJ
253 Ielah memutusxan seoeni benkul,
The canscl law Ior Mag/shares to apply rs as ronows. /I you accept the
sxplsnatmn grven by or on beha/fuftha accused, you mus! olcuurss acquit.
Eu! ll-us does not enm/e you zo cam/mt .1 you do rm! believe that axplanauon,
fame rs snu enm/ed to an acqumsl my Ialses in your mmdarussonable doubt
as to ma gm/1, as the onus oi pmvmg his gum has Ihroughoul on ma
pmaecunon. /I upon me wnme awaancs you an M m a realslals aldaubl,
the prvsecuhbn has Ianau Io sansry the onus olpmol Much has upon n.
10
3 FIG: misaIe1sebut,a\ama|mmah on adalan as No 55 Kampung Sena‘
Kurung Arm uzeou Arau. Penis Selain i|u, mm: lmggal an sun adalah
lunang on bemama Sely Syazwam Binli Mnhd Sobn SP1 lIngga\ av
nunan on selama 2 mmggu Sepamang lsmpoh SP1 Ainggal dw rumlh
on, SP1 may av b k anak sulung on yang hersebelnhan dengan Muk
OKT
4 Sepan1anglempoMeIsebu(, on man mnangnyl akin menghantar sm
ke sekmah dan member! dmlbelama kepzdz SP1 sepan]Ing(empahSP1
(ingga\ dw mmah on Sempai 2 mmggu nnggal dengan on, SP1 Isiah
nnggax dsngan mu saudavanya yang hemama Zamlawan memandzngkzn
on am pulang ke Pnlun Pmang unluk mellhul anaknya an Pwau
Fmlng.
5. Paul 21 9 2019 lebih kurang pad: pukm 9.00 pagx, semasa SP1 berada
m ruman mu saudaranya dw Kndiang, Ksaan, on Isiah daeang dengan
menaun mommkal unmk benumpa dengan SP1 kerana Ingln mambiwi
SP1 hevslarsrav di Padang aesar, Peflis Se\epas SP1 hersiap‘ on
uelah membawa SP1 kaluar aengan menaikw mammal ;en:s Yamaha 150.
32 Pm psvingkal mi, selzm nan ow sendvi, pmak pemhelaan jugs lelah
memanggil isxen om din anak sulungnya so: Selelah mendengal
kelerangan saksrsaksi pemnexaan sm den 50:, selmn flan OKT senum,
Mahkamah Im memuluskan hahawa pamuexaan OKT adalah pemhelazn
kosong (hale dame!) semala-ma(a H21 Iru kerana alas alasan-alnsan
seuerll nenkul.
I Pada haklkamya‘ OKT|1dak menaflkan pad: tankh Kejadlan, xailu pads
27 9 2019. on berada dx \empaI kefidwan Cersebul, mu dl No 55
Kampung Sena. Kurung Arm, ozaoo Ayau, Perils on cuma menaflkan
dia I2\ah me\aKukan perhualan amung seksual hrsebul temadap SP1
Pads ham |ers:bu(‘ OKT memhenkan alasan yang ma pergw ke rumahnya
bevsama dengan sm memandangkan sm mgln mengamnn peva\a|an
den huku sekolahnya Kerana OKT|2\aI1|IdaklmggaImsilu
u Kelerangan OKT udak msukong men saksmya senum, mm suz dan
sna memandangkan pada han Keji msehut, Sm din sm nada an
rumah Telapw sehahknya‘ kmerangzn swc dlsokong aleh SP2 yang
da|ang mengimbfl SP1 di rumah Iersebm se\epas xqaman Ievsehul
dxkalakm bevlaku Kelerangln sm jugs mengssahkan yang SP1 ad:
meneletonnya seleoas kqaman larsebnl berlaku
n
m Eerkenaan flengan kam Iua\a, eksmn P6 on. sue dan sm
menafikan luala Iersehul mgunakan unluk mzndl dan lap badan
Mahkamah vm herseluju dengan huiahzn plhak pendakwaan yang mana
kalzngan on an saksx-nkslnya sendiru Ievdapat perbezian mugs:
aan penggunaan mam Iersebul OKT menyalakzn |ua\a (erssbm
dlgunakun unluk mengexap slsa makanan din Susi mawsxkal Sena slsa
nunyax. sm menyllakan unluk mengerap lanlal din sue pula
menyalzkan nu lap kakl sD3 sendin mengesahkan pada IuI\a (arssbm
sendin hdak aaa kesan atau ma mmyak rmam dan mmoslkal Jnka
henanah mala we lersebul dlqunakan unluk lap Kenn mlnwak moloslkal,
pasm kesan mmyak paaa cuaxa «menu: kekal semzsa dvbawa ks
mankaman. Malan paaa gambar harang kss, xanu gamhar mala dl PSA,
5. E dan F, juga mdak menampakkan apa-apa kesan knlovan pada man.
lersebul. Api yang Vebvh permng, semasa luala P6 mu dibawa ke
mahkamah selepas 4 (shun keladxan xersemn mkacakan beriaku‘ man:
lersebul beradi dalam keadaan biasa. sempuma din ma seoamng
land:-«anda lusuh.
n biasa yang aaa pada Kain buruk
w. Berkenaan dengan hwahan pmax pembeiain bihawa pegawai
penyiasa| celan glgll umuk manghanlar kam |ua|a vs umuk manalusa Im
22
menyebahkan nada mum salnliflk unluk mengesanm keterangan
mangsa sw hsrkanaan penggunaan max: vevseum Unluk hulahan my
mahkamah memumskan wanya adalah max re\ev:n memandangkan
penudunan yang dlkamukakan lzmadap om’ adalah amang semen
f|z\ka\ menyemuh payudav: dan Kemaman mimgsa dw bawah seksy:n14
1:) Akla Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017.
3: selam nu‘ samsaks. pihak pembelaan merupakan saksl yang
berkepemlngan, yakm saksx-saksl yang mempunyaw nublmgan
kekemavgazn dengan on (men dan anak kandung om Olen mu,
mahkamah im new bevhab-haki dmam menenma keterangun marek:
nemua
34 Eerdasarkan alasin-alasan di alas‘ make mahkamah dengan ml
berpuashall dan memuluskan pmzk psndakwaan lelah benaya untuk
membulmkan keanya mewampaui kevaguan yang munasabah xemaaap
OKT. Oleh ilu‘ mahkamall mi mendapall on adalah si\ah dan msabiwan
dengan penuduhun
1:
HUKUIIIAN
35. Mahkimah mengamb a rayuan daripada peguambell OKT Gan
vayuan ha\as aanpm pmak penflakwian. Pihak pendakwaan memohon
sam hukuman yang bevat kerana inv merupaksn kssalahan yang seuus
can mellhalkan kepenlmgan awam yang mana mangsl adalah anak
saudara kepada om‘, yang n-ana uka dIliha| pada kemungan swan,
sepalutnya on sebagax bapi sauam panu memben pellindungan yang
sewaiamya apabila mangsa nuang lsmpil perganlungan bvla Ibunyalelah
dnangkap oxen pofis, namun sebahknya |e\ah benaku
35. Mankaman lurm mengambil klra rayuan darlpada OKT yang
merupakan penanggung mnggal uan mempunyai Aznggungan ksmarga
yang Mina on mempunyaw 4 nrang anak, haul perkanwinan penama
dan keduz Wa\au nagaunanapun mankarnan pedu rnenganmn ma ma
bihawa kes mi Ielah muengarsecara perblcaraan psnuh can mellhalkan
panggilan saksksaksv Mahkamah jugs mengambll kna kesenusan
kesalahan an on admah arang yang mkenali yang mempakan bapa
saudara rnangsa pada masa tersebut
37 Pan nakikacnya, on Ielah mengambll kesempalan kepada mangsa
yang masm Vagl kanak-kanak uaerumuv 14 Iahun, 5 bulan pads mm ilu)
dengan mawakukan pelhualan yang max sewajamya Iemzdap SP1 on
lelah mengambfl many dan peluang kenk: lnida uring dx vumah pada
waklu xeusnm
as Perbuatan on man mendalingkan Ivauma kepada mangu sum
hukuman yang sehmpal perlulah duanunkan kepada on agar memaa.
pengayaran kepada dmnya dan masyarakal umum
39 Eerdasarkan Vaklor-{iklar pemberalan dan pennganan‘ maka
mihkamah dengan ml men‘a|uhkan hukuman penjara 12 |ahun dan |anKh
jamh hukum an 3 kah ssbat nu hawah Seksyen 25(1) Akta Kesalahan
seksual Terhadap Kanak—kanak,OKT mpenmankan unluk menjalam
kaunselmg pemulihan selama lempch pemara flan amawan Seksyen
27m ; Akla yang sarna OKT juga dukenakan pengawisan pofis se\ama 3
tahun selelah «mac menmam hukuman penjara Hukuman Im adalah
adil, wajar dan sellmpal
2;
Benankh 9 Oklobev 2023
ivéou
Hakim
Mamunuh Slsyen Kangar
L/Hluk psndakwaan . Alia Suzl/a BIHII Chair PI
Tfmbalan Pemiakwarxys
Nsgan Ferns
Urlluk Drang Ksna Tuduh Mona Fadhly Bm Vaacab
Teruan Fadh/y Yaacab 5 Co
15
on Ielzh membawa SP1 ke kedax molaalkm an Pauh unmk beh lap:
keledav lam pergx makan dw kedan sekuav Arau
Selepas i|u, on makmmxan SP1 bahawa an mgm bihk ke rumahnya
unmk menghznmrhaw squk SP1telah mengxkut on blhk ke rumihnya
dsngan membanoeng molosikal bevsamz on Selepas sampm an mmah
on on telah bemndak menguncx pmm pagav rumah dan pintu masuk
benump rapa| |anpa mengunm Pada kelxka nu, ruman ceusenuu mask
mempunyiu orang lam kecuah on dan 5:71
Pada jam lehlh kurzng pukm 4 no many, OKT(e\ah menynruh SP1 unluk
psrgw mindi. Sekepns mandl. on mail mengarahkan SP1 umuk duduk
da\am wk on dsngan (uyuan unluk kenngkan badannya Pzda mzsa
uu, mangsa ada mernakax baju dalam‘ semardalam sen: lual: belwama
oren
Se\epas vlu‘ on Ielah masuk ke dalam bmx dan Ierus menyuruh SP1
banng an lenguh-tengah kanl dan Dada mas. yang sama, on menyunm
SP1 membuang pakawan da\am yang dlpakax Selepas nu, menurulSF1‘
on duduk an lap: ssbexan mun SP1 dan kemudxannya OKT
a
membemahu sm aupaya menganggap apa yang benzku «man
'ka,aman matam panama"
9 Kemumaannya, SP1 nampak OKT membuka semzrdan aeluar dallmnya
semim SP1 man namplk kamaluan OKT flan keadaan kemzman on
adzlah |=gang pada maaa naraebm Selena: nu, on banng m (up! SP1
OKT Ielah meramas keduadua payu aara SP1 dengin menggunakan
(angan kmnya din manyennm kemaluan sm dengan menggunakan
langan kanannya Vehvh kurang 5 mmn
10. salepaa nu‘ OKT «swan bangun dzn duduk dekat dengln Kemaluan
SF1dan msruulltkemaman SP1dengan menggunakan lidah warm. kurang
5 mmil Se|e\ah nu, on mm-Ax :11 am svw aan cuna memasukkan
kamaluannya ka dilam kemaluan SP1
11. SP1 lekah hemndlk menelak on dan membevilahu on ma nax pevgl
ke (amiss selepaa ke lindas. SP1 masuk balik ke dalam huluk unluk
mengambn pakalan Valu memzkal pakalinnya ax mang umu Pad: masa
yang sama , om’ benanya kepada SP1 sekzab zpa pakzl bank ba.-4 dzn
berxaca “bend: ml Iak slap llgi”. sm Aawnh -saya udak mahu'
12 smepa: SP1 pakm bafik ba1unyz_SP1 |erus ambll «elem bimbnnya
dan whalsapp‘ sepupunya Muhammad Fvdaus Em Zaum (SP2) unmk
mengambllnya an mmah om Lebm Kurang to mmil selepas um SP2
nmpal dz rumah on dengan menaiku mmnukm umuk mengam P1
on man membandml sebanyak RM 70 kepada SP1 nan mmli dla lump
mulul dan mak memaklumkln perkin mi kepada nrang lam
13 SP2 Kemuman telah membam 5P1 Ixaluk ke rumah max saudaranya
Da1am penalanan ke mman mak saudaranya SP1 (elah menelem
kakaknya memaklumkan psmuaoan on pidanya Kakak SP1 Aehh
mengarahkan agav SP1 pelgi ke mum lok nudaranyl av Avau Pada
esnk hannya, uauu pads 23 92015, mak saudara 5P1 telah membawa
SP1 ke aaIa1 Folis Arau unmk membual repon seperllmana Arau Repon
3572119 (ekubn F4)
14 OKTkemud1annyaleIah dflangkap flan an-mm dengln Denufluhan a1
hawah seksyen 14 (a) Akla Kesalahan-Kesahahan Seksuzl Tevhadap
Kanak-Kanak 2017
Da -an Mankarmh al AkhlrK P in
15 D1 akhv kes pendakwaan, mahkamah mi (elah mendengar dengan
cevmal ssgila Kelsrangan saksl-uksl peflflakwaan dan menexm ekshIbrI-
eksmbu yang anaukan Sekayen 113 no (I) Kumln Prusndur J-myah
(ehh memhenkzn gans panduan yang hams mpacum m akhiv kes
pendakwaan sepem henkul‘
"The fa//owvng pmcedum shallbe abssrvsdby Magmratas m summary
mats,
(I!) m mm Court finds Inst 9 pnma Iacfe case been made out agamsl
lhe accused on me orrence chalgant live Court shall can upon me
accusmm snlsron ms defence’
15 Apakah yang dnmaksudkan dengan lrasa ‘prime facr‘s' «em
dilerangkan dengan new xanpn me\aluI subssksyen (In) seksyan 113
Kanun Fmsedur Jenayah yang menevangkan amara Vam sepem benm,
‘Forms purpose Iorsubpa/sgmphs (9 and (ii). a prime lads case rs made
out against the accused when? the pmsecutian has adduced bred/bls
avrdance pluvmg each mgmmsn: of ms orvsnce wnrcn rr umelmlled or
unexpmned would warm: 5 convicnon “
17 Fran ‘puma «aw cum dsemuh oleh Mahxamah Rayuan di dalam
kes Lool Kow cm: 3. Mar v PP [2003] 1 cu. Kes Lem Kow cm: 5.
Ana! (supra) Ae\ah amuk olsh kes ax dmam kes Magundrin Molun v up
[2011] 1 cu 305 yang menyauakan man Vavn sepem benkul
'The (25! at me and owns prosecution's case is "pnma Iacre case"bassd
on a maxrmum evaluation olewdence The evidence has to be scnnfnizsd
properly am no! psmmczon/y, cursamy or supaflrcrally lfms eva/ualion
oflhe swdsncs rasu/Is m doubts in me pIosecu!mrI’s case, lhsn .3 pnma
/acre case has naz been made our The defence ougm not an be ca//ad
merely to clear or Na/v‘fy such doubts '
«:3 on le\ah an-mun unluk kesalahan dx bawah ssksyun 14 (a} Am
Kullahm-Kpsalnhan Saksual Yurlladnp Kanak-K..In.Ik 2011 Vanya
menyalakan sepem nenkm,
Amang seksual fizrkal alas kansk-kanak
14 Manamana oreng yang, oagr msksud seksual—
1-) monyanruh man:-min: hlhlgiln bndan unonng knnnk-kanlk;
(I7) msmbuarkan sessorang ksnsk-kanak menyemuh mans-mane bahagian
badan arang nu alsu bahagran badan mana-mana orang lain.
(c) msmhustkan sessorang kanak-kanak menyemuh mans-mans behagtan
bsdan kanauanak nu sendm, arm:
(:1) ms/akuksn apaapa perbuafan /am yang melibalkan Konlsk flzfkal
dengan ssseorang kanamanak zanpa pelsatubuhsn,
marakukan suaru kesalahan flan handaklah, apablla msazman, dfhukum
dsngan pemenjarsan «lama rernpon mak malsbrm dua pulull lamm aan
boleh/uga drhukum dengan mlkuman saber
19. elemen-memen yang hams dmukllkan alen plhzk
pendakwlan bag! kesalahan Im aaanan aspen: penxun
1 Mangsa adalah ssarsng kanak-kanak
2 Ssnluhan dfbual nagr maksud ssksua!
3 Tenudun mslakukan psrbualan wng me/fbatkan konlak fizrkal aengan
kansk-kanak /Iu.
Emnun Pemmn: Mangsa adnllh auonng kanak-kanak
sag. elemen penlml mangsa yang |embal meslllah seorang yang kanak-
kanak berumur biwih 15 lahun Wm adalzh sepem yang dlperumukkan m
dalnm saluyul 2 (1) Ana KnIIIhnn—KasalaIIan Snknul ‘rorhudap
Kanak-Kannk 2017 yang bevbuny epem benkun
(1; This Act may! apply to a cum wno Is under me age 0! stgntssn years
and where nus Acl relates In any amarwnnsn law, In a mu olsuch aga as
spscrfisd m such wrmsn /aw.
Ada\ah ;e\as mangsi merupakan seovang kanamxanak sevwaklu xeyaman
Sallnan sum lam mzngsa (P1) «swan dvkamukakan an mahkamzh
mangesahkan sewaklu kejadian yang dlkaukan berlaku. mangsa sm
bemmurbawah 1§l|hun Fegawal PenyIasa|. lnsp Mohd Nam Em Hamuh
(SP5) juga mengesahkan mangsa berumuv Ieum kuvang 14 tamm 5 man
semasa keyaman Wm jelas menunpnkkln bahawa mangsa ada\ah senrang
Kanak-kanak semasi kewdxan sepem yang dikehendakl an dalam seksyen 2
Ana Inl
E/mun Kudua: Santuhan dinuaz bag: maksud uksunl.
20. Human bevkenaan apa yang dxmakwdkan aengan trisa “maksod
seksual' lerkandung an aalam nuranan seksyen 14 Akla KeaaIanan-
Kesaxanan Seksual Temzdap Kanak-Kanlk 2017 yang menevannkan
anvara lam seperli benkul
| 3,412 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-37G-110-12/2021 | PLAINTIF EASTMONT SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) TAY KEONG KOK 2. ) CHONG SHEAU LING 3. ) CHUA CHOON YANGPIHAK YANG DIGARNIS1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD | TATACARA CIVIL: Pelaksanaan – Prosiding Garnisi – Sama ada wang yang dipulangkan oleh syarikat insurans kepunyaan atau milik Penghutang Penghakiman sebagai security/jaminan bagi kemudahan pinjaman dengan Garnisi Kedua – Permohonan oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman untuk menggarnis wang tersebut – Sama ada Perintah Garnisi Mutlak adalah teratur Penghutang Penghakiman – Sama ada keputusan Timbalan Pendaftar adalah betul dari segi fakya dan mengikut lunas undang-undang – Order 49. Garnishee proceedings RoC 2012 – Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Bhd mestilah membuktikan dari awal lagi bahawa wang yang dipohon untuk dipegang, dimiliki oleh Penghutang Penghakiman. | 10/11/2023 | YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b8c150a2-8d44-4535-81c7-1ce4c32c36f2&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
(DALAM BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN)
PELAKSANAAN NO.: BA-37G-110-12/2021
ANTARA
EASTMONT SDN BHD
(No. Syarikat: 112491-M) − PERAYU/PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN
DAN
1. TAY KEONG KOK
(No. K/P:670520-10-5539)
2. CHONG SHEAU LING
(No. K/P: 730505-10-5444)
3. CHUA CHOON YANG
(No. K/P: 620306-04-5357)
− RESPONDEN/PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN
DAN
1. CIMB BANK BERHAD
2. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD
− PIHAK-PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS
(DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
(BAHAGIAN PELAKSANAAN)
PERMOHONAN UNTUK PERLAKSANAAN NO: BA-37G-110-12/2021
10/11/2023 17:57:11
BA-37G-110-12/2021 Kand. 56
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
ANTARA
EASTMONT SDN BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT: 112491-M) − PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN
DAN
1. TAY KEONG KOK
(NO. K/P:670520-10-5539)
2. CHONG SHEAU LING
(NO. K/P: 730505-10-5444)
3. CHUA CHOON YANG
(NO. K/P: 620306-04-5357)
− PENGHUTANG-PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN
DAN
1. CIMB BANK BERHAD
2. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD
− PIHAK-PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Pengenalan
[1] Pada 7-7-2022, Timbalan Pendaftar, Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam
(Bahagian Pelaksanaan) [selepas ini disebut “Pn TP”] dalam prosiding
garnisi memutuskan bahawa wang sebanyak RM56,370.60 yang digarnis
dari akaun Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama digarnis dan dibayar
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman. Perintah Mutlak Garnisi bertarikh 7-7-
2022.
[2] Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama yang tidak berpuas hati dengan
keputusan Pn TP merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi iaitu seminggu selepas
keputusan Pn TP.
[3] Pada 26-1-2023, Mahkamah Tinggi ini memutuskan untuk
membenarkan rayuan Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama dan
keputusan saya yang dinyatakan dalam prosiding eReview ialah −
“Mahkamah ini telah meneliti dan mempertimbangkan afidavit,
dokumen yang diekshibitkan dan membaca hujahan bertulis dan
mendengar hujahan lisan pihak-pihak.
Isu sama ada jumlah wang sebanyak RM56,370.60 dalam akaun
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama yang disimpan dengan bank
Pihak Yang Digarnis Kedua adalah isu utama yang perlu
diputuskan.
Perayu/Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama memohon agar
Perintah Garnisi Mutlak yang diputuskan oleh Pn TP diketepikan
dan jumlah wang sebanyak RM56,370.60 tersebut tidak boleh
dilepaskan kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman. Jumlah wang
sebanyak RM56,370.60 tersebut ialah wang milik Heritage
Logistics Sdn Bhd (pihak ketiga) yang didepositkan oleh syarikat
insurans Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad ke dalam akaun
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama di Pihak Yang Digarnis
Kedua.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
Mahkamah ini mendapati perbezaan pada jumlah wang tidak
boleh menjadi faktor utama kepada keputusan Pn TP. Susur
galur mengenai jumlah wang sebanyak RM56,370.60 dan
dokumen yang diekshibitkan dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa
Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd (pihak ketiga) ialah pemilik sebenar
jumlah wang sebanyak RM56,370.60.
Mahkamah ini memutuskan –
a) untuk membenarkan rayuan ini dengan kos sebanyak
RM4,000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur) dibayar oleh
Pemiutang Penghakiman kepada Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama.
b) keputusan Timbalan Pendaftar diketepikan.
[4] Setelah mendapatkan kebenaran untuk merayu daripada
Mahkamah Rayuan pada 21 September 2023, Pemiutang Penghakiman
kini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan
Mahkamah Tinggi.
Versi fakta oleh Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman
[5] Pemiutang Penghakiman (Eastmont Sdn Bhd) memulakan
prosiding garnisi terhadap 2 bank iaitu CIMB Bank Berhad dan CIMB
Islamic Bank Berhad (selepas ini disebut “Pihak-Pihak Yang Digarnis”)
untuk menggarnis wang Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[6] Dalam afidavit Pihak-Pihak Yang Digarnis, Pihak Garnisi Kedua
mensahkan bahawa dalam akaun CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad
Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman mengandungi baki kredit
sebanyak RM83,359.77.
[7] Dalam afidavit Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman yang
diikrarkan oleh Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama, menentang
permohonan garnisi oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman mengikrarkan bahawa
wang sebanyak RM56,370.60 itu bukan wang yang dimiliki oleh
Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman maka jumlah tersebut tidak boleh
digarnis dan dibayar kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman. Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama menyatakan bahawa wang sebanyak
RM56,370.60 itu adalah milik Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd.
Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd:
[8] Dalam tahun 2021, atas permintaan Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd,
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama bersetuju untuk menjadi seorang
penjamin bagi suatu kemudahan pinjaman yang dipohon oleh Heritage
Logistics Sdn Bhd dengan Pihak Garnisi Pertama (CIMB Bank Berhad).
[9] CIMB Bank Berhad menghendaki penjamin (Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama) mendapatkan “insurance coverage” bagi
kemudahan pinjaman tersebut. Maka, Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd
membuat bayaran bagi premium insurans tersebut.
[10] Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd telah membayar premium insurans
sebanyak RM57,096.90 secara terus kepada Sun Life Malaysia Takaful
Berhad melalui cek Hong Leong Bank no. 236603.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
[11] Permohonan kemudahan pinjaman oleh Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd
ditolak oleh CIMB Bank Berhad maka dengan itu pada 24-12-2021,
sejumlah RM56,370.60 premium insurans dipulangkan semula oleh Sun
Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad melalui direct transfer ke dalam akaun
semasa Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman.
[12] Perbezaan sebanyak RM726.30 itu ialah disebabkan oleh fi
pentadbiran. Pengarah Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd telah menerangkan
perkara ini dalam suatu statutory declaration yang mengikrarkan bahawa
pemulangan wang tersebut ke akaun Penghutang-Penghutang
Penghakiman adalah milik Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd dan Penghutang-
Penghutang Penghakiman memegang wang tersebut sebagai amanah
untuk Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd.
Hujahan Pemiutang Penghakiman
[13] Pemiutang Penghakiman menghujahkan bahawa Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama dan/atau Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd gagal untuk
membuktikan bahawa wang sebanyak RM56,370.60 itu milik/kepunyaan
Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd. Maka keputusan Pn TP adalah tidak khilaf.
[14] Alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman ialah –
(a) dalam pendengaran prosiding di hadapan Pn TP pada 29-4-
2022 itu, 2 orang saksi Penghutang-Penghutang
Penghakiman iaitu Mr Tay Keong Kok/Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama dan Mr Khairroul Norsaidi bin Taib
(wakil Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd) telah memberikan
keterangan.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(b) Pn TP memutuskan bahawa keterangan saksi Penghutang-
Penghutang Penghakiman gagal membuktikan bahawa wang
yang digarnis itu milik Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd.
[15] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa tiada apa-apa alasan
penghakiman atau apa-apa dapatan fakta dan undang-undang yang
dinyatakan oleh Pn TP dalam mencapai keputusannya itu.
[16] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti hujahan peguam cara terpelajar
Pemiutang Penghakiman yang menegaskan bahawa Pn TP tidak khilaf
iaitu −
(a) tiada keterangan dokumentar joint venture agreement dan
offer letter for the loan yang dikatakan dipohon oleh Heritage
Logistics Sdn Bhd.
(b) tiada wakil Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad dipanggil untuk
membuktikan bahawa jumlah yang dipulangkan itu ialah bagi
premium insurans yang dibayar.
(c) Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama mempunyai masa lebih
daripada sebulan untuk memperoleh keterangan dokumentar
untuk menyokong penegasannya bahawa wang yang digarnis
adalah milik Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd.
(d) dengan menggunapakai seksyen 101 Evidence Act 1950,
seksyen 114 illustration (g) Evidence Act 1950 maka
keseluruhan penegasan 2 saksi Penghutang Penghakiman
Pertama adalah semata-mata suatu bare allegation dan
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Mahkamah Tinggi pada peringkat rayuan tidak perlu
mempertimbangkannya.
(e) fakta bahawa amaun yang dipulangkan semula oleh Sun Life
Malaysia Takaful Berhad sebanyak RM56,370.60 adalah
berbeza dengan jumlah bayaran Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd
kepada Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad untuk mendapatkan
kemudahan pinjaman tersebut iaitu berjumlah RM57,096.90.
(f) tiada keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama untuk membuktikan bahawa bayaran
yang dibuat oleh Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad ke akaun
bank Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama ialah bagi refund for
insurance premium.
(g) tiada keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama untuk membuktikan atau
menerangkan mengenai perbezaan dalam amaun yang
dipulangkan semula itu.
(h) keterangan Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama adalah
bercanggah dengan keterangan dokumentar di mana exhibit
D2 yang dikatakan bukti bahawa Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd
telah membayar sebanyak RM57,096.90 kepada Sun Life
Malaysia Takaful Berhad. Perbezaan jumlah ini merupakan
suatu percanggahan ketara.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(i) surat Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad yang ditanda sebagai
Exhibit D3 dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa RM56,370.60
ialah initial payment yang dibayar oleh Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama dan bukannya sebagaiman
keterangan saksi-saksi Penghutang Penghakiman bahawa
jumlah yang dibayar oleh Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd
sebanyak RM57,096.90. 25.
[17] Peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman menghujahkan
bahawa walaupun Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama ada menerangkan
mengenai perbezaan itu kerana fi pemprosesan namun menurut peguam
cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman−
“26. However Yang Arif, we submit that such allegation is
merely a bare allegation and without basis and should not be
taken into account due to the following reasons:
a. it is conflicting with Sun Life’s letter dated 20.12.2021
(“Exhibit D3”) whereby in the letter, the sum of
RM56,370.60 was stated and referred as the initial
payment made;
b. there is no deduction of processing fee is mentioned
in the said letter; and
c. the purported deduction cannot be proven by any
document.”.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
[18] Peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman memetik
keputusan dalam kes Tempil Perkakas Sdn Bhd v. Foo Sex Hong (T/A
Agrodrive Engineering) [1996] 4 MLRH 716 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi
memutuskan –
“…The simple answer to that is that it is clear law that if anything
is said or tendered through a witness which is not within the
actual knowledge of the witness, anything said or tendered would
remain inadmissible notwithstanding the omission to object by
the opposing party. The opposing party cannot be taken to have
admitted to what had been said and tendered. In this case, the
witness for the appellant had no personal knowledge of the facts
stated in his evidence and of the contents of the documents that
he tendered in support of his evidence. His evidence remains
hearsay evidence and therefore, inadmissible. In relation to the
various exhibits tendered, in the light of the denial by the
respondent it is for the appellant to establish those facts stated
in them. In this case, PW1 is not competent to testify upon them
as he had no personal knowledge of them except to have seen
them when he was appointed in 1994. The persons who were
responsible for the preparation of some of the documents and
who are in custody of some other documents from the
respondent are not available to testify in court. The learned
magistrate was therefore right in rejecting PW1’s evidence and
all the exhibits tendered (exhs P1-P37).”.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[19] Dengan menggunapakai keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi itu, peguam
cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman berhujah –
“28. We submit that it is not sufficient for the JD1 to simply
allege that such discrepancy is due to the deduction of the
processing by Sun Life as it is contradicting to the letter issued
by Sun Life since there is no deduction of processing fee was
referred or stated in the letter and the sum of RM56,370.60 was
referred as the initial payment made which again is contradicting
to the amount paid by Heritage i.e RM57,096.90.
29. Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 states that: 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.”.
[20] Peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman memetik
keputusan dalam kes Mohamad Fauzi Che Rus v. JR Joint Resources
Holdings Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLRH 441 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan
−
“It has to be borne in mind that the defendant bore the evidential
burden of proving that there were other items of costs that had
been incurred but not taken into account in the AMD costing
document. Under s 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, the evidential
burden of a fact in issue lies with the party seeking to convince
the court of the existence of that fact.”.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
[21] Peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman menegaskan
bahawa Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama hendaklah memanggil
pembuat surat iaitu wakil dari Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad untuk
menerangkan mengenai percanggahan fakta sebagaimana yang
ditegaskan oleh Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama.
[22] Menurut peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman,
kegagalan Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama memanggil wakil dari Sun
Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad maka surat tersebut tidak terjumlah kepada
bukti bahawa pemulangan bayaran oleh Sun Life Malaysia Takaful
Berhad adalah sebenarnya bagi pembayaran premium insurans oleh
Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd kerana amaunnya dalah sangat berbeza.”.
[23] Selanjutnya, peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman
menegaskan bahawa terdapat kekeliruan/keraguan dalam keterangan
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama mengenai insurans yang dibeli oleh
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama daripada Sun Life Malaysia Takaful
Berhad ialah suatu personal insurance for income protection. (Refer:
Exhibit D4, page 9). Maka, peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang
Penghakiman berhujah –
“34. We submit that it is absurd for the JD1 to allege that it is a
mandatory condition that a guarantor shall purchase insurance
for his own protection so that a third-party company can obtain a
loan (ref: exhibit D3).
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
35. We humbly submit that the questions that need to be asked
and considered in this matter are:
a. If Heritage is not a company controlled byJD1, why is
Heritage willing to make a payment for JD1 to buy
insurance for his own protection;
b. If the insurance premium payment was made by
Heritage, why was the refund be credited to JD1’s
account instead of Heritage’s account considering that
according to D3, JD1 has the option to choose whether
the return of the money is to be made via cheque or via
direct credit.
36. We submit that there are many doubts in the evidence given
by JD1. Therefore, JD1’s testimony that the sum of RM56,370.60
belongs to Heritage cannot be given any weight since at all material
time, there is no proof to prove that there is a loan applied by
Heritage was tendered to the court, on the other hand, what the JD1
has tendered to the court is the proof to prove that JD1 has made
an application to purchase income protection insurance from Sun
Life and the JD1 has failed to prove the link between the payment
made by Heritage to Sun Life and JD1’s application to purchase
income protection insurance.”.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
[24] Peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang Penghakiman menghujahkan
bahawa keterangan Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama perlu
dipertimbangkan dengan berhati-hati kerana –
“37. We humbly submit that the JC’s claim against JD1 in the
original High Court is under the ground that JD1 and the other
Defendants have jointly and/or severally conducted the business
of the Mega Planner company with the intention to defraud the
JC by winding up Mega Planner company through Dakota to
avoid payment of debts due to the JC by violating Section 540 of
the Companies Act 2016 and/or through the tort of fraud and/or
conspiracy.
38. We would like to highlight that JD1 and the other
Defendants are not directors and/or shareholders in the two
companies at that time (i.e. Mega Planner and Dakota),
However, JC has succeeded in proving that JD1 and the other
Defendants are “ultimate controller” for the Dakota and Mega
Planner companies at that time.
39. We submit that during the cross examination of the 2nd
witness, Mr. Khairol, who is an employee in the operations
department, he has testified that although he is employed by
Heritage, he is also obliged to work for another company, namely
Primont.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
40. Furthermore, Mr. Khairol also testified that JD1 is a director
of Primont and when Mr. Khairol was asked whether Heritage
company and Primont are related companies (“related
companies”), the answer given by Mr. Khairol is “tidak pasti” (in
verbatim).
41. With this, we submit that although JD1 is not a director
and/or shareholder of Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd on record, this
does not mean that JD1 is not the ultimate controller and/or has
no connection with Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd.
42. Therefore, we submit that the testimony given by JD1 has
to be disregarded and/or to be considered by this Honorable
Court with caution considering that his testimony that the money
in his bank account is money belonging to Heritage Logistics Sdn
Bhd cannot be supported with any evidence as submitted
above.”.
Undang-Undang
[25] Peruntukan yang dirujuk dalam Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012−
Order 49. Garnishee proceedings
(1) Where a person (who is referred to as “the judgment creditor”
in this Order) has obtained a judgment or order for the payment of
money by some other person (who is referred to as “the judgment
debtor” in this Order), not being a judgment or order for the payment
of money into Court, and any other person within the jurisdiction
(who is referred to as “the garnishee” in this Order), is indebted to
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
the judgment debtor, the Court may, subject to the provisions of this
Order and of any written law, order the garnishee to pay the
judgment creditor the amount of any debt due or accruing due to the
judgment debtor from the garnishee, or so much thereof as is
sufficient to satisfy that judgment or order and the costs of the
garnishee proceedings.
(2) An order in Form 97 under this rule shall in the first instance
be an order to show cause, specifying the time and place for further
consideration of the matter, and in the meantime attaching such
debt as mentioned in paragraph (1), or so much thereof as may be
specified in the order, to answer the judgment or order mentioned in
that paragraph and the costs of the garnishee proceedings.
(3) In this Order, “any debt due or accruing due” includes a current
or deposit account with a bank or other financial institution, whether
or not the deposit has matured and notwithstanding any restriction
as to the mode of withdrawal.
[26] Mekanisma untuk pemiutang penghakiman memperoleh hasil yang
perlu dibayar oleh penghutang penghakiman ialah melalui prosiding
garnisi.
[27] Apabila Perintah Mutlak Garnisi telah diperoleh oleh pemiutang
Penghakiman dan berlaku pula pertikaian mengenai Perintah oleh
penghutang penghakiman maka persoalan yang perlu diptentukan dan
diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ialah sama ada pemiutang penghakiman
boleh menggarnis wang dari akaun penghutang penghakiman di Pihak
Yang Digarnis.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
[28] Dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Perayu iaitu Penghutang
Penghakiman membantah wang dari akaunnya di CIMB Islamic Bank
digarnis sebanyak RM56,370.60 dan dibayar kepada Pemiutang
Penghakiman.
[29] Prinsip undang-undang dalam kes Malaysian International
Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Bhd [2016] 2 CLJ 717,
Federal Court, Putrajaya (Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ, Suriyadi Halim
Omar FCJ, Hasan Lah FCJ, Azahar Mohamed FCJ & Zaharah Ibrahim
FCJ), oleh Suriyadi Halim Omar HMP (keputusan majoriti) memutuskan −
“(2) Untuk memberikan hak kepada garnishor memasukkan
penghakiman terhadap garnishee, garnishor mestilah
membuktikan dari awal lagi bahawa wang yang dipohon untuk
dipegang, dimiliki oleh JD. Meneliti surat tolak selesai, amat jelas
bahawa penyerahakkan akaun FD oleh JD kepada responden
dibuat bagi jumlah yang besar sebagai cagaran kemudahan.
Responden berhak menyekat akaun FD dan dibenarkan secara
kontraktual untuk menjalankan hak tolak selesai sekiranya JD
gagal menjaga semua akaunnya dengan teratur. Responden
telah mendapat hak berekuiti terlebih dahulu sebelum
penyerahakkan perintah garnisan dan dengan itu tidak boleh
dinafikan hak undangundang dan kontraktual untuk menolak
selesai dan menggunakan wang dalam akaun FD.”.
Selanjutnya, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan −
[37] In order to obtain a garnishment order nisi or an order
absolute, the court must be convinced that the debt of the
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
garnishee to the JD must relate to any debt due or accruing due
to the judgment debtor.”.
[30] Dalam rayuan atas keputusan Pn TP yang dibentangkan dihadapan
Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa penegasan dan/atau
dakwaan bahawa wang yang digarnis berjumlah RM56,370.60 hendaklah
dibayar oleh CIMB Islamic Bank kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman kerana
wang tersebut milik Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman.
[31] Memandangkan Mahkamah ini tidak mempunyai apa-apa alasan
dapatan Pn TP, Mahkamah ini hanya dapat meneliti afidavit dan dokumen
serta hujahan bertulis dan hujahan lisan pihak-pihak sahaja.
[32] Peguam cara terpelajar Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman
telah mengekshibitkan dokumen yang berikut melalui 2 saksi mereka
semasa pendengaran prosiding garnisi di hadapan Pn TP:
(a) D1 – CIMB Islamic Bank Account Statement (atas nama Tay
Keong Kok/Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama).
(b) D2 – Hong Leong Bank cheque (yang dikeluarkan oleh
Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd).
(c) D3 – Surat daripada Sun Life Malaysia kepada Tay Keong
Kok/Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama untuk memulangkan
semula premium insurans.
(d) D4 – Sun Life Malaysia “Customer Fact Find Form”.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
(e) D5 – Hong Leong Bank account Statement (atas nama
Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd).
(f) D6 – Surat daripada Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd yang
melantik Mr. Khairroul Norsaidi bin Taib sebagai wakil.
(g) D7 – carian SSM mengenai Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd.
Kekhilafan Pn TP yang dinyatakan oleh Penghutang Penghakiman
Pertama
[33] Peguam cara terpelajar Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman
menyenaraikan kekhilafan keputusan Pn TP seperti yang berikut:
(a) Firstly, Mr. Tay Keong Kok (1st Judgment Debtor) had testified
on why the amounts in his CIMB Islamic Bank (Exh. D-1) and
Hong Leong Bank cheque (Exh. D-2) were different. His
evidence is that it was because Sun Life Malaysia , when
making the refund, had made a deduction towards
administrative charges from the premium sum paid. This
evidence of Mr. Tay Keong Kok was not directly challenge by
the Judgment Creditor.
(b) Secondly, Mr. Tay Keong Kok had also testified that he does
not have any insurance policy with Sun Life Malaysia and thus
it is clear that there was only one policy and that is the policy
in the subject matter of the hearing.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
(c) Lastly, this argument was not specifically made before the
learned Registrar, but it neverthe less obvious from the
evidence before the Court. We urge this Court to scrutinize the
reverse side of Hong Leong Bank cheque in Exh. D-2 (this can
be seen from Afidavit Penghutang Penghakiman/Enclosure
10, the insured’s full name was written “Tay Keong Kok” (i.e.
the 1st Judgment Debtor) with his NRIC No., for which the
payment was made by Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd to sun Life
Malaysia. This again strengthen and prove the 1st Judgment
Debtor’s stance that Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd has paid for
the insurance policy under his name for the guarantee. Thus,
the refund made by Sun Life Malaysia into the 1st Judgment
Debtor’s account is money belonging to Heritage Logistics
Sdn Bhd.
[34] Dalam pendengaran rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah Tinggi ini,
peguam cara terpelajar Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman
menegaskan bahawa “this appeal is by way of rehearing as if it is being
heard for the first tme”. Maka, bukti mengenai muka surat sebelah pada
Hong Leong Bank cheque (Exh. D-2) boleh dipertimbangkan oleh
Mahkamah Tinggi tanpa apa-apa halangan. Peguam cara terpelajar
Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman memetik keputusan Y.A. Abdul
Kadir Sulaiman, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur dalam kes Kawalan
Sempurna Sdn Bhd v. Hi-Tech Electrical Sdn Bhd [1996] MLJU 120.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
Dapatan Mahkamah
[35] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti ekshibit D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, dan
D-7 dan mendapati bahawa kandungan dalam ekshibit tersebut adalah
sebagaimana dokumen.
[36] Berdasarkan hujahan bertulis peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang
Penghakiman bertarikh 19-8-2022 dan 29-12-2022, Mahkamah ini
mendapati bahawa Pemiutang Penghakiman menegaskan bahawa
dapatan Pn TP tidak boleh diganggu dan hendaklah dikekalkan kerana
alegasi Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama hanyalah “bare allegations
that are not supported by any documentary evidence”; keterangan Mr. Tay
Keong Kok bercanggah dengan keterangan dokumentar; isu sama ada
hanya ada satu sahaja insurance policy; dan sama ada nama Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama ditulis pada muka surat sebelah cek Hong Leong
Bank tidak boleh dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi. Keputusan Pn
TP adalah betul.
[37] Ekshibit D-2 iaitu cek Hong Leong Bank bertarikh 21-4-2021 untuk
dibayar kepada Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad menyatakan jumlah
RM57,096.90 dan nama Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd tertera pada cek,
Ekshibit D-5 iaitu Current Account Statement milik Heritage Logistics Sdn
Bhd bertarikh 8-5-2021 mengandungi penyata bahawa pada 22-4-2021
sejumlah RM57,096.90 sebagai “Inclearing Cheque”, dan Ekshibit D-3
iaitu surat Sun Life Malaysia bertarikh 20-12-2021 kepada “Person
Covered: Tay Keong Kok” menyatakan “refund of the initial payment of
RM56,370.60”.
Perbezaan bagi jumlah itu ialah RM726.30.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
[38] Perbezaan bagi jumlah itu iaitu RM726.30 telah diterangkan oleh
saksi Penghutang Penghakiman bahawa ianya adalah processing fee.
[39] Semata-mata penegasan Pemiutang Penghakiman bahawa wujud
percanggahan dan/atau ketidaksamaan jumlah sebagai kegagalan
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama untuk menentang permohonan
garnisi adalah suatu yang dangkal.
Mahkamah ini berpendapat adalah munasabah bahawa RM726.30 itu
sebagai processing fee.
[40] Hujahan peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang penghakiman bahawa
keterangan saksi Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama sebagai
bercanggah dengan keterangan dokumentar, adverse inference yang
dibangkitkan dan keraguan keterangan Penghutang Penghakiman
Pertama namun adalah suatu yang pasti tiada apa-apa keterangan
daripada Pemiutang Penghakiman untuk memperoleh jumlah yang
digarnis sebanyak RM56,370.60.
[41] Beban pembuktian terletak di bahu Pemiutang Penghakiman untuk
menyatakan bahawa Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama mempunyai
polisi insurans lain/lagi satu kerana perbezaaan ketara pada jumlah
“refund” tersebut.
[42] Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Malaysian
International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Bhd (supra)
yang menyatakan prinsip undang-undang bahawa “Untuk memberikan
hak kepada garnishor memasukkan penghakiman terhadap garnishee,
garnishor mestilah membuktikan dari awal lagi bahawa wang yang
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
dipohon untuk dipegang, dimiliki oleh JD.”, dengan nyata terpakai dalam
pertikaian prosiding garnisi di hadapan Pn TP.
[43] Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa adalah jelas bahawa isu fakta
yang dibangkitkan oleh Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama bahawa
wang yang dipohon untuk digarnis itu bukan dipegang dan dimiliki oleh
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama tetapi adalah milik Heritage Logistics
Sdn Bhd.
[44] Saksi yang mewakili Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd telah memberikan
keterangan dan hujahan peguam cara terpelajar Pemiutang
Penghakiman bahawa kegagalan untuk memanggil saksi yang mewakili
Sun Life Malaysia tidak menjadikan bantahan Penghutang Penghakiman
tidak berasas. Sun Life Malaysia sebagai pihak pembayar telah
memulangkan semula wang/insurance premium yang dibayar oleh
Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd ke akaun Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama
yang menjadi penjamin.
[45] Saya mendapati bahawa berlaku ketidakadilan kepada Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama kerana Pemiutang Penghakiman mendapat hasil
tuaian dari akaun yang digarnis milik Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama
yang menyimpan wang/insurance premium yang dibayar untuk Heritage
Logistics Sdn Bhd.
Campur tangan dan gangguan Mahkamah pada peringkat rayuan
[46] Prinsip undang-undang mengenai appellate intervention only
justified that on the available evidence, that the Deputy Registrar is erred
(rujuk kes Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v. Plenitude Holdings
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 CLJ 146).
[47] Dua ujian yang dikenal pasti perlu dipenuhi bagi tujuan appellate
intervention adalah plainly wrong test and insufficient judicial
appreciation of evidence test (rujuk kes Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck
Seng & Ors v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97 at 98-99).
[48] Dalam kes Ong Leong Ciou & Anor v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd &
Ors And Another Appeal [2019] 3 MLRA 322 at 329, Mahkamah
Rayuan memutuskan bahawa –
“[125] We are mindful of the limited role of the appellate
court in relation to the findings of facts made by the court
of first instance. The general principle is that the
conclusion of a trial judge is a finding of fact on the oral
evidence based on the demeanour and credibility of the
witness before him or her. Generally, such finding ought not
be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it
is plainly wrong. It would not be sufficient to warrant an
appellate interference merely because the appellate court
entertains doubt whether such finding is right.”.
[49] Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng,
Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased &
Anor [2020] 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa
–
“... an appellate Court should not interfere with factual
findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
decision of the trial Judge was plainly wrong or one that no
reasonable Judge could have reached. If it is not, the fact
that the appellate Court may have reached a different
conclusion on the facts, is irrelevant.”.
[50] Dalam prosiding pendengaran semula ini, prinsip undang-undang
ialah Mahkamah ini perlu memastikan sama ada Pn TP telah khilaf dari
segi fakta dan undang-undang dalam prosiding garnisi apabila
memutuskan bahawa CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad sebagai Pihak Yang
Digarnis Kedua hendaklah membayar kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman
tersebut jumlah sebanyak RM56,370.60 sebagai hutang yang kena
dibayar oleh Pihak Yang Digarnis Kedua terhadap Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama kepada Pemiutang Penghakiman
[51] Mahkamah ini merumuskan bahawa alasan “senyap” Pn TP
selepas meneliti kertas kausa di hadapannya bahawa Penghutang
Penghakiman Pertama gagal mengakaskan keterangan Pemiutang
Penghakiman adalah khilaf dan tidak mengikut lunas undang-undang.
[52] Fakta yang dibangkitkan oleh Penghutang Penghakiman bahawa
kemudahan pinjaman berjumlah jutaan ringgit yang dipohon oleh Heritage
Logistics Sdn Bhd menghendaki keperluan menyediakan
penjamin/guarantor. Mr Tay Keong Kok adalah penjamin dan premium
insurans disediakan/dibayar oleh Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd.
[53] Mahkamah ini juga telah meneliti afidavit jawapan Pihak-Pihak
Yang Digarnis iaitu afidavit yang diikrarkan oleh Pn Tan Kok Huey, Naib
Presiden di Bahagian Pengawasan Operasi, Pengurusan Cawangan bagi
Pihak-Pihak Yang Digarnis dan Mahkamah mendapati bahawa
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
keterangan mengenai pemulangan wang bagi perlindungan Takaful
Penghutang Penghakiman ke dalam akaun Penghutang Penghakiman
dengan Garnisi Kedua iaitu orang yang diinsuranskan.
[54] Keterangan afidavit CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad yang menyebut –
• “orang yang diinsuranskan” adalah jelas boleh dirujuk kepada
Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama iaitu Mr. Tay Keong Kok.
• cek berjumlah sejumlah RM57,096.90 tersebut telah
dikeluarkan oleh syarikat yang dikenali sebagai Heritage
Logistics Sdn Bhd.
• sama ada wang tersebut adalah milik syarikat yang dikenali
sebagai Heritage Logistics Sdn Bhd atau tidak, Pihak Garnisi
Kedua menyatakan bahawa pada hakikatnya, pemulangan
wang bagi perlindungan Takaful daripada Sun Life Malaysia
tersebut adalah dibayar ke dalam akaun Penghutang
Penghakiman melalui akaun Penghutang Penghakiman
dengan Garnisi kedua selaku orang yang diinsuranskan bagi
perlindungan Takaful tersebut.
• pada setiap masa material, wang berjumlah RM56,370.60
tersebut telah dipulangkan oleh Sun Life Malaysia di dalam
akaun Penghutang Penghakiman dengan Garnisi Kedua
berdasarkan surat bertarikh 20-12-2021 daripada Sun Life
Malaysia tersebut.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
• Pihak Garnisi Kedua hanyaklah satu institusi kewangan yang
bertindak menurut arahan Sun Life Malaysia untuk
pemulangan wang perlindungan Takaful tersebut sahaja.
[55] Pengamatan Mahkamah ke atas afidavit Pihak Yang Digarnis
Kedua (CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad) mempunyai fakta yang serupa
dengan apa yang dinyatakan dalam keterangan lisan, keterangan
dokumentar dan hujahan bertulis serta lisan Penghutang Penghakiman
Pertama. Ketiadaan persetujuan, ketiadaan pengakuan dan/atau
ketiadaan pengetahuan Pihak Yang Digarnis Kedua mengenai
kepunyaan dan milikan siapa wang sebanyak RM56,370.60 tersebut yang
telah dipulangkan oleh Sun Life Malaysia di dalam akaun Penghutang
Penghakiman dengan Garnisi Kedua adalah langsung tidak menjejaskan
peluang Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama yang menentang
permohonan garnisi oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman.
[56] Adakah Pn TP mengambil kira keterangan afidafit Pihak yang
Digarnis Kedua dalam mencapai dapatan mengenai fakta dan seterusnya
merujuk nas undang-undang kes Mahkamah Persekutuan adalah suatu
misteri.
Kesimpulan
[57] Berdasarkan alasan yang saya nyatakan di atas, penghakiman
saya memutuskan bahawa keputusan Pn TP adalah khilaf dan tidak
menurut lunas undang-undang. Oleh yang demikian, rayuan
Perayu/Penghutang Penghakiman Pertama dibenarkan dengan kos.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
[58] Pada peringkat rayuan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, saya telah
menjalankan appellate role. Oleh itu Mahkamah ini would slow to interfere
with findings of facts. The findings and interpretation of the law by the
learned Deputy Regisrar are incorrect.
Bertarikh: 10 November 2023.
RoziBainon
( ROZI BINTI BAINON )
Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman
Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam NCvC12
Peguam cara:
Bagi pihak Perayu/Pemiutang Penghakiman:
Eunice Kwong Sook Wen
Tetuan Ricky Tan & Co., Kuala Lumpur.
Bagi pihak Responden/Penghutang-Penghutang Penghakiman:
Moses @ Moses Pillai A/L R Susayan
Tetuan Raja Badrol, Ramli & Azizi, Petaling Jaya.
Bagi Pihak-Pihak Yang Digarnis:
Tengku Nazihah binti Tengku Nawawi
Tetuan Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis, Kuala Lumpur.
S/N olDBuESNNUWBxxzkwyw28g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 39,713 | Tika 2.6.0 |
NA-22NCvC-24-04/2021 | PLAINTIF SELVARAJU A/L SITHAMPARAM DEFENDAN KANTHIMATHI A/P SITAMBARAM | Tuntutan ini melibatkan satu persengketaan diantara Plaintif dan Defendan yang merupakan adik dan kakak kandung mengenai pemilikan satu hartanah yang dipegang di bawah GM 416 Lot 995 Mukim Serting Ilir Daerah Jempol, Negeri Sembilan (hartanah tersebut) di mana, Plaintif mendakwa bahawa hartanah tersebut dipegang oleh Defendan sebagai pemegang amanah bagi pihaknya. | 10/11/2023 | YA Puan Wan Fadhilah Nor Wan Idris | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7ac47468-6c76-4ac0-a16e-7c161da7f105&Inline=true |
10/11/2023 10:38:05
NA-22NCvC-24-04/2021 Kand. 37
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N aHTEenZswEqhbnwWHafxBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
m\—22Ncvc—2¢—o¢/2021 Kand. 37
12/11/2224 ,2»; cs
DALAM MANKAMAN IINGGI IIIALAYA DI sznzmam
mum nzcsm ssunauum DARUL xuusus
EUAMAN N0 : NA-nucvc-2444/2021
ANTARA
SELVARAJU AIL SIYHAMPARAM .. yuuunr
mu
KAMTHIMAYHI A/P smuusnnmn ...n:r:un/«N
ALASAM PENGHAKIMAN
PEMGENALAN
1. Yumman mu mallbalkan um persengkelaan dnanlara Flamlfl dan
Deisndan yang mempakan adak dan kakak kandung mmgenaw vemllvkan
sin: hananah yang dlpegang ay bawah GM Ma Lm 995 Mukim Semng nu
Daerah Jempoly Negen Sambflan (hananzh Ievsehm) a. mans. vnamm
maudakwz hzhawa harunah lavsshut dlnegang den Defandan sanagal
nemagang amanah bagx pihaknya
man KE5 pumnr
2 Plamm adalah mempakan sank kandung kepzda Delenaan flan
uevenaan marupakan kakak kandung kepadz Plamw pm ssknlanihun
1997-1996, Flalnm |el.ah mmaklumkan a\eh Nallxah an Ramisamy «sum
yang mga saudaranya ma»; \erdznar salu harlanah yang bemadapzn
dengan Ianannya (Nalllah) untuk max dangan hargn RMA5‘l)l)U. Permhk
hananah zerseuun nemama Hanna Smgh mquua; Plamhl lam:
menymakan minzmya unluk mcmbali hananah lersehul SP2
kamumannya memhawa Flamlfl beriumpz dengan Haium unluk
bevbincang mengenzw pemnenan hlnanzh Iarsabu|,
3. Manurul Plamm, pnfla ms: nu, neuau seaang mengalamv
pavgxflakan mmah langga dnngan islannya Mas zuasan msebul, Pram:
carparsa memiapalksn banluan kakaknya lmlu navanaan unluk
mandanarxan hananah (ernbut atas nama Defendsn
4 Tmnsaksw pm bah hananah lsrsehul flllaksanzkan Dada
Muazunu Plamhf mamhual pembayaran secara umzl sehanyzk
RM45.nun kupada Hanna dalam kehadlran swz. Adalah memadl
dzkwaan mam: bahawa sagaxa petbmcengan‘ anlana behzu dzn Hagura
mengenm lmnsaksi iual nan hananah Iarsebut mm dmzdm can
a.saxs.uan aluh SP2
5 Unwk melllldungl kepermngannya ubagav pembeh sebenal
hananah Isrwbul. Plainm dan Ham Smgh man menandztangam salu
Sura| Fenanman Perseluwan Psmualsn Hana (sum: Pl) ynng
menuniukkan nama P\amhI sebagaw psmbefi nananah Iersebui pads
masa nu dan past’ uaveman yang mamaqang hananah (erssbul bual
samanlava wakm sahegm nomlm bag: plhak Plamhl
s. mamm se|eNsnyu menyalakan nanawa am: yang dlgunakan Immk
pembayavan hananan lsrsebm lersebul Adalah hasAI dlnpadz peluualan
hananahnya yang bemamzl Na A56, Tamar! sazeme, 72mm, Bahnu
as Adilah memadl dakwaan Delenaan Bahama ketsvangan spz
adihh bersumberkan kenyaiaan Plamm Dengan an ‘inn nammzn
menyanakan bahawa kahrangan spz max boleh dlbanma din hendaklah
unouk mas z\asan ranyz adahan kzlerungan yang bempa kz|a dengav
(hears!)/1
40, Mervslm keiuarugan spz, mahkamnh msndapali bahawa belnau
auavan saudara kapzflz Plamuldan Deaenaan Perkara mi (idak Vangsnmg
dlcabar o\eh Delendzn sn=2 jug: pemah mamxlikl hananah yang |sr1e1ak
bamadznan dangan hanannn Hniura Apibila msndzpal lahu Hams
Angin menmax nananahnya. s»=2 Isiah memaklumkan mamm mengsnaw
perkara ml flan Pram: lerus menyulakan mlnzmya unluk membell
hananan |ersebu| Severusnyl‘ SP2 menyztakan bahzwa bellau man
mqak aleh Plmnm unluk menemamnya beljumpa dengan um;
41 SP2 Ielah menyaukan hal 14 iuga ada hevsama semasa Plamlfl
memhayar kapafli Haiura Wang lunai segumlah Rmspuu |ersebuI
Eagalnunnpun. SP2 wax canal mempasmkan szma ada wang lavssbm
rmlwk Plamlll avaunun Plamlrf hanya membayzr hag: pmk Defends"
Eellau hanya menyakslkan Plalnlfl membayzr mm lersahul kepadn
Halur-n
42, Dalam kenayangannya, spz jugs menyalakan bahawa lunn hadw
bersama dan mehhal Plavmfi den Hawra meninflavangznl Surat
Periamlan Persamguan Penjualan Harm (P11. Eeliau dengan (euas telap
mempeflahan kenyatann um ssmasa amen was me?! pauuam Delendan
5P2 wga menaflkan hahawn dokumen Pl ada\ah dokumen yang dneka
43 Salem: manenu k-Isringawkelzrangan SP2 a: man Mahkaman
mendapan hnhuwa aakwian Dafundan yang kelemngan spz adalah
berupa kstemngan ma dengiv dan hemumberkan Kenyalsan Puainm
zda\ah max mus, Mahkamah rnandapnll bnhawa nanarangan—
Kelsfangan ynng mkenwkukan hsvkenaan dengnn parnnan spa rehagaw
p. ak yang mempamanalnan mamm kepada Hawra lidak punan mcana:
nlan nlhak Devendan Defandan juga max pemnh pada bila-odz
masa memtabarksnynlaan P\am|Wnan s»=2 nanawa swz auaxan szudarz
mereka
44 Sebagm wan kepada Ha.ura dan sanders kepada P\amm, dzn
sebagai pihik yang rnengesymkan penpualun (anah Iersebut kepada
mnm, aaaxan sasualu yang munasabah un|uk P\amu1 mangank spz
menemamnya unmk perm bemrusan dengan nayma belkanan Dembellan
hananah umanm.
45 Mahkamah iugz rnengamul maklum bzham SP2 Ie\ah
membenkan kaiavangannya mbawah sumpan dan keflemngnnnya wga
(slah u-up samasa dlpenngkal psmeflknan balzs Mahkameh mendapali
bahiwa 572 hdzk qnyuh flan masm mampu member: kelevangan yang
konsislan walzupun |e\ah mm: ba\as aangan ksncang aleh peguim
Delendan.
45. men an Mahkamah mendapali hzhawa kelamngan yang umenkan
aleh SP2 mengonaw pamauapamara aw aus adalah merupakzn
nemangun dlpamlelu ulah svz sscara langsung daripada keiaman
tersebul din bukan katsrzngan yang duerlma melalui Plainhf.
47 Mahkamah merwuk kepada Sekswn «saw (a) ma Kelerangan
1950 mg oarbunyl -.
(1; “Oral evvrlence mu m all cases be ma, that rs m say:
mm It refers m a my mm man: be seen, yr must be [He
ewaem ofa witness -ma says 719 saw 1:. -
48. Eudasarkan pemnumlukan wansbul, Mahkamah rnemumskan
balmwa kmerangan sr=2 Idalah kmmangzn png telan mpemlemnya
sscalu langsung dam man dmsnrua sebagal keurangan unmk
menyuknng penyillln dan tumulan Flamm
49 Wulau bagaimanapun. Mahkamah mengammn kelerangan swz
dengan bsrwaspzdz dzn manerimznya semkul memhukhlun bahavwa
mam: adahh pmak yang man bequmpa dengan Hawra un|uk
membmcangkan menganav lransalsl pemhslmn hnrlanah msebm aan
ma pmak yang |e4ah memhayzr segumlah RM45‘U00 kspada Haiuvi.
Kslerarvgan 592 Anya manurqukkan hanawa Fla‘ m dun Huiuri |eIah
menandalangl Surat perjanuzn P1
so. Mallkamah manyedzn hzhawa pengulahuan swz msngenal wang
RM45,DOD hanyalzh sslakal hehau melIhn| Plainm msmbayar Wang
lersehm kanada Hzwm Malah, samasa mm: ba\as olah peguarn
Delendan, SP2 mengakul hahawa bellau ndak mempun ' pengetahuan
sigma aria wang karsebul aaavan m-nx Plalnm zlaupun Plamtil mambayar
Wang lersebul bngx pmak Devennan
51. Selarusnya. Mahkamah memjuk keuada sznu lag: kanerangan yang
aibam oleh Plainm umuk menyokong lun|ulannya wailu Penaniian PI is
kandungan peqanjlan tetsehm adnlah sebagaimana blnkul .-
u
N awrznnzswzqntmwwualxan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
“Bahawa pada arm Jslvuan 2000 pm Ivan‘ rm saya bemama
Hq/Ills singn A/L suums swan NO K/P J311a§411—512.7
ADALAH wganegm Malaysia yang beralamal kedrsmarl
Nu 955, Jalan Rumpm, moo emu‘ Nvgsn Ssmmlan. Says
membual Sum! Perxelu/uen Belsama Psnfus/an Hana mr edalah
karma saw rs/an men/Mal naflallah mm: dibawah s M 415 Lot
995 Mukvm Semng III], Dsevah Jsmpo/, Negan Sembnian yang
bellumpal lokasrnyz dl RTF Mahsan /I derlgan kelussan 1298
Hektal Saya lelan msnm: larval! lorssbut kepada seorsny
Psmbe/I ram: SELVARAJL/A/L S/THAMPARAM N0 620408-05-
sm dengan halgfl xsbanyak mw5,aoo.aa {Empal mm mm
Ribu SaHa[a) flan Wang ssbanyak nu (elm mbayarkepada say:
olelv belteu senrlrn
Bahawa malas psrssrvjuarv Prhak Pembell maka Plllsk Fembelt
berseluju my somsnraru mkm unmk msrlggunakan nama
fimkaknya yang Dsmsma KANTH/MATH! A/P SITHAMBARAM
K/P 590121-055474 sebaga: mama Pemhsh mg, pmak bshau
mm nann (arsebul Perssru/uan Bersama Psnmalan Nana rm
mbualantara kadusdua wan pvhak den drtnndatllvgsm sepsm
balvkur
Penlusl.
Nnmra smgn A/L swans Smgh
Pembeh‘ v
Sam/aIiiuA/L Snnamnsren
52 mupnu dnnpada penaruwan an 2135 maxan Sswavaw A/L
Sllhamharam iebagax pemheh |e\ah membeh hananah lsrsabumaripana
N awrznnzswzqntmwwualxan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
Hamra Smgh AIL Sulnane Singh, pemuav. dengnn mrga RMASDOB
Penarmzn ml mgn menyaukan hahzwa pemhell Ianlu Selvaraju bsrsmuw
mm semenlara waklu unm mlngqunakan nzma kakaknyn Kanlhlmaltu
AIP Sllnambamn yabaga: name pembefi hag: pmxnya umuk Nana
Kersebul
53. Temla peljanuan ma; rnanumukkan hahnwa P\amM adalah
plhzk yang hlah mambufl pembayaran unluk hananah lalsabm.
Defendan my: memegang hznanah sehagzfl pomwk bavdalvar bag!
pmak Plamln unluk samenlara waklu sahzun
54 Baguvmanapun, pihak Delendan mempnmkmkan keesahan
dokumsn aha: alaszn-alaszn benkm ».
i P\amIil gagzl unluk mambaw: Haiura, saorang Wag:
psnandalangzn da\am dakumsn lerwbul hagw mengesahkan
katarzngan W.
n. Memandangkan Delsndan adalah pmzk yang Ierhbal dnlnm
p-erjani|anInI.sapalLm1ya nemaan [Inga duadwkan sa|u plhak dan
|uN( menunmkan Lanflalanginnya da\arn peuaruwan W
Kenzdaan «anuacangan Deiendan dalam peljarmisn m.
manunjukkan hahawa pedirman mi hdak wumd den hunya salu
rakaan Malah‘ Detendan mgz menafikan mempunyaw
pengetahunn mengenai psrianjian v .
55 Semua pamwaraan, Pramm (elah mengenwklkun ulinan asal
pensniinn P1 sebagai kelsvangan mnuaman mendaplfi bahawa sahnan
dokuman nersetm |eIah mmau selemkan pads on/zom. Mahkamnh
manquk kepada Selsyen 52 (1) Sump An ms pm my yang
mlmperumukkan:
(1; ‘Na msllumsnt chargnble wnn duly snan be Mrmltsd m
swdslvce tor any purpose by any person Ivavmg law or consent
olpames aumonly m reserve evidence, or shall be mad upon,
mqrslarsd, nraulhenltmladhy any mm parsolv may arvypub/rt
officer, unless such rnszrumsm Is duly stamped”
55. Sslemsnyn, Mnhkamah msruwk kepada Seksyen 73A (1) ma
Kelemngan ma yang bereunyr -
‘Ad!-msstbtltly ofdocumsnlary svmenns In cm! case: Saclmn 734.
11; Nolwnlhslandmg anything contained rn mm cnapxar. m any civil
prvcssumgs mm: mm ma! ewdence or 5 lack would :2-
admus-role. any slalamenl made by 5 permit! In a documenl and
rsnaing la eslab/rsh mar lac! shall, on pmduchon ol ms angina!
aocurnsm, be admissible as emem or am Inc! 4 ma m/romny
nandilrons Era sans/re.1:
in) me maker 0/ (he statement enner_
(I) had personal klmwfeags al the mailer: mu wtlh by the
statsment ur D56{specIel)e Im Page 54 Friday, Mamh 31,
zoos 5.45 PM Evvdenne 55
(H) where the document rn question rs ov lmms pan ola mwlrl
purpamng Io be a canunucus ricold, made (he Statement (so
Yams the matters dean mm marshy are not wvlnm hrsparsanal
knowledge) In the performance ala duly m record rnfarrnstrnn
supposd to him by a person who Had, or mrgm reasonably be
supposed to mm had, pelsonalknuwledgs ollhoas manars.
and
M iv me make! of the slstsmenl rs c-!(/ad as a wvlness m me
procusdIng:' Pmvrded man the conmmm ma: ma maker ol the
stalemenl shall be called as s wrmsss need not be sahsfisd yr he rs
dead, or unfit by lesson af hrs mam/y ar manta! wndman in mm:
as a wvlness or nna I8 beyond the seas and n rs not maaonamy
plscbcable m sacura his attendance. or rv all reasonable emzns to
find mm have been made without mcaas -
57 secamsnya, mahkamah |uga menquk kepada pemnluknn Seksyan
52 Am Kelerungan 1950 yang belbunyw ..
‘Primary aw‘ nca means we document use" produced «or me
mspsclmn or me com!‘
sa. Mslmal dan menexm dokumen w yang Isiah ' emukakan ulah
Plamm, mahkamah menuauan hahawa dokumen perianitan P1 aaalan
marupakan dakuman asal‘ den IVII hermakna Saksyen s2 Akta
Kenarangan lelah mpamm Dokumen lersebuuugn man man manman‘
yang mana msngwkul Seksyen 52 m Akla Sewem me, Ianya Iayak
dilenmz sehzgaw kalemngan Sslamsnya, dokuman larsahui |uga le\zh
dikemukakan mewul waunm yang mempakan penandalangzn dukumen
lersebul nan pmak yang mampunyai pengslahuan panbam mangenalnya
flan mengwklfl seuyan 73A 11; (a) ma Kelemngan 195a. dukumen W
Veyak untuk rmerlms sebagal kalerzngan.
59. sapem yang dinwlakan an alas, Mahkamnh luga Iehh memuluskan
manerima kelemngan svz Dlah mu. k.e(e(angan SP2 yang menyzlakan
n
N awrzanzswzqnrmwwualxan
was an.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm
bihawa hahau menyakslkan dokumen P! m dmindaiangam lurul
menyokong bahawa dnkumen um wmud dun bukan salu rakaan
sehagilmana dakwlin caveman.
so (Nah nu, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa kagagahn Flainnf
unluk membawa Haiuvz unluk mengesahkan Pea1an]Ian P1 hdak
mmmukan kebolsmsnmxzn dukuman (ersebm Apuan lam mengikul
kslzurangan Flamm flan SP2‘ Haiura new menmggal dunia
51 Smerusnya‘ Mahkamzh Iurul msnnlili kelsringan spa, Iarlu anak
Velakx Flam Menuml spa‘ uamman, yang msrupakan mu saudzlanp
man memaklumkan behau bahawa Dtiandan nanya bevsauqu umuk
memlndahkan samma hanznuh mam kapada ayah belwau (Plalnm)
dengzn syzra| Phmm membual pembayzrzn sebanwk kmzuqauu
sehagai balasan menggunnkzm nama Defundan dan suamlnya am
Fugzlzenlm all mgan Mumian iubagax nomlrwnomvnl unluk
nananarmananm mmk mam
s2 Akur dzngan kehendak Defendan‘ ayahnya tzlzn mengarahkan
peguamnya menyedlakan saw d5raV peuaniwan Amukasuml 4145 Vkatan
Dakumen Eevsama Bahagian B) yang menyalakan pevsehuuan :|....m
unmk membayer RM200,DOfl ssbagzl balasan.
ea spa manqsmukakan kalerzngan berupa mesa, wnacaapp durwara
befiau dan suamIDe1endan(m]uklka!an Dokumtn serum: Bahagwan 5
ms 3349)‘ as mzna spa memmha supaya sulrni navanaan hadir he
pejahatpeguamunluk menandalangam per1.|n]Ian yang man msemakan
Psmnalan berkenaan adalah sepem bsrikut :—
spa
-Mama. when ru mmmg an leave? Do you have Enough (we
2:: gal over to Lawyer mew Myss/fknows Its not ngm mull
am sskmg u now (ms Digs! m belwaerv u 4 smllvalv Whatever
ma canvnrsulmlv olmnsunrlersloodm Dsmserv bum om, lhave
rm "am: to talk or wmm as per my mugm
HE Ms! sssms vely srresslul mesa /aw days mgammg Mama
needs to men! Ina /awyerand sort out svsrymmg lhope mama
understood my Intensa omaung Sorry rm mm rude -
Jawzpan Pugalzenlm
-/ am m Bahau am on 21/10 The Pl0P9‘-Vvs all ymrramsrs
/don’! want any am Just gotlo know what 1 have to sign Got
In lead the documents firs! and memam 1: He has mmad
me an mu years am now /don‘! krmw wnal has happen lam
not upset with any dmy nephsws and sspsuelly you -
sa Ptgunm omendan bommah oanam mess; Pugskenlm am. we
property is all y-7urlamar‘s' m alas max menquk xepaaa hananah yang
menjadl pemkamn dalam kes um. sanammya Ianya hnny: momjuk kepada
hana—hana Pnamm yang lam yang dlpegang oieh Pugalzsnlhi iabagal
nommu
es Mahkamah le\zh manexm deral paqman Isrsebm dan mandapall
bahawa selawn dzn hunanah yang didallavkan eras nama Pugzlzenml,
dam! D8I1arman Cevsehul mm menylnamkan hzrtanzh yang memam
Dfimkamn Imam Mndakan
as Mamanaangkan uenuk.-nan mess; whalsnpp berstbul adamw
hstkahan dengan mac pananpan |ers2bm, maka jawapln Pugalznnlm
bahawa 1m properly is all your mners. I aonc want my M n' wen
aivanann sebagil merujuk kepada nananah-hananah yang disenaraikan
dslam dsral pevjanflan mrsebul.
57 Mlhkumah bsrpandangan hzhzwa ketarangan .n. mg: bolsh
dilmima unmk menyoknng lunlulan Plalnhl bahawa bellau msmpakan
Dumb an setamsnya pemmu benefisml bag: hananah-Ilarranah yang
dlsanaraikan dalam derzl peqarulnn Iersebul, flan Im larmasuk wqz
nananan yang dipegang clan uerenaan
as Ssmmsnya. Mahkamah mum mansilh ketararvgan Plamm mm).
Mengikln ke|emngzn Plamhl, geran sail hananah |arsehm berzda dalam
mniukan dan kawalannyn yam flan hananah mnsabul amen sehmgga knm,
mu sqzk lehm 2n mhun aanuru (rupuk Ikaran Dokumsn Eerszma
Bzhaglzn A — ms 17 47 S6panieIng|sII\pal1 cambun, max pemah walau
sekalw, ueveman mammla gerun tersebul daripadanya
59 Perlu dnngalkan bahaw: hanar-ah |ersahul man dlbeli pads (ahun
zmwy wawlu 23 (shun Vepas. Seklranya banal nananah tersebul mun
mmk Dalandan sebugaimana yang muzkm, Mzhkzmzh berpnndangan
banawa Defendan mick akan memblaman gzmn asa\ hznanah Iersebul
bereda flalam sm-uanzn manor. Semen pemmk hananah axan
mempaslikan dokumendukunien permng nammn dengan pemvhkan
aan keluanpunyaan hananah akan berada dalam mllikan dan
kawa\annya.
Negsn Sembuan sahzgzwmana F'enanm'an Jual sen yang dwkemukakan
flan «wanna sshagaw P3.
7 has Iahun zma. zpamua Plainlw menyalakan hasramya umuk
menuknr pemllikzn nananzh Iersebul uanpeaa nsvenaan kepadi anak
hsllau (SP3),De1am1an enggan memben kariaszma Sebahknya, wbagaw
balasan, Deiandan memsma wang sepumlah amznu um) sehagax bayaran
urusan pqmllcaran lwzkrmllk hananah museum (darn narlanuh-hananah
Hainm‘ yang lam yang dndanmkan atas namz suamrDefendsn.mapim1zk
manfldv perkara yang mpemkarxan da\am mnunan ml]
5. mamm akur dengnn panuimaan terssbul din Ielah mangarzhkan
pegnamnyz menyedukan saw asravpennnnan umuk aunanaanangzm ova»
anak P\zmfi1(SP3)‘ Dslendan darn suarm uevenann umuk marmndahmmk
hananah—hananah msobm uan Delendan dan swarm Daiandan kepada
anaknya SP3. Bagalmanapun. Delendan Ielah manukar flkwan dan
anqgan menandalarvgunv psnan an lersebm
9. P\zmIn1 mga ldnh benaya mendapal kemusan dan Pafahzl Daerah
darn Tanah Jempnl malalul sural hanarikh 21 as zms unmk
memmdahnullk harianall |<-srsebul dan numa Dsfundan kepada name
hallau sanann lelaov wenaan gagal dan enggan unluk memmdahrmllk
hananah Cersebut kepada new
10 Face Oklobevmzfl, Flainnnalah memasukkan kavea| pusandman
ks ms nananan unmk melindungn haknya 54-mega: pemheh sebenan
map. Defendan masm anggsn unmk mamnen kequama.
7o oxen nu, (Indakan nevem... yang hanya msmbwarkan geran asal
haninah Iarsahul Demda dalam mllibun Plainlvf unluk Iamvoh Vemh Earl
20 uhun mammjukkan bahawa Defiendan bukalllah palluhk ssbanzr
hallanah Ialsehul.
71, Mahkamzh mga mengamhl kin kererangan mamm hahawa
iameruak hananzh lersebu| mbeu am Mam telwwgga sekarang, ballau
yang (a\ah membayav cukal Ianah hinanah lalsehm. Unluk menyckong
kenyztaarmya, Plmnm Ielah meng-mukakan sahzhaglan den Iesn-lesn
asa\ ma. nanmn Iersebul dan mam." 2013 — 2021 yang berada dalam
slmpanarvnya (mmk lkalnn dokumln nmama — Bzhagvan A— ms 12.207
dan resn asax cum vanah unlvk Vahun znza (Ikzlan dokumsn (ambahan
Plalrml . mukasura( 5-5)
72 Mnhkamah bsrpandangan haham kelerangerrkeflerangan
mengennl geran aul flan jugs pamhayaran um tanah mrm menyekong
kenyalsan Flamfif bahawa bshau adzlah pembeh sebenar Iurlanah
levsehm fiada sehab unmk Mama! may-negnng unggungiwab
membayar cum unah baqw hananzh pug mmmkl aleh pmak lain unluk
umpon mas: yang panjang mdzwnkan belwau sendm yang mmpunya;
kepemmgan kc ares Ianah |erseI:u|.
13. asmasaman mum zlasan~a\.asan yang dinyllakan dw alas.
Mankamah In: memmuskan bahawa mam: |e\ah bsnaya membawa
ke|eranqan~kemrangan yang msnoukupi unluk memhukukan alas
Imhangan kabarangkalmn bahiwa beliiu zdalah pmak yang Iemh
membell dzn selsrusnya membuax pembayzvzn Keuana Hanna unmk
hananah levsebul. O\eh nu, Mahkamah menaapall hahawa Plalrmiadalah
pemmk baneftswm kapnda hananah tersebm darn uecenuan hanya
mamegunq harlnnah te<sebu| hag: pmak P\a|nM sebugal nomlm
14. Faun penngkal W, bebnn pembuklmn aaaxan berahh kepada
Defendzn unluk mangamuxauan Ke(erarvgan-Kusvangan da\am
pembmaannya nan 5e|emsnya membukllkan alas lmbanqan
kenarangkalian kalarangan-kelerangan |eIsebuI bag: msnlngkii
Kelemngan-kelemngan yung wan dlkemukakan oleh Pliinw
75 Manuanmn merwuk kspsda kc: Liaw Song Kaa s Amzrv Saw Chai
Kee [2014] MLAU, dlmnna Mahkamah memuluikzn mam benkul -
- Eulden and standard Dfpmol «n cwv Pmceedmgs
' :4 rs ma mar me parry wha dssrras ma court 19 grvs/udqmsrrt
as la any law! nm at /v'sbv/r\'y bears ma burden or wool
(3 101(1) E»/11sm>s Act 195:; Ths burden arpmans on that
pm rs two In/d (ft ma human 0] sslablishing a case, and nu
ma burden ofrmmducmg amanaa. ma human olpmollrss an
IM party lhrouvhoul Ms trial rns standard alpmof required 0/
the P/arrvtiflrs on ma balance 17/ pmbabllnfss.
rananua An Cjm Selmduray V Chfnrah, supm udaolmg the
uosmon szauad by the Court o/Awam m Abmm V North Eastern
Railway Ca mag} 11 can us said‘ rn such a case as the
pmssnl ms positron has been cleelty stated In ma [udgmenl or
am: MRU1 Abram v Norm Easlam Rm/way Co[1B83] 11 can
ua alpage 452
- that rf ma Pfarntlfl has gwsn pnms rams awusnca, winch
mes: n be snswsrect mu snm/s mm 1.: have the quesnan
aemea m ms favour, the burden olpmol rs snmea on to me
Defendants: me deawn ovum question rho)!
' .. ms Defendant may give swdence sung: by conlradtamg ms
Pramn/rs evrdence or by proving omer lack. "
1e. Pad: penngkal kesnya. plhak Deiendan hanya mengamukakan
searzng saksl umuk member! kemerungan In Dalemian semm Dalam
Keterangannya, Delenaan menyalakan hshawi ..
. Memandangkan namanya|arwn|5ahagz4|12mIhk dawn geran
hananah Celsasbuk, maka mxan pales hzhzwa hellau mun
pemmk hemallur hananah lamshul.
u Deiendan menavfikan kasahman dakumen peljarman s-1 yang
lnlsh auanuaungan. znlarz Plamhl dun name Defsndan
u lnada pengemman lonlang
manyavskill bahzwa n
peqarulan F1.
Dflandan memakrumkan bahawz belwau |e\an nvembelw harlanah
Izevsebul mewgunakzn mm yang dlamml danpafln ubung
s-mpanan bellau dan suzmlnya.
xv Delendxn man membua| bayaran secara tuna: tabinylk
RMo5.aoo secarz gerinam kspada mama om. mu, ma
ssbarang bum pembayavzn yang belwau dapat kemukakan
17 Menelm kelemngan Deiendan‘ mahumah merumuskzn
sebagalmana mm mu; menganm name Defends" wavcam sebzgm
permhk berdallarmgeran mukum hananah tevsebul adalah Sam ram yang
lmak pemah mpemkawkan oI:>I mane-maria plhak
7: In yang manjadl pemkalan adalah sums nan Defendan nanya
memegoog nananan ialslbul sabagal sehagm nannm hag plhak Mama’?
yang msmwkun adlk lundununya. Vsmah namml bermaksud .
‘A pmun m whase name assets (for uamp/e, anmnrneo
sharebcldsrol campany Shams) am held, am who am nor
have any beneficial snrfflomnnl lo those assets. A nommee Is a
men; agent 0/ ma person wno appomu mam‘ (glossary.
flvomsan Reuters, Pramraal Law;
75, Manama defwmsw dv alas, uka lemukli banawa Deftndan nanyalan
mamagang paranzn sehagaw nonnm Iemsdap hananah talssbul. maka
«ma: undztlgmndang behau max mempunyau nak kc alas nananan
larsebm.
79 Mahkzmzh |eIah memumsknn bnhawa Flam malalm ka|9vangzn—
kelevzngannya Isiah benaya menuruukkan bahawa befiau auaxan pembell
sebenav nananan |ersehu( man mu, Defendan adalah hananggungzn
unmk mengemukaknn kelafangln-kalerangan nag: menyanggzh
kelerznuan plhzk Plambf unluk menumukkan bahawa nananan Ievsebul
(elah dibelw sendm alah Delendan sabagaimana dakwzannya
an Bagalmanapun, setelah mahkamah meneml
xaxerangan-kenmngan yang telah mkemukakan aleh Defendan
dwpenngkat pemsnksaan nauaanya mahkzmah mendapau bahawa
Inrdaval Derranggahan yang k2|arz aauam knvsrangan-kebevangan
Invxebm bamanding kenyataan yang (emapal dahm uemhaliarmya flan
mgz keleranganya mpenngxau pumankslan mama
an Adalah mavuadl p-e-mp undanndlndang hahnwn Auwan
pemenksaan balms dhdakan mun unmk mengup am. selerusnya
manilal kelahanan aan xonsxamm ketavangzn yang dlkemukakan Men
mana-mane saw
52 Mahkamah memwk kepada kas Thwmchelvasegaram
Manmkavassgarv MnhadsviNadehamam1no 2)|2m)2)1 cu 609, a. ms
«nu yang anlam lam menyilakin .
‘The powers era crossaxammel gensml/y are.
V ra last a wrrrvuss' accuracy mamy and uemowzy (semen
146(3) ullhe Evrvienca/1:1 1950 ~
33 Dale"! kas Jonq Chuk v Chung Tung Sang [1999] 5 cm 1.
Muhammad Kamll Awang J man menyalakan . 7
‘Cross sxamfnmrulv is directed to (u creclrbwry arms witness. or)
me facts (17 mm ns has depmedln emu, mc/udmg we cross
exam4Ivsr's version 0! them: an; the rm: to man the wilrves:
has not deposed but to which me Mos; -oximfnir mmks ha rs
able to depose. Where me court Is to as iskad to drsbsheve a
wnnsss, ms wunm would be cmsxemmrned me Iarlws m
cmss-examine a wrtnsss on some mslerialpart olrus ewaence.
are! all, may be tmarad as an acnuprance arms mm olmat part
arms whole own‘: swam."
an Prinswp Imdang-undzng jug: adamh ]elas bahawa ssk nya
leldapal percauggahan yang ma|enal serum sakil mambarlkan
ketevzngannya. makalanya akan menmaslcan mmmliu saksw berkanaan.
15
N awrznnzswzqmmwwnalxan
um smm ...m.mm be H... m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
[nuuk kers Jung cm V Chang Tung Sang [1999] 5 cu 1; lm bermakna
hahawa saksl uarsshul bukanmh salsl yang holeh dxparcayan darn dangan
i|u. kalaringan tarsebm handaklah mahalkan dan (flak dlerima sebagai
kerarangan
as Sabagai mmxan, mahkamah akan menunmkan bahaglan dan
kelsrangzrfinelavangan Devendan yang ampan bercanggah
Pancmesmm PERTAMA
es. Mankaman memjuk kepada pelenggan 5 dan 5 Pambelaan
oemnuzn yang bemuny\ -
i
Perenggan 3 Panyalsan mam.» ma/an dfakm xemka!
hurtannh m bawah an: 415 Lot 795 mm Semlvg lltr Dseran
Jempol, Megan Ssmbr/an (hamanah Iersemnl aflalah mink
mm: Smgh an Sultana Smgh (Na. K/F‘ 331199421-5123) den
Plarnlilmsmplksn orang pervganlara Dag! pembellan Hartanan
lsrssbm pm mesa marmz.
1.m£aLl.§
Dsfsmialv merujuk kepadz persnggan A Psrlyaluan Tunmran
dan menafikan kandungan pelenggan zmoouz dan
menegaskan Danswa Delendzm ts/ah membervkan Plamlrf
walvg bag! membell Mnnnah tsrssbul dun nembelialv hartanan
lerssbu! adalnn .1: am name Delsndan ssbagar pemwk dan
buksn sebagsr nomrm kspada P/amm. -
av Mzhkamah msmlokus kspada kervyataan Pblnm dlperenggan my
nembmaannya yang bemunyn .
‘Dafnzndan man membenkan Flamlfl wang bag: marnaan hadanah
|elsebu|"
us. Jna dlbzca pemnggan 5 dan e pembalazn Dslsndan secam
bersama, dapal mlnnnmx waxmwaaalan panqanlam bagl pmak Deflendan
sehagal pembell nan Hanna sabagav yamuzl unluk umsan pemneuan
nananan lersehut Sebagal penganlzva. Deiendan |eleh membenksn
wang kepafla Plalnm umuk mervguvuskan pembellan nananan |ersebul.
as Bagalmanlpun, semasa mpanngkac pemenksann bans, nerenaan
Iglnh membenkan kelarangan yang yexas bemarvggah dengan apa yang
mphdkan dalam panmexaannya Defender: mnn menyamlrsn bahawa
beluau aaaan membual bayavan secara lunal Issebanynk RM45,U00 sacara
(ems kepafll Hanna Parana" Plainm sebagsw penganma nebagannana
yang dnplsdkan dalam pembslaan udak lag: flmmbulkan da\am
ketelanginnya
so Selerusrvya‘ mzhkamah mgln manarik psmallan kanada
pemaflflwhankmualaflu ~
\ oalam panyava salsl uevanann (wssmy dw sualan no. In,
Deiendan dwanya
Q Selam geran. apakah wag: mu lawn yang menuluukkan canan
mum mnnnkv ands?
A Sewn Qlran, kzrdapal juga sallnzm-salman bwl cnkan haw
vanah |ersebu| mennn yang maayaraxen sendin obh saya.
17
N aKTEAIn1iwEqhI'mwWHaIxBD
Nuns an.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m mm n. mn.un mm: dun-mm wa .mm mm
91 aagaunanapun, semnsa dlpenngkal psmenksaan naras, Defandan
lalah membeli kelerangan yang ]elas bercanggah dervgan kelarangan
dw alas
0 : mm on dalem penyala ssksi anaa. ivka anda yam hayar
oukan man, rest!-resn mesh dalam svmpanan anda.
- Ya belul
a » Jam, msmandangkan msnmn berada oengan Plaimfi. ‘ad:
saya katakan Hainm my bayar.
Va, semju
o Yak ads bukfiyamz Iumukkzn zwak hayzreven salu m lahun
Wu cukaw (anah.
A, vs salulu.
>
>
92 Mka umemamn ksuadz kalerzngan dl alas, kmamngan uavanaan
' annykat psmsriksaan balasnyz pelas bemzza dan hevcanggah dengan
kslevangannya semasz uamenksaan ulama Manuaman manquk kapada
mom. Pm Em Chin v PP [1955] 1 ML! 234 yang menynfaknn .
-/1 is on/y when a wrmaasxs ewdence an matsnal and om/raus
matters In the case rs so msmncrlabla, ammvamu ornegahonal
ma: ms whole ewaem rs in be drsrugaruod Fovgsm:/nass or
namma m nvcall exactly mflxln events, winch do Ivutsssm to be
Important to Ins wmms, do not necsssarfly shake ms crsdmr/fly
or render other pans Dims slury unwmmy afbelreI.. '
ea Olmfli dw avas was menyalakan bahawa mans-mans: kelerangan
yang bavcanggzh diamava sam szma Vain flan (mak belch amanmmun
N aKYEnnz:wEqht~mwwHaIxBD
am am n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm
handaklah dlabmkan dun udak boxan ditanma sahzam kelemngan, apalah
lag! smanya keterangnn-keterangin hersabul ada\ah lemzdnp wswsu
yang malarial.
54. Menalm kslerangan-ketsrangan Dalerman .1. M35‘ mahkamah
mendapah bahawa pelcanggahan yang (erdapal dalam
keiarangan-ketsrangan Iersebm adalah msrluuk kepadz uarkampelkam
yang ma|enaI. mm menyermuh lanlang p ak mana yang lelah nuamnuax
pemhnyaran wang pumbelian hananah nmsanm nan pmak mannkah yang
(emu memhayarcukal lanah bag! nananan larseom.
95 Keierangun-4ka|amng:an mu sakwanya mommkan akan mamaai wk
psnullu haw namkauan inn. Olen nu‘ I2vdapa|nya pemunggshan dalam
kavarangan-kersvangan Delendan lemadap pen<3ra—per|uIs yang permng
mmysbabkan mankaman merasa sangsl unluk menenma
kslsrarlyanrvya Mahkarnah mga memmpau Mada sebarang indxloasi
nanawa pen‘/anggahan |e|sehu| aannan Imak flrsengiuakan alau
diakmenkan ulah kealpaan a|au kesukamn Dalendan unwk manainuau
perkara lrkara belkenzan.
95 men yang aamuuan. admah new psmsmslian mahkamzh
bahawz dalam mamnan kanenangannya, Dehndan tslall gagal bercakap
henar Percanggahan W lelah um... skan mam Dsfendan sebzgzi
saksx dzn sekangus memiefmmkun nmwa Dalandan bukanlzh semzng
saw yang wen dwpercayal.
97 Manxamah merlquk kapada Mann Sakmah Sulnng v Masyltah Md
Hanan [2023] 1 ms 793‘ dwpemnggan 15, ax mana Mahklmah Rayuan
manyalakan ~
19
n awrz-nzswzqnrmwwnatxan
Nuns saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. anmnmy mm: m.n.n wa mum pm
“A3 ollen being Sam, 5 lrialjudge rs thepeuorv rn mo baxtposlhon
in mm: and Iudsw the cmmnmry or a mum, nmng had me
opponumfy (:7 gang! nm: to observe the wunm In person. '
ea s-nemsnya Mankaman axan meruwk kepada ke(ermgan-
kaherangan Defvndan yang max mpnaxan dalam pembekaannya Aduluh
mlniadt pnmip undarlgmndang yang manlap hahnwa plhak-pmak sdalah
mnxa dangan 94 guys Mzhkamah memjuk kepadi kes Pen Kelang
Aumomy v Kuala Dlmensl sun am [2023] «ms 2090, d! mana
Mahkamah Rzyuzn nenan rnengganskan sebaganmana beflkul -
Pevenggzn 25-
‘The cardinal rule ol cm Mtgnhan, sspedafly aw am/ersarfa!
justice system, rs that me puliles are bound and mus! abide by
me pleadings. The psmss m cm‘! Imyanon are mt a/mwsd m
mauve [acts and Issues wmch may ms nu! p/mm. On the
otHsrham1s,lha courts should dswdean fans amirssussm strict
oomplranoe wvllt Ins pleadings med by the pames Should me
man: deems an an Issue not rsrsed by Ms partfss m men
pleading; ms rlsctsron .s /fab/s m as sa:a.:u1s.'
Psranggan 27
‘Tim Federal Cam! n. ma Bank BM (substituting Kwong Wk Bank
Ehd) v Kwan cnsw Na/dmg Sdn sn.1(2mo) mm 195 heldtlmt
mi Second, the propnsnfnn ul the cam! arwapssl was not
mn Needed by me rsspondanl The usponuenrs cause 07
action seams! the appellant was far Drssch ar mrmacl.
Nawnele In the msaonosnrs p/samng, mrpmssly or by
an
N awrznnzswzqnrmwwualxan
um smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
11 Ob?! yang demxkian, Pranmmuan memluilkan lumuian ml Iemadap
Devenaan, kakak xanaungnya unmk amara lmnnya, penmah supenl
bsnkul -
1. Deldarasl bahaws uevenuan mempauan ptmsgang amznah
kcnstvukul dan/sun pemagang amannh berbanykit bag:
nzrvanah pegang a. hawan GM us Law 995 Mulum Sellmg III!
Dzerah Jempol, Nsgan Semhllan (selepas ml duwuk sebagan
'hanannh msahul’) bag: man1aalP\a\rmfi
2. oemarw banawa Plzlnm mempakan pammk alum: hunanah
lavsehm kerina Plalnm yang (elah mambzyav keselumhan
jumlah wing iual hell bagl nuunan nmabm yang henumluh
Rm5,uoo.oo.
12 Unmk perbiuarzan ml‘ P\avmI man mengemukakan A urang sani
mu mu kepad: Flainm den Defendan ¢sv=1)-, saudava Pnninm dan
Delendan Nalliah a/V Ramesamy (srzy, Inak le\a|u P\aImlI (swap dan
Plnmhlsendm (srm
FAKTA KES nssznum
<3 nnvanuan adalah pembeh sebenzv nananan wsebux dan
ialsrusnya mempakan pemilvk nananzn mrsehnl yang sah
14 P\aIuM hanyalah bemndak sehagaw Wang lengah yang
mengumskan pembahan nananan |ersehuI amaru Dslendan den Hayurn
<5 Dzlendan (Idak nemah mehhal Ilau mengelanur bahawa manm
telah menandavangam Sam Sura| Fananuzn vamenquan Psruuslin Hana
A
N aKTEAIn1iwEqhbvvwWH:lxBD
ma smnw ...n.mn .. used m mm n. mm-y mm: dun-mm Va muNG Wm
Imp/rcalvon, can ws detect a alarm fur bleach niamml venture
agreement srmng out oi a fiduciary my placed upon me
appellant!!! Ina capamy as prvrlcipaf ofan avsnl. u rs a cardinal
rule m cm! rmgmn man the pants: mus! abuts by men
pleadings Thls Is Me as can be seen mm the flemsrun mm
mm! m Menan Smong v Um 500 s Am» 1195:; 1 cm 25
when Ong Hock Thyi w sard
r Imnk It IS Ivscesscry in ms case m empnams once
agsm me: me nouns mum gxvs Merr aecmon m stm‘)
compnam mm the meamngs. 21: mm Radclme said In
Essa Pelruluum Co Lm um» v Soulhparl Carpomllan
1195512 wuz av alp 91:
/I an apps/Isle cowl rs to (real Iehunce as psclarmy or mere
Ibrma/fsm we not see wnat pan lneypan they play In our max
systim
[34] /7! last, me Court alflapssl men has rcrtarated (Ins m
Amanalv Butler (M; sun and v we chsa wan (19971 1 ML./
75:7.-1199712 cu 79 when Gaps! Sn Ram JCA (as be than
was.) said
1: rs mm law that a party u bound by :2; pleacfings '
99. Mamaman sekalw Wag: meruguk klpada parangnan 5 dan 6
pemhelaan nevenaan yang anlar: lam menyalakan hahawa mamm
mempakan Mang penganlavi bag? puluballan hananah Iersebm pad:
mesa malsnal flan bahawa Defender: lelzh membankan P\amM vmng
my membeh hananih |ersabu|
ma ma mbaca perenggan 5 an s pemhelaan nevanuan seam
Izerszrna‘ Defsndanlmah menymaun bahawa Plamlfl adalah urang yang
3x
N awrznnzswzqmmwwnalxan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
hamnflak ssbegal pengamara amara Defsndan dan n-<a,una dalam umm
uemhahzn nananan lersebul sabaqan panganlam. Ilefandan lelah
membenkan wang kepada Plamlil untuk mambual pemhayaran kepada
Hanna.
101. Bzqalmanapun, semssa dlpermgkal pememsaan Dams, Dalendln
man memhenkan kelerangan bshawa hallzu lelah memhual pembayaran
«anan sebanyak Rmsmo sacara |ems kepada Hanna (anpa meliluw
Plamm Kenyslaan lnsabm Vangsung udak dlpludknn dalam
nembemannya. Dengan kala |a.n, keizrzngan Hsan Deiendan mangana
psmara Inl Mask - kung dengan seharang pemyauan dalam
pembemannya
«:2 Eukan selakal Nu‘ Dalendan my man mengemukakan kelavangzn
ham bahawa mm RMo5_ooc |evsebu( auaxan merupakan ummya senmn
nan: Iabungan simpanan Dellau dan auannnya Pa-«an nu ma mak
dihrnbulkin langsung da\am pembelunnya, alau dipermgkal
nemeflksaan ularnanya. Ianya hanya drdmbmkan savapas Defemian
dinsak aleh psguam Plzmm dengzm saauan aan manaksh Delandan. yang
nanya bakena sehagai guru aan helgau |e(ap kuvang dan Rmwoo
isbman pada masa nu, mempercluh wnng lsrsebul.
103. Mzhkzmzh berpandangan banawa nndzkan Delendzn yang nanya
menimbulkan \su—\su zambun mpanngkau pemenkszan was
menmqukkan hahawa perkara-pamara tsvsahm aaanan rekaan dan
sesnam yang hanya dwfikilkan alau divamhan kemudmn (an nllerlhoughl)
ma. Sakvanya pevkava-oerkare |ersebul auaran Dena! nan |e\un ada
dalam pengexanuan Delendun davi mule‘ Idalah munaaanan umuk
duangkakan bahawz pelknra-perkam yang sebegilu peming akan
mmasukkan ke aanam pembeiaannya
ms Apa yang mas. pe«ara-pemara yang dnimbmkan clan nevangan m
3135 hdak dlplldkan flnlnm pembelunnya Mangamhll prlnslp hzhzwa
-1: rs we law Ina! apanyu oounanyizspmangs. “ nan "ShouM1me mun:
decide on an Issue not raised bylhapamns m msrrplaudtngs, me declsmn
rs name to he set asAds'(ru1uk m For: Kalang Aumorily v Kuala Dwmensw
San Ehd [2u23] was me), Mahkamah mamuluskan bahawa semuz
kelevangan Dalsman yang ndak gmnakan dalam pemnmaannyn
nsnaamn dmbaxkan dan dilulak
105 semen.» kotarangan-keleranqan dw alas mpemmoanguan,
Mahklmah msmuluskan banawz Defendan |e\ah gagal mebuknkan
pembslaannya |amadap mnlulan waunm dan dengan Nu‘ aakwaan
wendan banawa beliau aaauan pmax yang wan nnanmn can
wherusrvya membua( vembawvan sewmlah RMl5,UDD umuk pambelvan
nananan Oersebul kepada Najura danger: sendmya Ielah unalnk
107. Ava: awasanaxasan msanm .uga, Mahkamah memuluskun bshawa
' kyanqtelah membayawmng heuum\.uhRM45,D00 an kepada Mama
aaalan Phmhl, dan dengan nlu memumskan bahawa sungquhnun
Deleman aamah ptnullk berdailar nananan lersebul, man hznya
memegang nananan Iersebut bagi pmak Plalnm sebagaw normni hag:
pihakfinumnl
ms Pmoalan senemsnya adalah uma :4: ram amanan kanslmklw
mah nemenmk. Sacara definusmya Amanah Konslrukhfadalah .—
“a trust was arises by ape!-alien of law Mlsra « would by
uncanscronable /ma person (A) wha hold: an asset la deny me
beneficial fmenist olanomsrpersam In me asset
For oxamp/5, a mnslrumva trust may anss whens.
. A no/.1; mm ma: he knnws am been pard to mm by mistake,
. A mid: an asset maths has oblarnod by means offraud,
. A and another psrsun 45; some 5 common trnsnfion (ha! 5
mum mm a beneficial mlsrsxi m an asset and B has acted
10 ms delnmenl on the D554: or ms mtsrmorv .."IGVassary ul
Thompsun Reuters, Fracflca! Law)‘
109 Sean mudahnya, amanah knnsuvkni (smut: malalul apemsl
unuang-undany‘ flan bukannya Iemh fliwuiudkan maraum mat nyals
K-pmak yang mmbal Amanah konflrulmf akan umbul npahHn
sessoang mamegang mm umuk laedah orang lawn mm mm um
peqannan amanah yang pelas anvam mereka.
no Mahkamah memguk kepnda Xe: ./w Propemss Sdn Bhd V
Parbadanan Kama/uan Psmmran 59/anger s Am! [2915] 1 cu 13.
an mans nemkalan yang (imbul adalah sepem benku! -— Psrbadanan
Kemaman Penaman Selinqor mws; Isiah mempemleh lanah Jugrz
nan |anah Apt-Apl danpada Keraiazn Negen Semngor Pm vahun 1995,
vms Ielah memasukl psrjamlan umuk mmuax kedui-duz vanah
hrsehu| kepada vxps Aquaoukure Sdn am Ienalduk kevzda |eIma
mam 3.3; hahawa mus belkewnupan unluk mandapalkzn kebenaran
34
N awrznnzswzqntmwwualxan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
darn Fmak Bsrkuasn Nngen haw uammdanan «am-vanan msebux
keuzda PKPS Aquamhura dalam lampoh 6 bmzn dun mum perflannin.
ma gzga1.penan11an xarsewn skan tarbatal dan fidak ssh '
111. Pada lahun1997‘ man Jugra dan Aumm |e\an duunl kepafla JW
Propemes. Apama JW Pmpames memmlz supaya lanah Apl pi
dwpindahmwlnk kepada memka, Ianya lvdak dzpa| dnalsanakan klrani
klausa 3(3) perjanflen panama maslh mum mpenum Oieh nu, psmlllk
bemaflar Ianah Ap1—Ap. masih lag! PKP5
112 Pads 16 Dvsamtnr 2015, salu nuns mkemzrkan bag! psngambflan
balwk ranah Aw-Aui. lsunyz adzlzh plhak manakah yang am mendapa|
mm psmpasan JW prouemes mendakwa memandangkan memka |e4zh
membeh lanai! menu: uanpzda 1>1<1>s Aquaculture, maka meceka
mtmpunym kapenlmgan hanefism lemadap man Iersebul Sahzllknya,
Mahkamah finggw rnammuskan bahawa mm yang Iayzk umuk
monerima pampaxan adalah pemmk hemaflar lalw PKPS.
113 Pvhak JW Pmvemes um msngumukakan rayuan lemadap
kepululsn Mahkamzh Tmggw ke Mahkamah Rayuan Dalam
membenarkan rayuan lelsebuk, Mahkamah Hayuan Ie\ah amara lam
merwatakan —
-Pmnggan [491
‘m Tskako Sakao (1; (supra) me appellant, a Japanese uuzsn
and the firs! respondent damned Ia mm 5 mp Ilousi to
spams 2 «mama: Business The appellant corvmbuled
RM194.510 towards me purchase price 01015 Shop hoass. Ths
pmoslw was :1; be pumnasea and rsgrslwfid m we /om! names
as
N awrznnzswzqntmwwualxan
um 5.11.1 ...m.mm be used 1: mm 1.. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
olllva appeflan! and ma first rsspolvdsm In equal share: Instead
we nm Iesponrlentpumhlssd ms prupsrry low RM95a.aaa and
legislated n In her sole name sumquonzry she sold the
pmpeny m we second respondent company rm 1 g rmman
Perelvggan (49;
ms appsHanl's eanlenhon ma: 5 mlsl had arvselv m nsrlavaur was
I-epcted by me High Cqurf whrch new that s 4335 ofllve Land Code
bnnedmo appellanl [rum anvomng any mm! mm may have ansen
In mr favour by nmun oi ne: canrnmmon wants me purchase
pncs cum shop house Sermon 4333 olme Land Code mum a
Iorsrgnerto ablam ms pm?! appruvalaflha Slatemlmonty to acquire
/and.
Purwnw-an [50]
The cam of Appeal amnnea ms mgn com daclsfurv. Takakn
sum men appealed tn me ream: com and succssasa. /r was
held. mlsr aha by the Federal Cam! as follows .-
m A constructive mm anxes by opelabcn ollew whenevsr Ih:
crmumsiances are such that n would be unconsmanams nu
me awnsrar ms prvwefiy (usually not nsmssn/y the Regal
estate) In men ht: own bonaficrsl mlerssl :n (he property
and dany the baneficml rnaanm av anomen mmg with
approval Paragon Ffnarws Plcv as Thakeralé Co 1199911
All Er I00
(2) There was a slmnp element at unyusz srmchmen! and /ask nl
pnmyon ma Dar! ufthe my resaandsn!
13; u 1; 5efl)sdlnwlhaIIn.m1s an sxcaplmn no the mmman raw
mle arpnmy nlconlrscl As such me appeomnz couldsnloms
me trust agumat mm m Em and wound appeuan:
(l[The nppnl/an! was unfit/sd to (race Ivar nun mm of the
pmaerfy men ms hands ofnnyane wm: mm n
(5):: was not a me In wmcn me apcasllanl ztslmemlery sought
to evade comp/ymg mm 3. 4335 aims Land cm and she
was nor gumy ul such rmscandurrt Seclron was ma no
appncauon to the construurtvve (rust rmpassd upon me flrsl
Nspundsvvf
Paranggan /511
In our wsw the Iacfgaflem onns pmssnl 9359 ml; squarely wvtlwv ms
paramelsrsola mnswurve Unit, as was the um mm [In apps//Hm
m mm sum (0 (supra). 2: would ms!-elore no Imconscronabls for
PKFS1o mm fls awn mlslesl avermewzr-Apt land wrung denying the
rvgnm Interest of the appellant A constmclrvv mm rn Vavour or me
apps/Ian! had srvsen by operation ol the law -
11¢. Kapumsan Mahkaman Rayuan Im telnh sahkan om: Mahkamah
Persekmuzn apakxla Manknmnh Pevsekuluan memuhnskan »
‘A cnnsmntm/2 lms! 1; a creature of Baum/. By us very nature‘
wnelnsr or no! 5 constvuclrve trust anses m the absence 0/ the
consent ol me Slate ouumonty In lrsnslev me land IS very much
dependant on the facts 0/ the case. A constructive mm anus
wnmvm ma circumstances are such that u would be
unconsuoname rm me awrver al me pmpetfy to asssn‘ ms awn
bsmzfima! mtsresl m we prnpalry and my mo bensfinal Weiss! ar
:1
N awrznnzswzqnrmwwualxan
um sum n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. unmnmy mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm
another The Iacxpansm oflhs plsssnt case is//squamy wtlhm lhe
paramstsrs are mllsln/chve mm n was lhersluls unconscroname
for me anoeuam m amn its awn Interest: over me mm and
wmle dsrlymg me ngmrm Interest nuns msporrdenl A cunslrumivs
(ms! m /avoar nflhe rssaandenl had amen by opmatfvn arms /aw’
(Pemadlnurv Kamljlum pm»... S4lnn9«:rvJV/Froportioa san and new
MLJU am
115 amasaman olminmnnli dw alas, zmanah knnslrukm akan
levbenmk secara aperasx unaang-unuang masavm kaaduan benkul I
x Apabila seseorang itu mamagang hana unluk raeaan nrang lawn
dalam kaadaan luada penanilan amanah rzslm dw Amara memka
u Apabfla orang yang rnemsgang hana rersehul menegaskan
kepennngan bemzfiswalnyz senmn dalam hana Kersabul flan
menafikan kepanhnuzn hansfiswav pmax yang mm
Yardapalnya unsuv pengkayzan yang mak adH
w Auatula |erdapal unsur kamamman mpmak Delendan
us nalam lumulan \. mzhkamah Idem mendapali bannwa Puamnr
adalan Dmak yang man membual pemhayaran sebanyak Rw5.ooo
unluk pembehin nananan nersaom, manakala bemoan. sebagm pelmhk
berdaflarhzrvyz memegang hananah Isrsebm bog! pmak Plainm sebagaw
namnu.
m. Adalah was meraxm xeurmgan-xexaungan yang mkamuxaxan
oleh Pmnm bahawa pmak yang lalah mambayav umuk pemnenan
hananah tennbul adallh Hamw owan nu, seklmnya hananzh Inrsshm
msalahkan kepada Dalaman yang Ie\ah gagal unluk membukukan
bahawa balvau nalan rnembual pembayamn nnluk hnnanah uerseam
maki, Inahkamih barpandapal bahawa zkzn beflaku penkayaan yang
wax adfl
ma Mahksmah jug: menduoall temapal nnsununsnr kmidakjnquran
apabfla Defendan anggan hekensama memmdahkan hI«12nIh|eI$abul
semula kepada Plamm sepem yang dljarmkan‘ ssbellknya lelnh membual
salu dakwasn hahawn bsllau aflalah pemmk sebenar dan Ielah membual
pemhayaran unluk nananan Ievsehul
«.9 Mahkamah buplndangan bahawz fzklarizkxa malzs pzlas
menggambalkzn bahawa salu amanah konwum (eiah Ierhanluk‘
man: Detanuan adalah pemegang amanah begv pmak Flam“! dan
sekallguu rm jug! hemukna bahawa wainm mempunyal hak benemswal
ks alas hananah Ievsehul
KOMKLUSI
120 Berdasarkzn zlasalralasan yang lelah dwkemukakan (1! am.
mahkamah memnluskun banawa nmlman Plamm dlhenavkan dengan
kas
RERYARIKH : 9 NOVEMBER 2023
sum wm IDRIS
FE URUHJAYA KENAKIMAN
MAHKAMAH vmssl SEREMBAN
NEGERI SEMEILAN DARUL KNUSUS
pseum am: nmx PLAINTIF:
Tetuzn xnsrm Dalm/nah A lndran
Peguambela 5. Pegunmcam
Na. 52, Julnn s2 D35
52 cm, Center, Seramban 2
man Serembnn‘ Negev: semwan.
vaaum us: PINAK nErENnAN:
Teluan Pwalasan &A:Inc4aIvs
Pagunmbela dun Peguamcara
LK1—DI-03. mocx LKV, Laman Kumavsvalhera,
Putra Nmvweoo Nwlai‘ Nanen semman
nu
swzqhrmwwuatxan
mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
dmgan Hqura Ingh yang manynkakan Defendan hanya akan
memegang halmulrk unah «meumsenagm nomml
15 Demaan ndak pemah membeclkan pelsenquan kapadz P\amm
unluk menggunakan namanyz nmuk dhflallarkan sahagzl pemmk
bevdzflar harunah lavsabul hum semenlara waklu
17 uamun, sswspas za (ahun pembellan hamlnah |ersebu|, Delendan
Isiah mermima Ialu derai peljanjmn daflpada mum umuk menwvdah
hakmwhk hananah |evsebu| kepadn Plamlwf flan wbagav belzsan, Plamm
akan membayar RM20D,D00 on kwafla Daiendan Delendan «mu
bersztuiu un|uk menanaacangan. aerav i>aI1an]van |ersebu| kerana
hananah tarsehul man aman dan «mum nlah Delendan unluk kegunaun
penzaam sendlri
18 Tanpa pengeummn Dufendan. P\amM lalah me\akukan
pemmhunan kshenaran plndahmvhk hanznzh lersebnl an Pembal Da-ran
dan Tanah Jempol am kemudvannyz Iskahpun mlsukkan k:vea(
persendman ks alas harmnah |ersebu(
19 Dslendan menegaskan hahzwa Dalian unnlah pemilik nananan
mama am leuah membeh hartanzh Inrsahul dnnpadn Haiuri dengan
memhual pembayamn sscara Iunzw semmyuk Rmsnoo kspadz Hamrz
menggunauan mm simpanan Dalian
zo, Deiendan mandakwa bahawn mamm hanya bemndzk sebagm
orang ungah uruuk lransalsw pembelian hananzh lersabm anlara bahau
darn Hanna Alas mam um‘ Delandan menaflkan Dahawa bollau hanya
memegang harlanah Iersebm sebagai nnmlm hagw plhak Plainlfl
5
N awrznnzswzqntmwwualxan
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
21. Pwhak navanuan hanya mengemukakan semang saw Iarlu
nevenaan aenamsn1)
Isu-asu UNTUK DIEICARAKAN
22 P¥am|fl msnyalakan bahawa pmaknya lslah benayu
mengumukakan nuku dan kelsrangin yang mencukupl yang
menuniukkan harlzwa hsllau adalah pembeh uan selerusnya peaulnk
benefisnal hananan telsebul, manakala Defundan rmnya mamegang
hananah l.ersebu| sebagal ncmml dan pemagznq amanan
23. navenaan sebahknya bemmah nahawa PlaIn|W tevah gagal umuk
membukllkan kesnya alas mmanqan kebarangkallan apamna gagzl
memhawa s/aharang knlerangan yang [mas yang boloh menuniukkan
bihawa pemneuan hananlh lsrsebm ada mallhmkan perihal amanan
konswm alau mervgnmukakan manz—mana dakumen alau kalsrangzn
yang menmuumn bnhawa Davanaan hursedupn umuk memadl nanum
kapada paqzanguan ml
24. Memjuk kepsda iakia-lakta an alas, Mu-Isu yang penu dlpumskan
nlsh Mahkzlmah flalam kss WM adalah sehngmmana benkm -
\ sama ada pihak Plalnm man bariaya melepaskan beban
pammmiannya dengan msrvgemukzkan keterangan-kelerangarl
yang menoukupl umuk manurqukkan hahawa Halnxw aaaran
pembeh dan pemnlik beneil al nananan Isrsenuldan Dekndan
sebagst pemmk bamamar hanyz memegang hirlanah lersebnl
sehagal normm
N awrznnzswiqhrmwwnalxan
ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: flan-mm VI] muNG pm
u Sama ma salu aminzh konskmknilzlan nememuk
nAPA1AN UNDANGMNDANG
25 samz ada ada musk F ' yr Ialah bensya mewepaskan beban
pemhuknannya dengan vmngamukakan kenemgan-xemerangan yang
msmmkuui unmk membuklwkan keinya Ismadap neoenaan
zs. Adalah manual pnnsiu undann—undang yang mamap hahawa
hehan pembuklnan unluk kes sivll adalah (aflemk pada plhak Flainlfl unmk
membukhkan alas wmangan kanaranguauan Dahawa sasuam lakla yang
mbangknkan oleh P\avrm1 adalah wujud (Rujuk sesksysn 101 Am:
Kelnrangan win».
27 Plmmukan um1ang—undang yang mangawal salla perlhal beban
pembuknnn nagv kas»kcs sMI aflalnh seoagmanz Saksyen ma Am
Kelarangun 1550 yang bemunyl .
“Emu; war as 10 gammy «m
we burden olpruafas In any parficqflsr rm /195 on ma: persvn who
wish: me court to behave In As sxfslence. Am/955 n I: plrmdld by
any law that ms pmolnllhnl Ian shall he an anypamcu/5rp9r:on'.
2a Yzhzp pambukllan yang pcrlu dwcapaw men Puilnlwfbigw malepaskan
behan pemmxman bagx us so/1| pulz adalah pafla (chap alas imbangzn
kebarangknllan (‘on ma balance of pmbahvhlms”) Dengan kala lam, unmk
mamhukukan lunlmamvyz kamadnp Dslendan, Flalrmf adaleh
hensnggunagan unmk memhukukan tumman |ersebu| lemndap
Defandan alas imbangan keharangkahan.
7
N awrznnzswzqnrmwwnalxan
um smm ...m.mm be used m yaw .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
29 Defimsl ztas Amhangan kabavangkahan (‘an Ihe balance of
pmnaznlnaasw lelah dnaknlkan an dllim kas Mullev v Mwmslev of Pensions
[1 am zm an 172 sehagaimana bariku —
-/2 mus! any a nmanawa Dagrse ofnmnabmry am not as high as
Isqwled In Lwmmal cases. n ma lnbuna! can say we tan mm n
more probable mun rrul, Ms Durdsn .5 drscnargscl mu .1 ms
pmbamlmss an equal. the burdsn .5 no! drscharged V
3n Mahkamah ma mamwk kepada kas Smnmyah 5 Sons Sdn arm v
Damm Sena Sdn am [2015] 5 ML.J1‘dvmana Manxaman Parsekutuan
«em menyalakan bahzwa (ahzp nembuktmn hag: kes-kes swxl adalah
.1. alas mbangan ksbarzngkalian (on the balance nrpmnaxnlmesy :—
“Held 41; The posmolv mm haw on [be standard ofpmo/fur fraud
in CM! alarms m ms comm-y was far from satisfactory and me Irme
had came to realign me posmon wdh me standard appbodm other
common law/unsdmlrov-vs The cmsupnnmpos 10 as aaphed was
as Explained m In re 5 (Cnndran) (Cam Procssdmgs: Standard 12!
Puma mrcnss mtsrvenmg) /2003) UKNL 35 and n was mu"
ms: at law (hale wem only two standards of pmar, namsl;/,
beyond Iuasonahle doubt low cnnn'na/ cases wlme u was on ma
oaranoe orpmzaawmas for crwl cases. As such, even Illrnud wu‘
the mm: m 3 cM( claim. we standani ol war was on ma
balance of pmaawmas There was no lmrd standzrd and
‘(Nfierlherllvs ssnouxllsss oflha nnsganan nor me ssmwsness of
the consequences should make any cmvemm. la the standard of
proaua be applied In dstsrnunmg me facts (pir Bammzss Hale of
Rrchmond m /n re 5 (cnumsn; (see paras 4749 4 51) '
31 cm nu‘ da\am memutuskan sesuulu kes am. Mahkamah perm
meilhal um: ida Flainltfldaru berjaya mslepeskan beban pamaukman
yang lenuuk dibahunya aengan membukukan mnmannya mas
unuangan kebarinqkalvan
32 Dalam lunlulan m hadapan Mahkamah yny, Plannhitzlah menunml
banaw. behau zda\ah pemlflk ekuni lmhadap nananan yang mkanah
sebagax GM 416 Lcl 995 Mukun Semng nu Damn Janpol, Negen
semmlan. mananan |ecsehu() Flamm menegaskan bzhawa sunggunpun
Delarvdzn. kakaknya mempakan pannnk berdzflar namanah Iarsebun
may pada daszmyn, kaxaknya hanya mempakan nonum ylng |aIah
nfik akmnya unluk mumegang hananah |ersehu| nngw pmaxnya.
Adalah memadv kes Plaxmil bahawi alas keparmyzumnya kspada
Dslendan, bellau yang pads knnka nu mempunyal masalah parihadl
dengzn \s|erInya, le\sh meminla supaya harlannh lersehm dxdaflarkan
acas nama oeveman mm semsnlara wakm
33. Telapl paaa sefiap masa. beliau zdzlah pamm sabsnir nananan
tersebm dan mampakan pmak yang (Blah memhum psmbayiran unluk
pembellan hnrunah (arsekzm
34 Fmak Delendan m dmam pengnuyanannya nuanyavaxan nahawa
P\sim\f|e\ah gagal unluk memhawa seouranu kemrzngan yang yexas yang
menuruukkan Delendan pma ml:-bfla masa le\ah neusenuyu Imluk
meniam numml kepadn peqinuan Ini
35. Pmak Dehndan mm lamnya msmjuk luepada kas u Tabvmun
San arm a. nncr y cammrax son am (20171 5 MLRA 239. an mama
Mahkamah Pevsekuluan man manyatakzn sahaganmana benkul .
-(331 me burdsrv ofpmo/placed an the Plamnllx very strict
Them Is no room for any guesswork speculation. surmisws or
caruecln/I: I 9 acting on a Mars possrbmly
1341 ms PlIr'nlrWs' witnesses tssrrman/as mus? be cormoomted
by cmdrb/s swdencs as men self-selvtng leslrmomss calry lime
or no wwgm m me abssnw ol some other mrmnomlrve
e-/rdem:e'
as Persaaran yang hams dlpuluskan a. win? ada\ah same we Plmnm
man beviaya menoamukakan kalalangarvkalmangan yang ms un|u|(
mznyokong kenyataznrvya bahavwa hehau adalah pembeln Imnnruh
tenebut dzn Dsiendan harry; msmuging hznanah Kersehul sehagax
nonum kanaaa beliau
37 Dzlam memumskan porkara xm, Mahkzmah akan memjuk kepadu
ksh:rangan«ks|emngan yang (elah mkamukakan Men pmx Plamm‘, sima
ad: herupa kelerangan llsan alau kalevangan hamenmk dakumsn
as. Unmk mamnukmn keuadz Mahkamah bahawa bslwiu adalzh
per-Abel: seoenar hananah lersebln flan pwhak yang «em. membual
pembayarun seiumlah RM45‘00u kepada Ham: smgn Plzlmfl |elah
berganlung kapada kelerzngan spz dun sum Fenanpzn F'u:sam‘uan
Psniuzlzn Nana (F1)
| 5,205 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
AB-12BNCvC-2-02/2022 | PERAYU AZWAN BIN GHAZALI RESPONDEN 1. ) Mohd Shamsul Bin Mohd Razmi 2. ) Mohd Razmi Bin Abdullah | Civil procedure - Civil appeal against decision of Session Court on Liability and Quantum - Plaintiff held to be 80% liable - Whether the Sessions Court was plainly wrong in arriving at decision - Whether all facts have been judiciously appreciated - Conflicting versions of accident - Whether the Defendants' version inherently probable - Appeal dismissed with costs | 10/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7cee1f54-507e-4cf2-94e6-449eadbc0b05&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TAIPING
DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZWAN
RAYUAN SIVIL NO: AB-12BNCVC-2-02/2022
ANTARA
AZWAN BIN GHAZALI
[NO. K/P: 950909075397] …PERAYU
DAN
MOHD SHAMSUL BIN MOHD RAZMI
[NO. K/P: 880229035067]
MOHD RAZMI BIN ABDULLAH
[NO. K/P: 640509035325] …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI TAIPING
DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZWAN
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: AB-A53KJ-197-11/2019
AZWAN BIN GHAZALI
[NO. K/P: 950909075397] …PLAINTIF
DAN
MOHD SHAMSUL BIN MOHD RAZMI
[NO. K/P: 880229035067]
MOHD RAZMI BIN ABDULLAH
[NO. K/P: 640509035325] …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN
10/11/2023 16:46:32
AB-12BNCvC-2-02/2022 Kand. 23
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
LATARBELAKANG
[1] Perayu dalam kes ini ialah Azwan Bin Ghazali (Plaintif) yang telah
memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini bertarikh
17.8.2023 apabila Mahkamah ini mengesahkan dapatan liabiliti Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen Taiping (HMS) yang dibuat pada 26.1.2022. HMS
telah mendapati bahawa Plaintif bertanggungan cuai dengan liabiliti
sebanyak 80% dalam suatu kemalangan yang melibatkan motorsikal No.
PJE 1520 yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif pada jam 8.45 malam 6.12.2013
di KM 201 Lebuhraya PLUS arah Selatan menghampiri susur keluar ke
Kamunting. Pihak-pihak akan dirujuk sepertimana perbicaraan di
Mahkamah Sesyen.
[2] Responden-Responden dalam kes ini pula ada pertalian darah di
mana mereka merupakan anak dan bapa kandung. Mohd Shamsul Bin
Mohd Razmi (Defendan Pertama) ialah pemandu kereta No. Pendaftaran
CAE 4137 milik Mohd. Razmi Bin Abdullah (Defendan Kedua) yang
dikatakan terlibat dengan kemalangan yang menimpa Plaintif pada
malam tersebut.
[3] Kuantum award adalah seperti dalam Penghakiman di mukasurat
2-3 Rekod Rayuan Tambahan (Lampiran 7) dan Alasan Penghakiman
HMS seperti di muka surat 7- 69 Lampiran 7 juga. Jumlah ganti rugi umum
yang dibenarkan adalah RM115,000.00 dan ganti rugi khas sebanyak
RM2,800.00 serta kos tindakan sebanyak RM11,268.00. Melihat kepada
jumlah keseluruhan award dan kos yang dibenarkan dalam kes ini yang
berjumlah RM129,068.00, kebenaran untuk merayu sepatutnya diperoleh
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
terlebih dahulu di bawah s.68(1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964: Amer
Mohideen Dawood v. Sneh Bhar Ter Binder Singh [1996] 2 CLJ 955;
[1996] 2 MLJ 329; Datuk Aziz Ishak & Anor v. YB Haji Khalid Abdul
Samad [2012] 1 LNS 1341; and Harcharan Singh Sohan Singh v.
Ranjit Kaur S Gean Singh [2011] 3 CLJ 593.
FAKTA KES
[4] Plaintif memanggil 5 orang saksi untuk membuktikan kesnya
manakala Defendan Pertama merupakan saksi tunggal bagi pihaknya.
Saksi Plaintif ialah seperti berikut:
i. SP1, Pegawai Penyiasat
ii. SP2, Jurugambar polis
iii. SP3, kakak Plaintif
iv. SP4, saksi bebas
v. SP5, Plaintif.
[5] Versi Plaintif ialah bahawa pada malam itu, keadaan tempat
kejadian adalah gelap. Plaintif berada di laluan kecemasan di lorong kiri
apabila dia ternampak beberapa kon keselamatan yang diletakkan di
lorong kecemasan. Pada masa itu Plaintif melihat di cermin sisinya kereta
Defendan-Defendan berada anggaran 4 buah kereta di belakangnya.
Oleh itu, Plaintif memasang lampu isyarat dan mengerakkan
motorsikalnya ke kanan untuk mengelak kon tersebut. Tiba-tiba bahagian
hadapan sebelah kanan motorsikalnya dilanggar oleh Defendan Pertama
dan Plaintif jatuh ke atas jalan. Plaintif mengatakan keterangannya ini
disokong oleh keterangan senyap (silent evidence) seperti di rajah kasar
tempat kejadian dan gambar-gambar P6(A-E).
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[6] Versi Defendan-Defendan pula ialah bahawa dia memandu pada
kelajuan 70-80 km/jam oleh sebab keadaan persekitaran yang gelap.
Tiba-tiba dia ternampak Plaintif telah mengerekot/terbaring di atas jalan
lebuhraya tersebut dan dia cuba mengelak daripada melanggar Plaintif.
Walaubagaimanapun, keretanya menggilis bahagian hadapan motorsikal
tersebut. Ini telah menyebabkan bahagian depan kiri keretanya
mengalami kerosakan dan tayar hadapan kiri pecah serta kesan goresan
memanjang di bawah undercarriage sebelah kiri. Defendan Pertama
menafikan ada melanggar tubuh badan Plaintif. Defendan Pertama turut
mengambil gambar kerosakan pada keretanya dengan menggunakan
telefon bimbit sebelum menukar tayar kiri hadapan yang pecah.
[7] Sementara itu, orang awam yang menaiki 2 buah kenderaan yang
berada di belakang kereta Defendan Pertama telah memberhentikan
kenderaan mereka dan menolong mengangkat Plaintif ke tepi jalan
sementara menunggu ambulans sampai. Salah seorang daripada mereka
ialah SP4 yang berada dalam sebuah kereta Kelisa iaitu 2 buah kereta di
belakang kereta Defendan Pertama. Menurut keterangan SP4, di
hadapan keretanya adalah sebuah kereta Myvi tetapi tidak diketahui
nama pemandunya.
[8] Keterangan SP1 bahawa hasil siasatan dan gambar-gambar
kenderaan, kerosakan motorsikal Plaintif di bahagian:-
1. Bahagian depan motorsikal remuk
2. Fork depan patah
3. Cover depan pecah
4. Lampu spotlight pecah
5. Cermin sisi patah
6. Cover battery pecah
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
7. Penahan kaki pecah
8. Bakul pecah
[9] Berdasarkan hasil siasatan dan gambar-gambar, kerosakan pada
motorkar Defendan adalah di bahagian:-
1. Lampu signal hadapan sebelah kiri telah pecah
2. Bumper hadapan kemek
3. Bahagian bawah body sebelah kiri rosak.
[10] Kecederaan yang dialami oleh Plaintif seperti di laporan-laporan
perubatan iaitu:
1. Urethral stricture trauma
2. Intra-abdominal injury Urinary bladder rupture
3. Right retroperitoneal hematoma and pelvic hematoma
4. Intestinal obstruction due to adhesion and urinary tract infection
5. Exploratory laparotomy
6. Closed fracture left bilateral superior and inferior pubic rami
7. Pelvic bone and transverse process fracture of L3, L4, L5 with
disabilities
8. Right sacral ala fracture
9. 2cm permanent laceration scar over nose, 2cm permanent
laceration over right face, 25 cm permanent midline laparatomy scar
over abdomen measuring 25cm
10. Future Treatment.
PENDENGARAN RAYUAN
[11] Rayuan pihak-pihak telah didengar pada 7 dan 17.7.2023.
[12] Adalah undang-undang mantap bahawa Mahkamah rayuan tidak
akan mengusik keputusan mahkamah bicara melainkan Mahkamah
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
mendapati terdapat salah arah fakta dan undang-undang yang
substantial. Untuk berjaya dalam rayuannya perayu hendaklah
membuktikan bahawa keputusan mahkamah bicara tersebut adalah
“plainly wrong”. Mahkamah bicara mempunyai kelebihan secara langsung
untuk melihat dan menilai saksi yang memberi keterangan di hadapannya
serta berpeluang meneliti “demeanour” saksi: Rasidin Bin Partojo v
Frederick Kiai [1976] 2 MLJ 214.
[13] Mahkamah rayuan pula akan menyemak dan meneliti proses
penilaian yang dibuat oleh mahkamah bicara atas keterangan dan
penggunaan undang-undang yang relevan dalam sesuatu kes apabila
mencapai keputusannya. Oleh itu, walaupun perayu menyenaraikan
berapa pun alasan dalam Memorandum Rayuan, tugas mahkamah
rayuan adalah memastikan sama ada perayu telah membuktikan kesnya
atas imbangan kebarangkalian.
[14] Daripada pemerhatian Mahkamah ini, isu-isu yang dibangkitkan
oleh Plaintif dalam hujahannya boleh disimpulkan seperti berikut bagi
tujuan rayuan ini:
i. HMS adalah terkhilaf apabila “biased” dalam meneliti
keterangan Plaintif dan SP4 yang merupakan saksi mata
kejadian (very suspicious mind with a Jaundiced Eye).
Perkara ini dapat dilihat dalam pemilihan perkataan-
perkataannya dalam Alasan Penghakiman HMS tersebut;
ii. HMS terkhilaf apabila mendapati keterangan Plaintif adalah
berbeza-beza dan “ditokok tambah” (perenggan 38, 47 dan 78
dalam Alasan Penghakiman);
iii. HMS terkhilaf dalam meletakkan liabiliti 80% atas Plaintif yang
tidak disokong oleh keterangan, terutamanya keterangan
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
senyap yang mana adalah lebih berkemungkinan berbanding
versi Defendan-Defendan;
iv. HMS terkhilaf apabila tidak mendapati Defendan-Defendan
100% cuai sedangkan Defendan Pertama sendiri mengakui
dia melihat motorsikal Plaintif pada jarak 50-60 meter dan
boleh mengelak kemalangan tersebut daripada berlaku; an
v. HMS terkhilaf apabila gagal mengambil kira keterangan saksi
bebas dalam memutuskan versi mana yang lebih
berkemungkinan dan konsisten antara Plaintif dan Defendan-
Defendan.
[15] Teras rayuan Plaintif ialah bahawa terdapat kon keselamatan
diletakkan di laluan kecemasan yang cuba dielak oleh Plaintif sehingga
menyebabkan dia mengubah haluan lalu melanggar kereta yang dipandu
oleh Defendan Pertama lalu dia terpelanting ke atas jalan raya. Plaintif
berhujah Defendan Pertama dalam keterangannya sendiri mengakui
tiada kerosakan dilihat kepada tayar sebelah kiri hadapan. Kerosakan
yang jelas kelihatan di bahagian hadapan kiri kereta Defendan Kedua
juga membuktikan bahawa Defendan Pertama yang telah melanggar
motorsikal Plaintif yang mana adalah konsisten dengan keterangan
Plaintif. Tetapi Plaintif tidak bersetuju kereta itu telah naik ke atas “handle”
motorsikal dan ditegaskan kereta itu melanggar motorsikal sehingga
menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut. Oleh itu, versi Plaintif yang
dihujahkan lebih boleh dipercayai berbanding versi Defendan Pertama.
Dihujahkan juga bahawa keterangan Defendan Pertama yang tidak
konsisten semasa pemeriksaan balas menunjukkan bahawa dia seorang
saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai kerana keterangannya adalah
bercanggah dengan keterangan senyap yang dirakam oleh pihak polis.
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
PENILAIAN DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH
A. LIABILITI
i. Isu biasness HMS dan keterangan yang “ditokok tambah”
[16] Isu (i) dan (ii) yang dibangkitkan oleh Plaintif menjurus kepada sikap
HMS yang dikatakan “biased” dalam meneliti keterangan Plaintif dan SP4
yang merupakan saksi mata kejadian (very suspicious mind with a
Jaundiced Eye). Alasan Penghakiman HMS tersebut dirujuk di ms 38
Nota Keterangan, di mana HMS telah menegur cara pengendalian kes ini
oleh peguam Plaintif. HMS menyatakan peguam Plaintif kerap membawa
keterangan baru dan tidak memberikan notis awal kepada mahkamah.
Mahkamah ini mendapati HMS beberapa kali telah menegur peguam
Plaintif (apabila Nota Keterangan kes ini diteliti). Oleh itu, Mahkamah
berpandangan isu ini telah terjawab dengan sendirinya.
ii. Isu liabiliti Plaintif
[17] Mahkamah boleh mengulas ketiga-tiga isu dalam (iii), (iv) dan (v) di
dalam perenggan-perenggan berikut. Plaintif turut berhujah dalam menilai
keterangan saksi, walaupun saksi itu tidak goyah semasa disoal balas
tidak bermakna fakta itu sahaja yang digunakan sebagai pertimbangan
oleh hakim bicara. Perkara yang lebih penting ialah keterangan pihak
mana yang lebih berkemungkinan apabila mahkamah bicara mendapati
dua versi yang bercanggah antara satu sama lain: Mohd Yusof Bin
Abdul Ghani v Tee Song Kee & Anor [1995] MLJU 344. Berpaksikan
pada undang-undang yang mantap inilah maka Mahkamah ini mendapati
mahkamah bicara telah mengapplikasikan prinsip yang betul dalam
menilai keterangan saksi-saksi kes Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan yang
bercanggah dalam kes ini. Pertikaian yang utama ialah isu sama ada
terdapat kon-kon yang cuba dielak oleh Plaintif di lorong kecemasan
tersebut. Defendan Pertama pula bertegas tidak ada kon keselamatan di
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
laluan kecemasan dan tidak nampak ada sebarang kon diletakkan di situ.
Defendan Pertama mengatakan tayar kiri hadapan sememangnya pecah
akibat keretanya ternaik ke atas “handle” motorsikal itu dan tayar telah
ditukar sebelum pihak polis merakam gambar-gambar kerosakan kedua-
dua kenderaan supaya dia boleh memandu pulang. Defendan Pertama
juga telah merakam gambar kerosakan keretanya dengan telefon
bimbitnya yang menunjukkan ada kesan goresan yang panjang pada
bahagian bawah kiri kereta (D23(A-G)).
[18] Antara keterangan lain yang biasa dibandingkan ialah laporan polis
yang dibuat oleh pihak-pihak dalam sesuatu kes kemalangan jalan raya
untuk menentukan versi mana yang lebih berkemungkinan berlaku
apabila dibandingkan dengan keterangan senyap yang lain. Mahkamah
ini telah meneliti dan mendapati bahawa laporan polis dibuat pada 4 masa
yang berbeza dan yang paling hampir dengan masa kejadian ialah
laporan yang dibuat oleh kakak Plaintif (SP3). Laporan polis oleh SP3,
dibuat pada 7.12.2013 jam 12.39 tengah malam (P3) di ms 378, RRJ3.
Laporan ini kandungannya tidak membantu Mahkamah tentang
bagaimana kemalangan berlaku.
[19] Laporan kedua dibuat oleh Defendan Pertama pada jam 11.05 pagi
pada 7.12.2013 ditandakan D2 (ms 376 RRJ3). Defendan Pertama
berumur 25 tahun pada masa kejadian dan bekerja sebagai anggota
tentera. Defendan Pertama menyatakan dalam D2 dia ternampak
seorang lelaki terbaring atas jalan dan keretanya terlanggar motorsikal
yang berada di atas jalan. Kerosakan pada kereta ialah lampu signal
hadapan kiri pecah, bumper hadapan kemek, bahagian body bawah kiri
rosak dan lain-lain kerosakan belum dipastikan lagi.
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
[20] Laporan ketiga (ID4) dibuat oleh Zulkifli Bin Ibrahim (SP4) seorang
pekerja swasta berumur 41 tahun pada masa itu (ms 377, RRJ3). Dalam
ID4 yang dibuat pada 14.12.2013, SP4 menyatakan apabila sampai di
tempat kejadian malam itu dia nampak sebuah kereta nombor tidak
diketahui telah melanggar sebuah motorsikal dan pada masa yang sama
motorsikal itu telah terjatuh di tengah jalan. Kereta itu kemudiannya
menggilis motorsikal itu. Tidak dinyatakan di dalam laporan polisnya di
mana penunggang motorsikal itu terjatuh.
[21] Semasa pemeriksaan balas SP1 mengaku telah mengambil
percakapan SP4 hanya pada 3.11.2020 iaitu 7 tahun selepas kejadian
dan ada disebut Plaintif terlambung dan jatuh di atas jalan selepas
motorsikalnya dilanggar di bahagian hadapan. Perkara ini dinyatakan
dalam pernyataan saksi yang difailkan di mahkamah. SP1 juga bersetuju
lorong kecemasan tidak boleh digunakan sebagai laluan oleh kenderaan
yang tidak mempunyai kecemasan (seperti motorsikal Plaintif). Pegawai
polis ini juga bersetuju apabila ada halangan seperti kon, pengguna jalan
raya yang berada di laluan itu perlu memperlahankan kenderaannya
untuk memberi laluan kepada kenderaan yang datang barulah dia boleh
mengubah haluannya (ms 22, Nota Keterangan). SP4 juga tidak
menyatakan dalam laporan ID4 mengenai Plaintif memasang lampu
isyaratnya sebelum mengubah haluan. Menurut SP1 pegawai penyiasat
asal kes ini tidak bertanya soalan itu kepada saksi bebas, jadi aspek ini
tidak disiasat. Walaubaimanapun, jika dilihat gambar P6E yang
dikemukakan secara berasingan semasa perbicaraan, kon itu ada dalam
gambar. Wujud persoalan, kenapa pegawai penyiasat asal tidak
menyiasat dengan saksi-saksi tentang kewujudan kon, jika benar ada
pada malam kejadian.
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[22] Laporan oleh Plaintif, seorang pelajar kolej berumur 18 tahun,
dibuat seperti P1 pada 17.12.2013 iaitu 2 minggu selepas kejadian (ms
375 RRJ3). Plaintif menyatakan telah pengsan selepas kemalangan dan
diwadkan selama 9 hari. Dia menyatakan dalam P1 bahawa dia mengelak
kon dan tiba-tiba kereta Defendan Pertama melanggar belakang
motorsikalnya. Motorsikalnya rosak teruk di bahagian belakang. Plaintif
kemudian menjelaskan kesilapannya dengan mengatakan kerosakan di
bahagian belakang dan apa yang hendak ditulis ialah kereta itu datang
dari belakang. Plaintif memberitahu SP1 dia terlepas pandang akan
percanggahan dalam laporan polis itu. SP1 juga bersetuju Plaintif tidak
pernah membuat laporan pembetulan.
[23] Dalam keterangan pemeriksaan balas SP1 dia mengatakan dalam
siasatannya Plaintif tidak menyatakan ada kon dan cuma “Based on
report only”. Di dalam pernyataan saksi SP1 dia menyatakan kemalangan
boleh dielakkan jika Defendan mengambil perhatian kewujudan kon di
laluan kecemasan tetapi SP1 juga memberitahu mahkamah bahawa
Plaintif telah disaman (ms 24 Nota Keterangan). SP1 juga bersetuju pihak
yang terhalang laluannya (Plaintif) ada tangungjawab untuk
mengurangkan kelajuan kenderaannya dan memberi laluan sebelum
menukar haluannya.
[24] Beban pembuktian dalam kes ini terletak kepada Plaintif untuk
membuktikan kecuaian Defendan Pertama yang dikatakan telah
menyebabkan kemalangan dan kecederaan yang dialaminya. Mahkamah
merujuk kepada kes Ong Cheng Wah & Anor v Supramaniam A/L
Arjunan [2001] MLJU 291 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping
memutuskan:
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
“It is settled law that the onus is on the plaintiff to prove affirmatively that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant and it is not for the
defendant to excuse himself that he was not negligent. In (23) Ng Chui Sia v
Maimon Bt. Ali [1983] 1 M.L.J. 110, His Lordship Hashim Yeop A. Sani J.
said:-
"In an action for negligence the onus of proving the allegation of
negligence rests on the person who makes it unless there are disclosed
facts which raise a presumption in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
must show affirmatively that there has been a breach of a specific
or general duty by the defendant and this resulted in the damage to
the plaintiff. If he fails to prove this the action must fail." (the
emphasis is by this court)”.
[25] Dalam kes ini, Pegawai Penyiasat (IO) asal, Insp. Moh Aznal, tidak
dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan sedangkan dia masih bekerja dan
tidak berada di luar Malaysia. Bukanlah dia tidak boleh dikesan dan
dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan bagi menutup kelompangan tentang
kenapa IO tersebut tidak menyiasat isu kon keselamatan pada masa
kejadian. Sebaliknya IO gantian (SP1) yang mengambil percakapan
saksi-saksi 7 tahun selepas kejadian. Di dalam hal ini, peruntukan s. 103
Akta Keterangan 1950 adalah terpakai dan kegagalan memanggil IO asal
kes ini sedikit sebanyak mencacatkan kes Plaintif yang memikul beban
pembuktian atas tuduhan kecuaian terhadap Defendan-Defendan.
Walaubagaimanapun, presumption of adverse inference di bawah
s.114(g) tidak perlu digunakan dalam kes ini.
[26] Mengenai isu gambar kelima (P6E) yang dikemukakan secara
berasingan oleh SP2 dan penerangan saksi ini kenapa gambar ini tidak
dicetak dan dikemukakan dengan 4 keping gambar yang lain, Mahkamah
ini mendapati keterangan oleh SP2 tersebut tidak begitu meyakinkan
pada tahap prima facie iaitu sesuatu credible evidence yang boleh
dipercayai oleh Mahkamah. Gambar ini ada keraguan dan jika dilihat,
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
pada cetakan 4 gambar P6(A-D) ada garisan-garisan yang mungkin
dihasilkan oleh mesin pencetak tertentu tetapi gambar kelima itu tidak ada
garisan yang sama. Oleh kerana kon keselamatan tidak ada ditandakan
dalam rajah kasar, ada kemungkinan bahawa ia tidak wujud pada malam
itu atau berada di tempat yang lain. Ini adalah dapatan fakta oleh HMS di
perenggan 22 Alasan Penghakiman. SP2 pula bersetuju jika ada kon
pada malam itu, sudah pasti IO akan melukisnya dalam rajah kasar
tersebut. Telah dicadangkan kepada SP2 oleh sebab tiada kerosakan
pada kanan motorsikal sebab itu SP2 tidak diarahkan untuk ambil gambar
sisi kanan dan saksi ini bersetuju. Memandangkan isu kon keselamatan
ini adalah teras kepada tuntutan Plaintif, HMS adalah berhak untuk
membuat dapatan tersebut kerana IO asal kes tidak dipanggil untuk
memberikan penjelasannya mengenai isu ini.
[27] Mahkamah juga telah meneliti keterangan SP4 saksi bebas yang
mengakui melihat kereta yang dipandu oleh Defendan Pertama
melanggar motorsikal Plaintif. Keterangan oleh SP4 bahawa dia
memandu sebuah kereta Kelisa pada masa kejadian dan berada 2 kereta
di belakang motorsikal Plaintif. Di hadapannya ialah sebuah kereta Myvi.
SP4 memandu kereta Kelisa di belakang kereta Myvi yang ciri fizikalnya
adalah lebih tinggi dan di hadapan Myvi ialah kereta Defendan Pertama.
SP4 berada di sebelah kanan keretanya (pemandu), sedangkan Plaintif
berada di sebelah kiri jalan. Jalan raya atau highway tersebut adalah lurus
di KM 201 dan keadaan adalah “sangat gelap” menurut kata SP4 dan
tiada lampu di sepanjang jalan. Fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan ialah
bahawa semua pemandu berada di lorong kiri lebuhraya. SP4
menyatakan dia telah nampak kejadian tayar hadapan motorsikal Plaintif
dilanggar oleh kenderaan Defendan Pertama walaupun dia berada di
sebelah kanan keretanya dengan jarak 2 buah kereta di hadapan dalam
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
30-40 kaki. Versi Defendan Pertama pula dia ternampak Plaintif sedang
mengerekot di atas jalan (kemudian dia kata terbaring) dan terlanggar
motorsikal Plaintif dengan sebelah kiri keretanya bergeseran dengan
“handle” motorsikal tersebut.
[28] Berdasarkan jarak kenderaan antara satu sama lain dan vantage
point semua pemandu tersebut (tiada keterangan oleh pemandu Myvi)
dan keadaan pencahayaan yang gelap, Mahkamah mendapati versi
Defendan Pertama berbanding versi SP4 adalah lebih berkemungkinan
berlaku dalam hal ini. Di perenggan 74 dalam Alasan Penghakiman HMS
menyebut kenderaan mana yang menggilis badan Plaintif. Tetapi,
Mahkamah ini mendapati tidak ada keterangan bahawa kereta Defendan
Pertama atau kenderaan lain yang menggilis badan Plaintif sendiri dan
fakta ini juga diakui oleh Plaintif. Kerosakan pada motorsikal adalah di
bahagian hadapan dan bukan belakang. Apa yang digilis ialah bahagian
hadapan motorsikal. Di sini, Mahkamah ini berpandangan berbeza
dengan HMS. Versi asal Plaintif yang dinyatakan dalam laporan polisnya
adalah bercanggah dengan silent evidence yang ada. Keterangan SP1
tidak begitu membantu Mahkamah kerana siasatan oleh SP1 telah dibuat
7 tahun selepas kejadian setelah dia mendapati terdapat kekeliruan
mengenai isu kon keselamatan tersebut.
[29] Keterangan Plaintif juga adalah bahawa dia hanya nampak 1 lampu
kereta di belakangnya, implying bahawa ini adalah lampu kereta
Defendan Pertama. Mahkamah tidak mendapat jawapan di mana lagi
lampu 2 kereta yang berada di belakang motorsikal Plaintif, jika apa yang
dikatakan oleh Plaintif dan SP4 adalah benar. Kebarangkalian yang lebih
besar ialah bahawa kereta SP4 berada lebih jauh di belakang motorsikal
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
dan kereta Defendan Pertama daripada yang dikatakan oleh SP4 di
mahkamah.
[30] Jika pun wujud kon keselamatan tersebut, berdasarkan pengakuan
Plaintif sendiri bahawa walaupun dia nampak ada kereta di belakangnya
dan tinggal jarak 2 kereta lagi namun dia tetap bergerak ke kanan untuk
mengelak kon tersebut. Ini menunjukkan sikap terburu-buru Plaintif dalam
menangani situasi semasa. Plaintif berkata bahawa dia mula nampak kon
keselamatan dari jarak 9 meter atau lebih kurang 30 kaki dan kemudian
dalam pemeriksaan balasnya dia menukar keterangannya dan
mendakwa dia sudah nampak kon itu lebih awal lagi.
[31] Sememangnya undang-undang jalanraya bahawa pemandu yang
berada di kanan mempunyai right of way, dan Plaintif yang sepatutnya
memberi laluan kepada kereta yang datang sebelum menukar haluan ke
kanan. Cadangan ini dipersetujui oleh SP1. Mahkamah mendapati sikap
Plaintif dalam hal ini dengan mengambil tindakan masuk ke laluan kereta
dalam keadaan terburu-buru dan jika dia tidak masuk ke laluan itu, dan
sebaliknya memperlahankan seketika motorsikalnya 2-3 saat untuk
melepaskan kereta tersebut, kemalangan ini tidak akan berlaku.
Sebenarnya Plaintif tidak boleh menunggang motorsikalnya di laluan
kecemasan walaupun dia kata dia kelajuannya tidak laju dan dia tahu itu,
tetapi jawapannya “bila ada kereta takkan nak lalu di lorong yang ada
kereta”. Ini jawapan pengguna jalan raya yang mungkin kurang matang
dan menunjukkan Plaintif tidak mahir dan/atau tidak tahu menggunakan
jalan raya dengan betul walaupun dia ada lesen P. Dengan usia 18 tahun,
Mahkamah ini mendapati sikap dan kekurangan pengalaman Plaintif di
atas jalan raya telah menyumbang kepada kecuaiannya dalam
kemalangan ini. Pergerakan secara tiba-tiba menukar lorong
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
kebiasaannya boleh membuat pengguna jalan yang lain terkejut dan
mungkin gagal mengawal kenderaan dengan baik.
[32] HMS mendapati motorsikal Plaintif yang telah merempuh bahagian
kiri kereta sehingga menyebabkan lampu hadapan kiri kereta pecah,
apabila dia keluar ke kanan untuk mengelak kon tersebut. Ini bermakna
HMS menerima keterangan bahawa kereta Defendan Pertama ada
berlanggar dengan motorsikal Plaintif. Mahkamah ini mendapati dalam
hal ini Defendan Pertama mengatakan dia tidak berlanggar dengan
motorsikal Plaintif sehingga menyebabkan Plaintif terpelanting ke atas
jalan raya. Bahagian bawah kiri kereta Defendan Pertama hanya
melanggar/bergeseran dengan handle atau hadapan motorsikal. Setelah
menimbangkan semula semua keterangan, Mahkamah ini bersetuju
dengan dapatan HMS bahawa versi Defendan Pertama adalah lebih
konsisten dengan kerosakan pada bahagian bawah kereta di sebelah kiri
dan kerosakan pada hadapan motorsikal itu adalah disebabkan
penggeseran kereta yang menggilis bahagian handle motorsikal seperti
keterangan Defendan Pertama dan disokong oleh gambar motorsikal di
ms. 150 dalam RRJ3.
[33] Namun, Mahkamah ini lebih cenderung untuk membuat dapatan
bahawa keterangan Defendan Pertama bahawa dia tidak berlanggar
langsung dengan Plaintif yang menyebabkan Plaintif terpelanting dan
jatuh ke atas jalan raya adalah lebih probable berdasarkan kerosakan
pada kedua-dua kenderaan. Dapatan HMS dalam hal ini adalah berbeza
dengan dapatan Mahkamah ini mengenai sama ada berlaku
pertembungan antara kereta Defendan Pertama dengan motorsikal
Plaintif yang menyebabkan Plaintif terlambung/terpelanting di atas jalan
raya. Namun, Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan HMS bahawa
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
sememangnya cara Plaintif menunggang motorsikalnya dengan cuai
telah menyumbang kepada berlakunya kemalangan apabila dia tidak
berhati-hati mengubah haluan motorsikalnya. Hasilnya, setelah
Mahkamah meneliti rationale HMS dalam mempertanggungkan Plaintif
dengan 80% liabiliti, Mahkamah ini tidak akan mengusik keputusan HMS
tersebut yang mempunyai kelebihan meneliti saksi-saksi yang memberi
keterangan di mahkamah.
[34] Mahkamah merujuk semula kepada kes Ong Cheng Wah (supra)
di mana HMT telah memutuskan:
“This court find that the plaintiff's evidence in court was a complete deviation as
to how the accident occurred when compared to his police report exhibit P4 and
that his evidence in court is highly suspect and requires satisfactory explanation
for this material contradictions before the court could have accepted his
evidence in his favour. There is no doubt that his evidence in court was an
afterthought attempt and to exculpate himself from being responsible for the
accident. On this ground alone the learned Sessions Court Judge should have
dismissed the plaintiff's claim instead of attempting to justify to find for the
plaintiff by stating that "since his evidence was not impeached," the court ought
to believe that the plaintiff's evidence was probable without making any finding
whether the material contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence has affected the
credibility of the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned Sessions Court Judge
should have held that on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff had failed to
prove his case against the defendant. The learned Sessions Court Judge did
not say that the plaintiff's version is more inherently probable but instead he
just said that the court was satisfied that the plaintiff's version was probable
when in fact it was against the weight of the evidence and yet he proceeded to
find both parties equally responsible for the accident and accordingly,
apportioned liability on a 50 : 50 basis without any proper legal basis.”.
[35] Berbanding dengan kes ini, HMS meletakkan liabiliti Plaintif adalah
80% setelah mendapati versi Defendan Pertama adalah lebih konsisten
dengan cara bagaimana kemalangan telah berlaku dan Plaintif yang cuai
berlebihan dengan cara menunggang motorsikal tanpa berhati-hati
apabila dia mengubah haluannya untuk mengelak kon keselamatan itu.
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Di dalam kes Uval & Anor v Zainal [1970] 1 MLJ 74, Mahkamah
Persekutuan menyatakan bahawa:
“As regards the apportionment of blame, we would follow the principle
enunciated by the Court of Appeal in England in Brown v Thompson [1968] 2
All ER 708 711, affirming, among others, du Parcq L.J. in Ingram v United
Automobile Service Ltd [1943] 1 KB 612 614, who said:-
“It would seem to follow from the decision of the House of Lords in The
Macgregor [1943] AC 197 that this court should not interfere with the
apportionment of liability made by the judge at the trial unless there is
some error of law or of fact in his judgment. I come to that conclusion
particularly in view of the observations of Lord Wright in that case. In the
present case the matter is perhaps one of academic interest because I
should not have been prepared to differ from the judge in the
apportionment that he has made, although, if I had tried the case, I
should not necessarily have apportioned the damages in exactly the
same way. This court has never taken the view that it should alter an
apportionment unless there was something seriously wrong with it.”.
[36] Seperkara lagi, Plaintif mengaku dia telah pengsan selepas
kemalangan dan sedar semasa di hospital. Laporan perubatan yang
dicatatkan oleh seorang doktor yang merawat Plaintif dan lebih hampir
dengan masa material iaitu suatu contemporaneous document di ms. 387
RRJ3 yang menyatakan di bahagian history yang diberikan pesakit,
“Unsure of mechanism of injury. His alertness level or GCS 15/15.
Noted by Dr Chan Choon Hua. Last seen by doctor on 1/6/2019 and
prognosis was good.”. Mahkamah mendapati daripada catatan tersebut,
Plaintif sendiri tidak pasti bagaimana kemalangan itu telah berlaku dan
apakah yang menyebabkan kecederaan-kecederaan yang dialaminya.
Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif tidak berjaya membuktikan atas imbangan
kebarangkalian bahawa Defendan Pertama yang telah memandu dengan
cuai sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan pada malam itu. Melihat
kepada extent of injuries yang dialami oleh Plaintif, Mahkamah juga
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
mendapati dia telah menunggang motorsikalnya lebih daripada kelajuan
70-80km/jam seperti yang dikatakan oleh Plaintif.
B. KUANTUM
[37] Mahkamah ini juga menilai keterangan Plaintif bahawa tidak ada
dinyatakan di mana-mana yang dia telah mengambil langkah
keselamatan untuk mengelak daripada berlakunya kemalangan tersebut.
Keterangan Defendan Pertama pula bahawa dia telah cuba mengelak
Plaintif yang berada di atas jalan raya tetapi bahagian bawah kiri
keretanya masih terkena juga handle motorsikal itu. Di dalam kes Foong
Nan v Sagadevan [1971] 2 MLJ 24, Mahkamah Persekutuan
menyatakan seperti berikut:
“…Nowhere was there any evidence by the respondent of his taking any
evasive action from the first sighting of the approaching car till the
collision. With all respect, I think the judgment in this case took no notice of
this vital fact. It is vital in that the respondent's own "share in the responsibility"
for the accident should have been taken into account. Contributory negligence
means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of himself,
contributing, by his want of care, to his own injury.
[Emphasis added]
[38] Di dalam kes Laksamana Realty sdn Bhd [2005] 4 CLJ 871,
mahkamah telah merujuk kes Tan Kuan Yau v Suhindrimani Angasamy
[1985] 1 CLJ 429 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan:
"The principle that could guide this court in determining whether it should
interfere with the quantum of damages is crystal clear. What is also clear is that
much depends on the circumstances of each case, in particular the amount of
the award. In a particular case therefore it is for the appeal court to
consider whether in the light of the circumstances of that case there is an
erroneous estimate of the amount of the damage in that either there was
an omission on the part of the Judge to consider some relevant materials
or he had admitted for purposes of assessment some irrelevant
considerations. If the court is satisfied or convinced that the Judge has acted
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
upon wrong principles of law then it is justified in reversing; indeed it is its duty
to reverse the finding of the trial Judge."
[Penekanan ditambah]
[39] HMS telah membincangkan dengan panjang lebar isu kuantum dan
alasan kenapa beliau mencapai keputusan sedemikian (rujuk kepada
perenggan 83 – 105 dalam Alasan Penghakiman). Dalam hal ini,
Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati HMS telah biased terhadap pihak Plaintif
sehingga menyebabkan beliau memberikan award yang rendah
kepadanya. Mahkamah ini berpandangan HMS ini adalah “prudent” dan
telah mengambil pendekatan bahawa jika pembedahan itu boleh
dilakukan di hospital kerajaan maka lebih baik dijalankan di situ untuk
menjimatkan kos.
[40] Mahkamah ini juga telah mengambil kira prinsip yang diputuskan
oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Chai Yee Chong v. Lew Thai
[2004] 2 CLJ 321 mengenai hak untuk mendapatkan rawatan perubatan
di hospital pilihan individu tersebut seperti berikut:
“To summarise my view on the issue, every person has a right to seek
medical treatment at a hospital of his choice be it at a government hospital
or at a private hospital. But when it comes to awarding damages for such
treatment, if the treatment is sought at a government hospital, the full
amount expended and paid by the person should be awarded. But, if he
seeks treatment at a private hospital, he has to prove, first that he is justified
to seek treatment at a private hospital and, secondly, the amount incurred
is reasonable. Regarding the first hurdle that he has to cross:
(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
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
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. As pointed out by RK Nathan JC in Chong Chee Kong
(supra) with whom I agree, we are concerned with treatment, not
accommodation.”.
[41] Daripada laporan perubatan Dr. Goh Dar Wen (Perak Community
Hospital), pakar Ortopedik tersebut (rujuk ms 211 – 221 di RRJ3) telah
memeriksa Plaintif pada 19.11.2020 iaitu 7 tahun selepas kemalangan
dan didapati Plaintif telah berkahwin dan mempunyai 2 orang anak. Ini
bermakna kecederaan yang dialami dahulu tidaklah sehingga dia tidak
mampu untuk mempunyai anak-anak sendiri dan tidak ada kerosakan
kepada fungsi anatomi selepas kemalangan.
[42] Plaintif mengaku bekerja mengangkat perabut dan mengadu sakit
belakang. Pakar ini mengesahkan Plaintif sudah pulih daripada
kecederaannya. Pekerjaannya yang termasuk menaikkan dan
menurunkan perabut pada pandangan pakar tersebut berkemungkinan
boleh menyebabkan sakit belakang Plaintif. Pakar ini juga menyatakan
pembedahan di masa hadapan boleh dibuat di hospital kerajaan. Oleh itu,
HMS telah memberi pertimbangan yang betul dalam memutuskan isu ini.
[43] Sebarang pampasan hendaklah adil, wajar dan munasabah serta
tidak berlebihan: Yang Salbiah & Anor v Jamil Bin Harun [1981] 1 MLJ
292; Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi (a child suing through her father and
next friend: Mohd Helmi Abdul Aziz v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016]
2 CLJ 885; Wong Li Fatt William (an infant) v Haidawati Binti Boihen
& Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 497. HMS telah merujuk kepada 2018 Revised
Compendium dan kes-kes yang telah diputuskan sebelum ini untuk
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
menjustifikasikan award beliau. Tiada sebarang kekhilfan di sini dan
Mahkamah ini tidak akan mengusik keputusan dan award yang diberikan.
KESIMPULAN
[44] Setelah menimbangkan semua faktor di atas, Mahkamah ini
menolak rayuan Plaintif dan mengekalkan keputusan HMS atas liabiliti
dan kuantum yang diberikan pada 26.1.2022.
Rayuan ditolak dengan kos.
Bertarikh 10 November 2023
Sgd.
NOOR RUWENA BINTI MD NURDIN
Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman
Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya, Taiping
Bagi pihak Perayu:
Mr. Saravana Kumar A/L Koothaperumal
Tetuan Jega Kumar & Partners, Butterworth
Bagi pihak Responden-Responden:
Pn. Vijaya Anushia Vengadasalam
Tetuan V. Anushia & Associate, Taiping.
S/N VB/ufH5Q8kyU5kSerbwLBQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 40,769 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BL-45A-4-03/2022 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMMAD ASHRY BIN OTHMAN | - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB)- SP1 membuka sedikit tingkap di sebelah kanan pintu hadapan rumah selepas rumah diketuk dan dipanggil tidak berjawab, dan beliau nampak seseorang telah lari masuk ke dalam bilik ketiga rumah lalu beliau mengarahkan SP6 untuk memecahkan pintu hadapan rumah tersebut- SP1 mendapati bilik itu tertutup tetapi pintunya tidak berkunci dan mendapati OKT bersembunyi di balik pintu dalam keadaan duduk dan ketakutan- OKT sedang memakai satu beg silang warna hitam mengandungi bahan-bahan disyaki dadah jenis syabu- OKT telah mengambil 1 beg kain dari dalam laci almari pakaiannya menyerahkan kepada SP1 yang mengandungi 19 paket plastik lutsinar bahan-bahan disyaki dadah jenis syabu- OKT dibawa ke ruang tamu dan pada ketika itu semua penghuni rumah ada di ruang tamu- Samada OKT mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan seterusnya pemilikan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai- OKT tahu akan kehadiran barang kes dan mempunyai kuasa untuk mengeluarkan, menggunakan dan melupuskan jika perlu- Tindakan OKT melarikan diri ke dalam bilik ketiga sebaik sahaja mendengar SP1 memperkenalkan diri dan menyorok di belakang pintu adalah relevan- Samada perbezaan berat dadah adalah material kepada rantaian keterangan- Samada terdapat penafian keterangan yang terjumlah kepada Seskyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan- Samada pembelaan OKT menimbulkan satu keraguan yang munasabah | 10/11/2023 | YA Puan Norliza Binti Othman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c4b4db47-887f-4071-a96c-00d4e311785c&Inline=true |
10/11/2023 16:22:48
BL-45A-4-03/2022 Kand. 59
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N R9u0xHIcUCpbADU4xF4XA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
BL—I5A—d—D3/2022 Kand. 59
mm/zm my 424
mum MAHKAMAH TINGGI KLANG
DALAM NEGERI ssumeoa DARUL EHSAN
PERBICARAAN JENAYAN NO.: BLA5A«u13IZ|)Z1
ANTARA
PENDAKWARAVA
uwm
MUHAMMAD ASHRV am OTHMAN
ALISAN PENGNAKIIIAN
A. mun asuwms
[<1 Muhammad Ashry bin Olhman (0KT)Islah dlluduh dengan saw (1)
kasalahan as bawah Seksyen 35B11)(a) ma Dadah Berbahaya
1952 (ADS) dan bcleh dmukum cflhawah Ssksyan :93 |2)ADB Ianu
le\ah mengaaar dudah belbahaw Memamphetamine dengan beta!
berswh 128 97 gram
[21 (M (Idak mengaku sawan alas parluduhan . dan plhak
pendakwazn man msmanggd seramal sambflan 19) even saw
hag! memhukllkan salu ks: pnma facie lsmadap OKT. Msruka
aaaxah -
(n SP1 — lnsp AnwNoM1h:m um Ramhsii - Pegawal Serbuan
an spz — NurAisyaII bum Olhman — saksx swam
llu) SP3-DlKp\ShaIIamdm m Hashim-Jumfmo
(iv) sm — Muhamad Ahmad Medan Mn Mohamed Nomin - Saks:
Awam
M SP5 —Aznu mu Juuam - Saks! Awam
1v.) sps — DIKpI Mnhd Nafizw hm Nazammn -Anggola semuan
Mu SP7 - Sjn Mahd Ham Rxzal bin Che Haswm » Panelimz
Bavang Kes
(mu) swa - Mom Najll bin Ab Rshmah - Ah
(Ix) SP9 - msp Muhammad Aznn urn vazm — Pegawm Penylasal
FAKTA KES
Pads 29 5.2021‘ jam Iemn kursng I100 malim, semasa SP1
hetada an psjshal Bahagian Sxasalan Janayah Navkuttk VPD Kua\a
Salangar. haliau lslah mensrima makmmm belkmlan aklwlll asaan
di kawasan Kampung Sunni! Gulang-Gmang. Tamung Kamng‘
Se\anq:x.
[16]
lllrbdnngndtanlln shuuldhlsu .nmc..-mm mun m amamm
ygm-rm: mm. ..m.u.M.:...a.»a:~.
Bnrang kss mu di da\am lam kedua zlman nmmml ssndm olsh om
apablla SP1 benanya adskah bar-aw lalsh yang asszmpan olehnya
seravaa SP1 mamenksa badan OKT dan memumpal Ida\am beg
silang yang me an badarrmu 3 pakel praauk Vutsinar yang
msngandungl serbuk wflh dnsyakl syabu Dada kafika flu. Earang
ks: dljumpal . dalam almari wanu didalam beg kain wrak burunu
hilmll dw mane mualamnya mengsnflunm 19 pakal plasflk Iuuinar
yang mangandung: ballan dwsyakw syzbu pada ketika nu. Wahaupun
mmali nu max berkunnl can pmak pembelaan membawa lsu
bahuwa seslapa sanan Doleh memasukl blII< nu dan malelakkan
harang kas i|u \1is\Iu,(apH1akikalnya hanya OKT sahzpa bsrada an
daham bihk nu ketlkn bamng kes duumpax dsn on NI yang
menunlukkan dhnana narvya ammpan Selam nu kamangan dari SP
2 dan 4 rnennasahkan kaliga m. hanya mgunakan chat! on
sahaja Keauwua mereks Ndak am: mengesshksn aaa uang
lam uanang ks mmah larsabul wabelum ssmuan den finugal m
katiga ilu. sn adalah kakak kepada on ketika pemeflksaan
mama memakmmkan my kepada Mankamah: -
-s
sun. Na 3 am uuam
11
I Amry
s slwapogam mm mm. M: :7
4 Amy
Kslika pemeriksaan balms lni kelerangan svz .
s Avmkkaqnv
J mu:
5. Awnk mm. annmw
J. ‘/3
s Kuwun-knwnn Awyu. filling mmalv’
J rm
s Kawwmawan Ashly dare-nv nmuh mumns MkAahv17
J Wdik :an...
s a.z.kAs¢-vy 1.1.x kunct, smpn-sap! balvhkufunv mu'nk"
4 B:hk:mb|rIIum:n1flnM‘IlI)’Pl0"‘U““”"
Kalarzngan dari spa iai|u abang Ipar kepada om maaram
pameriksaan mama msmaklumkan Mahkamah sepem mum,-
12
sw wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
~s srma mm Aunt: am): No :7
J am,
5 smmzmmmm;
J Vn
s xmmam Asnvy no/5/u um, spsm‘Pimay @ um
I Ydakmhu
s ~.m.:.:ma..«a»»~mry.»
./vndakpaair
[19] Adakah ow Inga wen dlkaukan mampurvyai penganahuan anas
sesuazu bends dan bebas unluk menslsndalikan benda belksnzan
aenqan mangecuanxan orang lain dari meogumskan nenua flu
msmandangkan hupuhan pmak psmbtlaan bahawa muk kefina nu
wen mmasukx olah xesiapa ma di mmzh m4 dan juga aleh kawan—
kawan om yang dalang benandang. Adakeh om dlkalakan
mempunysw “exclusive possession’? Umuk W Mahkamah merujuk
kapada m Loaw Nah-u Lim v RIqr'n:[1D5B]ML1 21:-
-n.. .1.cuan.y dzfinman bmlgc m m- ma M txdualvsnasy )1/A onsn aafd
mat ‘mm:/m must be .-m.m- rm. 1; ammguou: Potsussam am: not
13
N fiwmMi:ucpnADuAxFoxA
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
.m.=:..s..m..:».. accused Twoorrrlolipwsont maybe In/otnlpossess/on
.1 clurlals. mans. wmn. or conhburvd. m nrclulwo demon! vi
1: 1 . mom uueuon havethe
Cunadyfikewrse may be SM: .>«.am..,...1.n.m Ihvssml afilm-ntnllxclumng
mu. Yin ....r.. ummcnan mm... “mow Ind pomm... .: mm
mm.” nu not mopawrnlfllxpout Tm stamvranr mac 'puswssloII
muslbe sxclusrvdfltalfpn .1... tazonluyon .mn..muoz>.pmve.1».~n ma
vndmcv by wmcn ». .5 m 5. pmwd n is usvntllr to «up IN: dkslmdlon
mu, m mm-1, esm.....y when uppfymv D'BS|WDlrons'1IPVIlklMn can
u.m.....n1
[2u1 ‘Exdustve posseworw Jugs dlperjeraskan alsh YA Mona Zawatwi
sauan (k-uka YA Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan) mdalam Tm Tack
Song 4 Ana! nap/2u1q 1» cu :29
‘I351 m Ix/stance ulconatructm mum mm: 9.. me gucunar rm: oleaclv ans:
Mdmn mfermdwhanms snrflreavmxuvefuumiln m......s»...
mum: axcllluivz Esm-
[21] Pihak pamnexsan kamka psmunksaan balas sm mendakwa
ballawa Mada pakaian on dldalam a\man pakalan dmmk kehga. a.
maria Vac! kedua yana menaamungl harang kss map: dlsangkal
oxen SP1 yang manga|akan pakawan nfldalam alman im mmk on
.4
N ww..mMI:uCpbADuAxFoxA
Nuns 5.... n-nhnrwm be used .. mm .. W»...-y mm: dun-mm VI] .n....c pm...
[21]
[23]
Fakva im dnsakong uleh kelerangsn can SP2 flan spa yang
mengsnankan bmk keliaa ilu zda\ah bmk on
Ksduduksn barang ks: I3 Dakel nvasuk Iu mar) m dzlam beg suang
yang ada Dada badan cm flan ,uga di dalam lani kadua man a.
bilik xeugaue pakel pmux Iucunan yang disahkan aleh saksx-saksi
penflakwaan bmx mu hxlik OKT; menuniukkan an [arm akan
kehadlran bamng kes den mampunyal kuasa unmx mengeruarxan.
msmunakan dan msluuuskan nka paliu. Tiada um kelarangan
lam yanu diksmukakan khususnya aleh plhak pemnexaan banawa
ads urany lam mu axan kedudukan barana kss didalam lam kadua
Nrnan I-menu! din didalam bag silang wamz mam se\airI on
Selam um‘ nndakan OKT yang menunjukken kadudukan barang kes
an dmam Incl xeaua alman darn msrvgambilnya sena membankan
kepada sm menuniukan adanya pengenaman on adanya dadah
dalam kovak Mu Rujukan dmual paaa xapmusan Res PPlwn D-nlsh
Madhavnn (20091 zcu 209 mukasurat 212
‘sobenalflya. Ilka Pun Psflyalsan mpmmn mu druvudamran, rm. ballawu
kalunl
mwov-den. mam ha! kuadnn umuu relah momb mun
x m M Hunnbi: nu mm. mencuhu r.=4.x..
mm! uh clan lam banana bed-u m mm: mm ma...
“am; am agm [g 4... am. im "Emu: mm... x. .:.u.u
15
[241
[25]
Dvngsn mum p.nye4anuan seoegreu. in mm dnpst mgunmn mans,
psmho/aan MM mm mencadanwkan bahuwu adnrvyl knnam: flnlum Dag-
bog mwondsn rs/.n hnul yum mm mam plan rlspalvdm, klqn
mm-ng yang msmpunyal am: ks mmsh m. dun mid: rmuomisrv
Ipanolunnn oleh Mlnklnuh]
Dalsm kunlaks ksc ‘ nihak pendakwaan Ielah herjzw ‘exclude
pihak Iain dari memesum am on dan kononnya melelzkkan beg
kaln mrsk bumng hanlu yang msngandungi 19 nd<9tplas1Ak|uLs|nar
yang msngandunm dadah a. damn lam kedua almzui di mm on
sr-'1 tldak penu gebdarv almzm lersebul unmk mendapatkan banana
kes ksrana Ianya tflambll Man on dan diberikan kapada bahau
sr=1 sehagal ksluz pasukan selbuan was mengesshkan penghum
lain rumah Iersebm mm. su>2. SPA, dun um: spa mans mm dl
Mllk rnaaing-masma um 1 dan 2) keuka salbuan d||1ua|. Hanya
om.
at uleh sr-'1 neuan ke arah bxlwk kefiga can OKT jugs
duumpm melt SP1 betsembunw an seoanx pmlu bilik kanga aalam
keadaan duduk dun kmakman
Beuiasarkan mammwncu yang dlruluk an anas, Mahksmah
mamuwskan on mempunyal pengetahuan ka alas dadahdadah
yang dimmpal di daham beg swing yang dlpakalnya can was a
15
dalam beg xam cnrak bmung hanlu yang m ambil oleh on dari Ia ’
kadua a\mari pakawannya
[26] Mankaman memlnuskan nihzk pandzkwaan beqm mambukhkan
rmtikan dan kavmlan ks mas aaaamaaan yang auumpax an d-Ilam
bag sllang yang dxpakai on dan iuga dadah amalam hag kain
cmak hurling harm: yang dlambll oxen om uan lac: kedua alman
pakaiannya an nmk Keflga yang dldudukn nhahnya make on
znggapan dibawah Ssksyen 37(d)ADE1B52IerpakaIkeaLasnw.
[271 In! Mia barvanmkan kuvsda kswtusan Mahkamah Rayuan
dida\am Hurry Chan Kok Loan vPubli|: PmsIculor[2fl17] 1LNS
1174 VA Datzuk Zabanah mun Mm Vusol qxeuka YA menjadi
Hakvm Rayuanl memuluskan:
‘I577 smm end; was mm aaoecrypvwtaea a ‘dosmnd um alsllurra
nu, am--u Possesdon ma uwm xnowto-ass; Then n no mm;-r lhe
nncarifw M an Pmncuflnn Io pm: hw mm Pnueulnn ol
mwl-duo mu delved at. So long u there 1. already . «name of
cunodyanv convol, mepmumam I! mama Smcu mmarmmge
ma enemy mm -/Imllng oVcm1odysndccntro(a7Fd0 mvdna contents‘ the
accused m dumtd 1.: have puts-swan and knowladgs. ‘rm has am
Vllummaledby Ghana Slew F315./1SsbaIum1 Ssravosklmlwulvammad mam
v PP meal 2 ML1 st pans 27; as/manna ma mdaman: am. Fodsnd com
17
N wwmMu:ucpbADu4xFoxA
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
“We deemed stats arm“ by . and; ma. Diurnal! msasmn unddaamafl
xmawaadg-1 r: by upovstvun Mluw um! mom .5 In nuusms Ia am». now me
pammiarsinla nlnfinwswxurwpdul mm »..aomyn...mn:n.am.m»¢
arpnmuylndxnacuxsllyluullallsaIoI7Il4‘§lIflU1llVI’IS)¢,lIICflnd)nga/
mcodynnw-mu mm
m n mL.’I7d n the mean
Sun‘)! 5 Emma
41; mg My; hm: Mbaw u .s u dmmm mm: m. mmumflx my me
[251 ssialn nu, msnurm SP1, anablla mum mmah menuxdxkatuk, ma
mslihzt om lati masuk kn nmk kehga dan spams SP1 dim
pasukennw befluya masuk ke mrnah nu. merska lelih wax ks blllk
usage din menu-man on many msucangkuaa di balakang pmm
dalam keadaan ke|akulan.
Mahkamah Rawsn an dalam ks: Sim cnu mm lawn:
Pcndnwl Ray: 1 Rlyuln Junlylh Na: sa5(m.:54-on/2920
mamumskan
7591 Kannfluga bsflatluu kalakuan pallyu km. kaladusrv luau rulavan lm
dflflialsnn mm sm mu usrflyu mm." mm nun wt-sm sob-mm Me-Mn
an Imunvmya mar-am. flan bevvelun km. panmm... mum.” x.
atuurvyu lm mammlhkksn annuwu povlyu mampunynr ,..ng.m....;. mm
is
sm wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
knndunwan nawnys yang rrwvpunyax man 4:11: mm Farlan mm v PP
pm) 1 cu 717) -
Mahkamah Rayuan maanam Mug:/an 5/1 Munlandy I-w-n
w-as{u)-«Ms/2019
memelaskan zkan ksauaman Saksyan my Am Kmrunnnu um:
Pmdakwa Ray: (myu-n Jvmyn:
-1331 Seksysn 9(2) AM: Kalarnngnn 1950 mfiflwemnlukkan superb"
homvut-.
"ex m Knlnknuv m..m.n.pmn Illu mm" mmmm .;m kupndl
mun4nInlD17I4kuAlmN>IJPUP“flm0nILIuP'08vdm9bsrk1naan
mg» gunman mu you-ems lu, mu mm.» dvwan man»
manafulr1lP9'l>llln dAlD""'.WlflI1Vl"vbIN14HnvId0"930".VI. den
kallkuan nlanomlnl mung Wu kvsunmn mmndllwri mama.
nmm. -nu-ac-G pnwa-ng. ndmn nnrlraltan Ilka lmakunn nu
rvnmvwsllmlu mu atuowmm mm mnmm rm: poflollin
Illu I-m wmm, dun mama m kolukuun Nu may .:.mm .4.“
mm.» dmvartanvn “
DaIsmAesPlr1lnbinDnHIll vPulIlicPmu1:umr]2v0l]1 cu m,
mmuman Pauvhuluan man nlanpalnslrln Inaugural w kvlakuan
mm menenrukan .;.:mp=nuemu.n drama 25-
1251 The lawns um um! mu slum nmxuummg. a wry
ullwvamakilaflnfereuee mammm mmmmmmu
mmayu m»m.m vannslvomcnsi mm. :1 wnuldbe
19
sw wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
vu/ficmnIIwlnIpm5sm0nrIll:V'Wilav1si:umwnIm)lmII|d
P'°W'V¥bOm’avvsdmamwuuupadnadmumcssNykII1MID9I'
ow-mam
1aa117~».w~ommq:a.wa.m>.a/mauzuumusp-nu: rnmrv
Isnasvrliemvlnsvrowmnlthvaumudtsmflmncldbylnyixzvm
hwuwrdemnli-nasrtauwsdayssllnnnkmvmmkibhu
Hwowdlhonb Inlvvwucatudfllalliyfflqmfuulusfuvmmunlu
bwnowasdbumvmuwn nn,.m..m.m;.m.mmm mu.
mmu... mmm. mauvsdmdmcdvwl-arplwhiomn-1m
«mm .mm.. alwmtucl wuuld mm M 1». pm... alt!»
conduct Canduetlilnsllwfltmla/macanodrs-mmflflsmnld
mun-uyu:-nmoa Onmeavwn-nduunduavlflrnlln
loam-flocking flunrwm Imv-zus. mm nrfiwmwedts vwym...
nmalwolptfwvlrwv avvdnnwudomlodavniumxnnybllrizllhd
Oncn m-man». wan car-netrnan launr um: upxamm nx
mnzmrduziorduwhfiomnaeaonisownlvwwdloruvvdufl
mummy; m cm: AI an on uwud to ttpllin M oanduet
swam in 5 a sum -nu-mm must not D7 m In-« om
Dam-Nu hm, mu mm . mnmmbtn lullnuu M and and
mnvmlllmza xx... R V St-ah-man (19047 as JP 5:4; -
rujnm blah mombual dapatan bahawa huakusn Puuyu 4, am
k-swat-lanmamDuktIkanParayumemvnnyIlnI:naIaapas2essoon
nan pwoustan/unaumn :me.m.;.n mlevan a«.s.w.;. semen
5 m. Kntuungan man an rmmodukm pcnlalanun amm
20
sm RwmMI:ucpbADu4xFaxA
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
[41
[5]
Fada 3n.e.2o21 ‘am lsbm kurang 12 lengah malam beflempal an
pepbal Bahagwan Suasalan Jensyah Narkolnk IPD Kuala Selangur,
SP1 oalan msmbeli takHmal aparasv kepada anggma-anggona
selbuan dan lelnh memecankan Inggoli semuan kepada 2
pasuxan. Du da\am takhmal lerssbut, sm man memnankan
maklumal tamang mgec aan apaknh aknvmnya. Se\esal vauimst,
pad: Jam 1220 lenuah malam, sm barsama anggma sarbuan
lalah bsrgarak msmqu ks rumah a. slam: PT 3337:. man Gawai-
eawan Kpg Sunqul Gu\ang-Gmarvg, Yaruong Karang dengan
manam 2 karma pasukan yang max bednmbang darn pads mm
12.50 lsngah malam, SP1 den pnsukan serbuan lelah nu: an
kawzsan rumah muons aan mambual pemamaun selama Va .
kuranfi 1a rm'ni| dan ;arak so malsr.SF-'1 udak mamm sesiaps yang
ksluar zlau masuk ke mmah tsrsebul, D1 buhiglsn nelaxang dam
hadapan rumnh. SP1 (e\ah mevenaxkan anggola serbuan unmk
msaaawax.
Pads [am Vebm kurang 1.00 pagl‘ SP1 darn pasukan ssrbuan mg
new dsvl SP8. Sin Khalriah‘ D/Kpi Nam LIKpl Izzal dan L/Kp\ Tun
lelah bevgarak ka ham-pan Nmah mannkala pasum serbusn
kedua yang awkemar clan Sln Fimaua, spa dan D/Kpl Baslr
diarahkan man sw memhual kawalan an nanagnan belakang
Pumyu supsmmlml pomnmhkan ax Dav/uh Sekxycrr 9 Mia
Kotsravryzn ma
pay um berpondapll kolakusn tsmniuh yum bemeoranvan
Imlnwan my menqslak mparta s»=3 dun sm yfinw
aummmunyn m-war perm (Karena memakal uniform} um
mumom<:5plDm'I<ni(am1ak:mltPBA]ada/ahralovanbahawudus
memnmlyslpangemhuanmshawnsdcuaannualnmplnsukniam
tsrs~uhuL Ks/Mum Pvmyll my Wlflllmnlspllslnc Mun Iorubuf
mam spa .1... mmpnllun -m .a. .-.;..p., Ink plynn
penkla“ .1... kurrludfnnnyl Dugdlm dwgln SP3 am sm
menyukang upndapal Mm Kum Dlrsnlu/u dnnguv pondflpat
NMTbam:wu kalakuon W mnmumm pengvtslman man: In
Pevuyu bsluswn ndanyu mm av amm plan/k mum ylng
ammm dalam mg. molosviralyang bond! buuma Pemru.
[29] Di dalam kas a hadapan Mahkamah mi, lmdakan on melaflknn
din ka dalam bil‘
kuhga seoauk sahlia mendenuar SP1
memperksnalkan ain dan msnycmk amlakang mum rnenunfukkan
ma (ahu akan kshadivan dadah m mmah (avsehm dan ongkah Vaku
on menepall kehendak Seksyen E12) Akla Kelerangin
IV. on m-«gm-r dldxh llriohul.
[an] Sllsrusnya cimakan oKr manylmpan dadah Ievsehul adalah
taqumlah kapada perhuauln pengeflnran ssbagamlzuna yang
dlasfimslkan an bawan Ssksysn 2, ADE 1952. men karana Jumlah
21
sw fiwmMi:ucpnADuAxFoxA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
[31]
aaaan yang auunw ada\ah basar iallu beret mm 123 97 gram,
maka adalah unluk lujuzn pengadarzn (miuk OngAIl cnuan -/pp)
1 LNS m; [1901] 1 MM 64). Oleh Mu‘ Dthak panaakwaan |eIan
bsrjaya msmnuknxan on |e|ah mmakukan Derbualan msngadal
dadah bemahaya sepe1A yang dlluknfxun dlbawah Slksyon 2 Am
na-an aamahaya 1:52 ‘am manwnpan
KEPUTIJSAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN
DI akhir kes pendakwun. Mankarnan mempunyax ohligasi unluk
me
k9t9rangan—k(-rlarzngan yang dikamukakan dengan
uemlaian mnksimum dan pigs peneuuan nsrus amen alas kreaumlm
aaksl-saw same» manelm dsn manila. semua xscerangan yang
mkemukzkan man Dihak panaakwaan pada |ahap penllaian
maksima, saya berpuas nan hanawa pmak pendnkwnan «elm
msngemukakan kamanaan yana kukuh dan kredibel da\am
membuklvkan sehap elaman perluduhan a. bawah Saksyen 395(1)
(aj ADE 1252 mm om manggap mempunyal mmkan can
psnqelahuan Iemadan man lelsehul mbawan Seksyen may
ADE dan om Ialah mengedar dadan levsebm menuml laklilan
Seskwn 2 ADE
22
[32]
(I)
[33]
[34]
OK!!! ilu‘ saya rnenudusken hahawa plhak pandakwaan xalan
bsnaya mamnuman sam kes puma fame lamadap on
sapenimana yang diperun|ukk.an an bawah Ssksysn 130(4) Kanun
Talacaru Jsnayah. olen mu on darlgan inn dipanggu unluk
memhela din dvhzwah pemmuhan W
Isu su um; nunmsuwm man PEMBELAAN
Kogag n pmnk pendakw n Inembukflknn allmon mlllknn,
kiwalan flan pengeo-nuan DKTans dudan tnlsnbur.
Mahkamah (idak akan mamhlncangkan persnelan mu Kenna (elsh
mmncangxan ksuka dapman an nklur kss pamxakwaan. Mahkamah
manuapau ramps: kumangan yang mksmukakan aleh szkshsaksw
pendikwaan unmk menunjukkan on mempuny Ilnkan‘ kawaran
dan sekzligus mewmudkan anggapan dlbawah Seksyen 37(fl)ADE
ms pengelahuan on bsrkenaan aaaan yang duumpaw Dada hag
silang yang dmakai om dan Juga amanam Vac: m bihk ksoga rumah
narsenm
Rum:-n pomnukum ytng lsrpukus ssrtz Iompang darlpada
pinlk pendlkwaan yang mlnimbulkan k-raguan mum:-bah.
Pinak pembslian mendakwa ranlawan pemlmklwan Ierpmus kerana
xagagaxan SP1 menysrshkan berang kes Kepafll pegawsw
23
peny\asa| Pihak pembalaan juga menghujahkan spa udak dapal
membeli kapasuan berkenaan samnga dadah yang girampss olsh
pegawal aperasi baralnyz alau kaaaaannyn same sepem yang
anenma uleh ahh klmla Mahknmah rnenaapau uaga bukn umuk
menunlukxan ramaian kelelangan lslpulus Baring kss sebawk
sahaja dirampas dari Vokasw kqadmn sanunsa gmalam mean gan
kawalun SP1 samn§1ga\ah dlsevahkan kepada spa qpagawai
psnylasalj. Ealang kes di simpan an kzbIne\ besl dx bllvk SP6 SP6
meruelaskan barang kes hdak msnnpan an star karana Dada wakm
nu stor mnaram Dmsss uhah suaw samng kas dlhanlarcleh spa ke
Jabatan Knnna dun selepes barsng ks: dlbawa ballk gem Jsmnsn
Klmla. mm umanvar ke star xzarang kes umuk gtsrmpan smamal
seuap barang kss mtanaakan dan anangaxanganz oleh SP1 uan
SP6 Selzin ilu tsvdapal bursng semh menyemn dwanlara SP1 Gan
spa (PI2). Barang kas yang yang fllnampas dari om nan barang
kes yang dikamukakan di Mahkamah adz\ah snnm mun keraguan
z|as \dann‘|i barang Kes yang mkemuknkan, O\eh my hulshan
purvbeban hahaws ranlalan ksteangan Isrvulus aaaxan Aanpa
mam eagx memperku:-ilkan dapacan Mahkarnah wm, maka dxrujuk
kepmnsan Mnhkamah Persekuluan yang lebm larkini dalam kes
Lu WII Loon Iwn. Poncnkm my: (2014) 2 cu us di mana
Rrcnam Malanjum (Hakwm aesa. Sabah flan sarawak kem Mu)
24
Inenzanman Dandsngannya dalam Isu yang sama Da\am kas
Iersshm Inrdapa| 3 perbazaan da\am llmbangan kasar awn yang
berkanan sapem bI|Iku|:
ti) 35kg ulsh 5:1. Kama Bahzgwzn Narkmik an KUA yang
melqumpéll dauan lersebuf pm neravvu‘
(it) 3120 gram men spa, pegawai bahagwan fmenswk; mu
(m) 3,703 5 gram men spa. arm kvnle
Da\am penghakimannya Runam Mslanjum msnwlaksn'
{xmmmmary m the pm:-n4 nun, wu woufd say that fltlevupanchs In
wduhllfmn nfln nxnluuum .= m
an n. my. mu. .. olhnr mmlry infers In cousins! such n Mu lad:
and/w umsnlsmstluvmlhe mmaumnrmmanmon asaplaa onmma.
On-VIII-nu/ornv-mmcnnsldlrlswholhormurultlnybvukfn ma
mam w uumy, which I-nlumounl ta . buck m M: chain at
Ivldlncn. n mun Iv-nt nocunld mu. mu should can a doubt In M:
Ixhlbllnl rill-BI: ndlmswvnvlnypnci olavlautcv {Soc §.m_a.m.
Pm: Pnnocmar mm: 1 ms 1m [1090] v MLJ 75, §gg_s4n_y._mm
Prn:ucmov[1D7l « ms ,L’!,[1Wl]2ML/158)
[41] run pom who mm to: drug unlbll and my items mm the
nPDUInnlmrSP1. Bnton puxlny mum m SP7»: muted me mm
mm Ind hr aim welwhed Me draw «mm In exarclsc um um nut
25
N mu.»«.ucmumxmA
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
mm. M! In a x M ablalnod was also
Immzhrfll Mus, than was no neceufly for Mm to um». on In:
at 1: Dew/nenrlnwcl nrneamlnaamamem tabwlnedb
£3 Nrvufnerass, live use of Amcnllbnted weighing mnchlne null!
explllned for me welym dis!-Tianncy.
mi Them was In: drsume maISPJ,1PIa mam: wna amyaaa the smzad drug
used mmrm wmgmng macllmu lo dalennlne ms weight
150! mm M W_M for ma dltcnalncrec m me wish: ol
ma am»: cxhlblt as onnmo-1 ny sr-1, srr Md spa ms due to Ihelmnfl
I es-imm redraw: tobtalnedb
£3 wmz used . eanamoa wemmv mcmna. And annmg may
a mrtnotiu bnnnomu us rr
mumum wlanauon was Wm or could usny bu lnllnodnom um:
Iuflmuulnr unm m zamm case ms nu snnlanal/on was avaviabla, allorsni
owowd N mlovnd mm lhe facts and amumuama er/auable /7! law m the
Wlscnrcase (ms wmynnam was .aAm eonsldondby ma fumed hilllulfve
and na rulod ma: their wu nu blank In the cmln of evidence mu:
rvnclvlrrv ma wan: Inue lmmalum In nmfny to ma mvaran
I511 We are memlum all)»: wew mm‘ mm rulllnn an Zlliull ma without
morn hxlelmbdnouns-llurmi aggumaaa mismnulnd. Azzmdirlyly
we and Inn! ma drug axmm Idmmd n Ividanvi in mi: ma was In:
sun. I: most nix-dby sm -1 xuA. Induld 5P1 vmo In-Modml mun
-ah.-M mm p-mm :1 m SP1 mama and zonllrmsd um I: was In:
um dmn «mm ma: M svind amu. ma mnauangaumnnnnauan
26
sw fiwnxMI:uCpbADuAxF4xA
Nab! am IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm a. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum wrm
by SM slwnld 1:. gm. ma consideration In -1-lumwny nu: ma w-5
rm rnui ufdaumln ma Id-nmy afllvn dmg um». «mm: m our vrew mt:
I: mu nlthl rm. and mm um Iomved Me Inundnnon not my my ma
Iflmlnlnn m avmm or m drug um» am also :2. rulllhlllly and
Imnwarthlmrx 1: - pkce olevhtenco.
Mahkamah ‘age menaapam bahawa mmman kalsrangan an a|as
penganaauan den ,agaan dadah lavsehu| (idak pemah pmus alau
Iarganggu sshmgga wen msnmsskan Kabclemerimaanya dw
aalam Mahkamah Im Mangambil mm semua perkara ml, pads
hsmal aaya Ianya sangm bersesualan aengan irasa yang
amyawkan dx dalam kes Lu war Loan bahawa yamaan
kalerangan Vnllah sabagal -rm: and a-mna that 1.7% mg
roummmn nut In In av/d-ncv our-o dm
axhlbk but also res mlnum and mmwonmnss: as I gun ul
max panama-n glull Inongomuka n kmuangan
pombori m-lklumat an. ink: slksi ponflrlq dalam Arts In!
menyeblbkln Sllrsyon mm) Nd: Kllonng-n 195:1
Ierpaknl
[35] Pmak pembaxaan menghujahkzn lnhawa seorang pemben
maklumal alau lnfarmer tum! ham: kelika on dllarugkap dan
27
kewuludan Demberi maklumal ' disahkan serldln nleh Saks:
pendakwaan sm. Oleh wile demlklan, adalah ammunkan buhuwu
pemberl maxlmuauersem adalah saksv mama damuga saksl mala
yang psvlu dlkemukakan nreh psndakwsan unluk mamhuklikan den
mangesahkan kqaman sebanar sewaklu ooerasv nmebm Pihak
penaakwaaruuga msmpunyai ksmampuan penuh unluk memnnggll
pamben maldumal tersehul sehaaul saw kerana SP1 mempunyax
mak1uma|bsfl<enaan pembsri maklumal sapsm‘ number lmefnn.
Bagi msruawah palsoiflan ml, Mahkamah meruluk kenada
kewmsan Mahkamah Rayuan dIda\am Muhnmmad Inudln bln
mm IvrInPend.IkwlRiy:[Rayu.InJanuynhNo.E-05(M)-1A1-
as/2:21»; memuluskan urxennan pengsmukaan saksi smm
(Informs!) yabigai asks! pemiakwaan.
-[Jo] smy... 4» AH: rnamporumukuv npmf bervkul‘
Pmbcflon «mm
4» m Exccpl as mmu pwvldett no mwm .5 .9 ...
Mannundcrlmsklmaflbcadmmednnsv/denmlnanynm/or
mm: pvneoodmg wnmwm no mm... mm ;.
...u N ...
% ur mu any malrsv wmm mm Mad la ms uzmmy.
[71] Psmaka/an flan lalsmsn mam AK7A)<Ia (slain dfbual NM
26
N fiwmMi:ucpnADuAxFoxA
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
Mnhlmnuh Agony rnoliml psvvqllaklman Mona. Ann! mu
mam llunusamy Vonyndualam v. 9» mm cu Rep 221.
Klml bevpuvdaoat wahupwv wr mm memmngm mu m(
dalam pevvonmmamm. mo wax nma man momsiaskun
dnoararv HMYd(p9vingk:Ikoapmdakwaan)mrana Ininrmetaluu
Samoa! nu buunlah asks! yang mm; kepada m
pendukwaan Bemasnriran nus-Iva: mg 194.: mm mm
dloumskan a. unturavvyn "Wm umglukmlun Monn1Aum Hm
dulam Munuxlmrlllflrlynng mlnynilkln .2. muka ruml 223
pmunwan am .1." M. sum! mmngg... b-c saulnl lmlkln
sm wwmMI:ucpbADuAxFoxA
‘Ba/om M: mm mm»... :5 mg ntlnekzd on rm mam
ground: mugummonmurnrmugmanmmmrm
on me puwtwn M advorsu mu-nu mvdlr ; mtg!
Emma An «:50 an m m. unkrlovm
mm Itlsassnnnal In .pu.u.« um wept
nu ma; Mstimcunmtouhvnalstmflsfimu
Advnuv mimmcu mm mm itiuslrauan can ovum drawn
flmam .s wnhllaldmg av wppumm oitwdw-cw sndnol
mmrym nmauni alimmn m oblmn avldannd Itmayba
dmwvllmm wvrllhnldlllq fl0ljIlS(5flydI1CMIIVlN,DM mmnm
document by u may 1.. Ms possmon. or M rum
pmducflan ol not me any mm-ss pm in Nnpoltlni and
rnafwml mtnoss tu me can w. mu um: war: me my
around wmcn Cancun: Inc wanna, mm an Inlmdocvd
ope Lmn m m. Ippalhnl a day men Ms acwvqfl was
29
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
annexed. Sermon 4911 mm @515 Art ms
ymmm agumst mm rm! M .0 in mm M
.4.” :9 W Mgmynr lazing ., to .n .m..... Imdur M
M m mm mmmsl and mu ggceamngs mm, :5
cm n... dlauvetian 1.; mm M mam ,, ggflgfl
mm 5 4 n
L; yum ggmggmgmmmggcemucog an-r
Mu : 1..
ugggmmgmuhmuwmummmyw arflivl
at gmmmmgm. Com Lvalgmfou that am mm
ggm¢m.>.mmme@m.axomu.m:»..a.wmfln:
L[1_gmloNmrtnoCoung1gu6ime uImn
and and ullu
gm mun manna; we Mfnrmtr.
..VnMsfhmHlDdIlen:v,lMiDD9llnnlandMaw9fesM17M
Ioprm/Ilnauhemflznnermrtubficuanhudpsmcuzalanmmn
mm by pledny Ma Ma usckansa Mcarmalzoa an m. mm M
ms mm without my mmeage m. m./ Judy! mama m.
rramaw my ansoamy commmsd by me m/mm m we
Lian II/0 nowwk m Afvumml before us mu me ;humsI1JIld9'
wu wvwvv
m mm. ram»; 10 eoncludemanlvslaulmu Iounltmznnfnrmuns
a W/moss mum am-ac: me amuse In/zremz against mu
pvmcmran under x mm swmm Act
an
sw wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
[5]
rumah Anahfla tiba an hadapan mmah, sm mandapah p-mu
nadaxaan mman osrwcup Gan nammcx. sr-1 mervaemk mum mmah
beberape nan sambil mempemanaxkan dm sabagai pagawaw kanan
pans namun mm sebarang mask was am pengnum Nnlah
lersebut SP1 kemudiannya membuka maikn lingkap di sebelah
kanan pinm hadapan mmah darn belluu nampak seseorang lzelah um
masuk ks dalam hlllk xeflga nmah lalu belwau mangarahkan spa
un|uk manuacahkzn pinm hadapan mmr. karsabul
Selllah Dimu hsdapan mmah berjzya dipscahkan‘ 5:1, spa dan
znggnta serbuan Ielah masuk dun menuw ks hvlwk kemga an mans
ss=1 memm seseorsng «sun benem masvk ks arshnya. Apabua
sampau an hadavan blllk keuga nu, sm mandapafi bilik nu larlulup
lelapl plmurvya mdak berkunci. sm Isiah msmnm pinlu mlik kafiga
dan mendapah ssorang mam itflcslukan oleh SP1 seoagax om
bersembunyl cu bank mum dalam keadaan duduk dan ketakulan
flan SP1 kemudian mampemenaxkan am sebagal pegawal kanan
pohs denser: menuruuxkan kad kuasa dan msnahan on un1uk
pemariksaan Hasll nsmeliksaan ulah sm 1, mdapau on ssdang
msmakai salu beg silang warns mum (okshlhll P6) can dldalam
neg suanq nu. sm men]unIDa\ 1 was nn bertuhs ‘Memos Cool
Chews‘ (okshihil P19) flan dw da\amny.a mengandungi 3 puke!
Ommzluly nu pmvlllon of 3. mm; I:-vnnof a. mum In mar
:..:m in! m. purpan al avmaomlng 1». namory pm:-mu
,1»... mlniunnorx ay; 4o14;pumauusDm9xA41 Funhclmnust
.. "M van no awmaou wu ma. mmnv live my M m.
nxuvluolmt cum dhwvllonundors 4l1{5I.VI|dood,flsPmmlon
wasnouwn niurodrome com. Be mels:;rmay.lorraasans)maI1y
mm we am not persuaded man the Pmvimnn ..,:...: upon can 5.
aawuea 1" pm. was
Sstslvsnya m Dfimnwun r: um Azrm Hm rnanyulakuvv swam
mm.
- n. ma nnalunlxzsaelnzptvfcctlan nndav: um) um,
scam mm: the endemza mm :n.m«:;.. mlavmev mu m
to accanwflw arc Lian an M: u 5...: mym. mm m m.
mum. Amzordlrvahr an... :5 M7 mam m Msaryumont mu m.
teamed my: cum In Ilavu /mm m. umusn nnuumutron
my 3 mm»
D2) Dalam rsyuan m rradauarv mamraman mr psmflm mlomun swim
Sumbar mm sumbarlam mm akll mlwrnan aw-m/Sumbnr hnnyxlnn
Dfimbon mak/umalnlanasnar Farawylnnakan mm memurxa/.41."
{m [apt J5/an Mam: 2/2, Tainan mm: mm bcvdzkulan tang tampon},
yang dibefitsllu (ems kzpud-a sw dun ma kalamngun -dc huburrgnn
1.». minus: flu arm aw:-ans nerkmu lam ylng mdvballrurv mfurman
swan:/Smvmerbevlaitsn danger! innqkapan Pnmyu Pdguam p...yu,..g.
31
sw wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
mmgdkul mm Ivulahan benulmrvya bahsm mlammn swam/Sumbsr
levseaul bakanlah AP Dalam ks: rm karm bevnanduant seksyan u: m
Akla kedsranqan ma sdalah larpakar mm mlunmsn nwnnl/Sunni!
mummy. mu. kn: my otanmnmudak mu nmwmm mm;
Akin Kslomwan 155:7 tamanun m-rum’. kunnu um memblwl
woman uwarvisumhev xebagal um nbuu rrlanlwulrunllyd kcpadn
Femyu Klqngalz-II rnunpcrlhkun mm. m-ngalw mfanvvan
awnm/Sumbium «pom mg dlnwlhkan om pewam, P-Eda pondavat
x.ma.x mgwaat aauaran Hwdlpadnghal kuperldakmaan.
[33IMcI¢lW Pfihvflifilman Zulkaik Mnklnudm NMF'a:Ium KM WIII
Vrmlmaml Wan Yllcnb I Anor v. PP [2910] 1 CL! 17 Mahkamah
Pusnlmmlndcngsmuysmyamervyarakan./»1<a:euaIan7hanya mm..."
WIWIVIF. Darmakwun lldlk Pam: memalvwllrwa -IODHUB4 seam ulna
m.m.»m um. pambclun smamw mromr dvmvdmw m" oewan
3 4a m. w... vunun-ml mprl memollc Mumnnmydan mm /..-.. yang
WW" Ullllnuxksn NlI"9lfH( Lw lm om Mu alaaan yaw dlbahvk/than oleh
“NEW fllllm myuan W ad:/an lloak bslmsnl clan Msk menwfiflvu dapamrv
mmm .1, pomvgknt m pendskwaan.
[CM] Adalah Mas dari mmn dlauas plhak pendakwaan max penu
mengemuknkan sumber yam mambavi makvumax kepada 5:21
Nnasza memhawa kepada Dangkapan on. Mahkamah msndapali
|anpa kmsrangan den sumbsf yang memban makmmal. lzerdapal
kelarangan Iangsung flan kslanangan keadaan yang msnjurus
:2
sm wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
Iv.
[35]
kepada on mevnpunyal mllikan dun kawa\an a|as dadah yang
dliumpax di rumah talssbm.
Kmuiuunn wmk ‘PII:DI.ly' mu ‘Halli’
Pihak pembelmn msn\mbu\knn nama um ssbagal kawan oKr Kefika
pemanksaan balzs SP4. SPA mengenali Hafil |e|ap\ ma max pasli
samada 'Pm:hay @ Hafi1'InIse\aIu amang dan duduk an hi om
ma ‘Fxtchay @ Hall!’ watak yang wum dan mampakan kawan
on, make seawal tangkapan bufira lenlang - Pmmy @ Helix" mi
handaklah dlmaklumkan kepada SP1 ataupun SP6 khususnya
unluk amasac Namun, nana kalaranuan sedamiiuan amen kepada
Mahkamah. Kstika spa mamberi kelerangan kewujudan ‘Pwwhay @
Hafiz‘ um um flllanya oleh pembslain kepada SP6.
Mshkimlh meruiuk kspada Kes Bavhhnna/I Plnmirivan mm.
Pondlkwx my. [Rayuan Juuylll No: J~D5(M)-206-05/1021 an
mane Mankamah Rayuan memutuskan sapem bellkul barkailan Isu
Inn.-
wJ
. m to link :9 me
mam fig; [Mm »_q mg [mu wos /4 mm m)! be denied ma 4
ran Issuo than um
um.
33
cnaracrv mm: Fang rmnn n. was gg.n#a mm M bl;
§nlcmsnkru:on1-dnxmngnllco
mI
iL&v
man so n ma mm; mm 9; fig “gum mu mo bun
As mm gamer, me wnellam clamped
Inhavurvcvn/IdncallfromForugw!oanl/aelorvnsvarrfvodartlna
mum: rulauranr, amsdry mt/na me: me mm was an N: W
lo [M rwlaurml.
m) M Rmvfiwavv mnaamu V PP pm) 1 cu m mnvtctaa cl
rrafiick/rug, me caveman! m that one unwed mm ml: Conn unumg
mm, mm ma mar nadwu had «mu m auueum mm first, m.
-wnmmw cautioned ummm 1...: mm reaumablu duubt on m.
F’WvcnlIon‘: on. warm me amen mvolvsmam ofunaflwv fliuon
by the name of Psndlan‘ and aecondm m. msnnanng am. ma
admmodmat ha dldnotconducv any Nvvtuligallunnnmu mnlantsulmv
said canvoned atalemem
ml om crou ..sm.'..m.. 5% me lo mu “Mum m m.
Cum mnwm. me llmllldlnfwrm-llon an an mu 1;. any
we ;. shehldldndtwlnvu In/nun u
She am not dc further luv: an hon
mm rm the an 5: mass were mm oi mum lam mummy
34
N wwmMu:ucpbADu4xFoxA
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
name» a usu mm mam Wmmmm n
uuuamuclvnnlhahnn an ham u n
aumm o(Fonu': but an mlmclrvl .n.(nm;g
4 In an 5 I memlomd ma
namrm mugggmgumgaca/mnmanmaramrmmm
1 whom we em had x mm SIX
mm mg: was afi PWE wivunrs-sxamilvmt Sm
-Wlamed that me am mu Pub wp Suntan as pan nl m. mvssiwubun
om zoald not Marwy m. Fanv in «zmoau (even v n. .mp4; rum on
Ms umm mlnmmrm mu... smcmwy since she dimxwumd Ina! mm
were many who warn known nrnumedfonv .: Pub wp Serums-
P5] de um. ».nm..4 m
nddllloml uulan M mmm: mm mm. mm M; In:
mnnllomd m In tin ecnnxv 9! ma .1 aummummflon
bnwonntm .1... mm mnunu mum
um mo. VII! in m.
ug. mm :9 zwvrlllnt Lug mu mummy mmggua. nl
whatwu mm mm gt 1». ggnlllrm
an ma
no) me aweusm Fave evidence mu F009 mmma mm on ma
aousuam handplvane men 1.. mm .1 ma momm usmmm
and n ED095135 my me aupevvam wn: sugvvstvng (ma nnur sum!
35
sw wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
clear/ymlvvslmvrmarvyns awn max 4 mmnm burvFonq mapraua
m. rmuugrm1 drugs m m. Tuyafa was
/771 M mmevuv found In»: nanilm tack/ng m muamvy ne-pm
:lIImIn|1 In hlvl known FM9 fbnbnul I 797115 ttsllfl-dln Dow!
bulslx MWIIHF Ar Itatcdlnlfls cumoned mlunmfi. Ind mct him
Nvullllvlorabvukroaralfivoflmoslwflk. Mllflflllllntrr-snut
able ta nlvo my furmcr mm”: w.......u.,.. mom m. .......
’FMll7'. Mich as M sdamaa, plan! a! walk. Dr of»-sr minvvmhan mt
would am the Wm some fimndnlrunnl Dam: m -mug... DIV ».
-xmsnoa )9! mm mmmm cl I/us E/wade! m the plnanw mm
mm 13111515 m 1». mm. was
I75]Wal)1:-velar: wzmwmeviewmmmnhwnmmd/Andguwulrd
wmny m /valdmg my :1 Fang mm .xm.a .5 alumni, pmpnv
mvamaums mm have been ably to bc mm nu! run my -upwam
mum mmm..:.m to ma nuinm swam status, In rvflanunon
mam by m. .pp.u.m was nnianw m.mW¢«aM and muura. Fully
could rm! be mad w. mu: /mm rm am m m. toltownng Marys‘:
sndfinflmfllflflwulaslned mauudgu
‘I321 my .m.m helm: mm mm dismiss mm an accused mu
Fnlwmed ma um: about . person mm Fang, SP9 50:04 that the
accused hadmnvmunad m. Iumn Fwy wm hadcorlucfudllva lcwsvd
on mg day um. wludanl
sw wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
19:) TM swdarrc: befnva mu mm! mu ruvsals mu 1». nvuwd an
mzl kmzw Fang‘: my name at wimp Fang mm: sPs ma wnductad an
InvestAga1h7rv an m. notion named song by com to me Dub when the
acmssd Walk Harm/-I, 1». mmngam dldnotrwvsalyrsldanyluauflx
4... in ma luck onnvom-mm paflawng to Fong
[:14]! lgjm vgmwmm ».:m..,...m.4 ».........a......m
.. 2., vlde more 1.. u... m . ».
mm ms nu: nun: gmm .......... M .M., M
mm .5,» so. to m out ... :.......;..a... .... 9.. :..a.m....
“MM. mmmg mg/mw;m..mE.«..mm5mm
nmgerodlhs/rwegygflggugq mnaxm-rlzuaflunu
MI Bx : mm mm.” nobw lmnpnm mm shown by
. Us Inamficrsm Mal . vs rmlma u wnfllouisufliocm
mnngmn m annma the mm In am am msrmmx [Sea Pmn
Mam V mm Pm:ocuAarI201:1]1 ms cm]
[Ie]Fmmdo-1 on ma mmzm, and mmng ma plmvuplusirum mas:
caves to ma «.4. mm. vase, mm mm finds ;:..mm.:... min! m
Fsauewarm‘ mam. /mv-ml msnnnfnrnu n
M mama and 3 M m. rrlfwrnelrun n
ma uldlvuvu been un/suvbla : n 1
:7
sw wwmMI:u::pbADu4xFoxA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
based on me mlwmalmn Mn ax me mzeusud mm; mg“ ml,
mm um: mu 1. . ll: v
I731 Wu lnumvroasrvvndtllatmon wasalsa rm wtdemae lo aubalarmats
m:nuMIzcolF¢ngw¢nasIromu4h6wwhowaI)<edInmePvm wr
Smosa, L1 any at :n. agpauann Famtty members my mum mmmm;
who mm new mm at cormrmvd that Mus mm.’ aasmbad .;
Fang was my flcl/flow. m mm m enable mm mmuaamu. ny the
peace m wnufd mg mp: tho qu-mu .4 Foul’: mdxtunoc
nolwknsundmv rum. In my mm mm rid nu. Iny ruuwvlbll
doubt m the use olllnpmsmmdonl, Inztryfmw my main am
up... mama In tin druy nmcmng Maya: and nut bun mm
vlulomlar. Isa) Dwmmw om. nuts: Mpvocledmqs too am not was
any aummm swdencu ornflwmafiml zamxammg Fmrvm wama unable
ms pmaocmlon Io nlvushgura ar engtam m ma cm 1» ram»: In
/mwgaze at mammal evidence .1 m. :1». am. .:.«.m an 1;.
dual wan ms sapeuanrs vsuinn, m the canlerl zvmnclnlod In Alcunluu
Amman mmny v 7;-(ma) 1 cu msln mspea ole wad and ma
wmm Nolaoe’ Nardad we note: xfzvvdanca mm Ihatml wpvllent
mu led mm mm. In manna Ill: my mm is rub»! m.
pveaumpklon clvuflcivlrrg an the hllunna dpruh-omms
[35] Eemasarkan darl atom diatzss adahah jalas mam mana—m2ma
indlvidu yanfl msemn clean on unmk msnuruukksn bahuwa anaan
rm bukan rmliknya nu ma um pangelahuan balkanaannya mam
as
sw fiwmMi:ucpnADuAxFoxA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
die mamaya ulah seseurang emu mungkm dadah Mu dllalakkan oxen
seseorang ax mux OKT (dan psmahaman Mahkamah mungkm
Pllchay @ Naflz atau sesiapa yang dalang ks vumah nu din duduk
di mm on) make on mean mamzasn maldumat Vennkap unuimm
IndMdu Im kspada pihak palis seperu menyatakan makIuma|
langkap meveka an dalam Vaporan polls alaupnn psmakapan
benamarsnnya Oelapl w max dflakukan olsh on Di dnlam kes
Blvlthnn yr Puamlslvan Inwnn Pmmw. RI - (mun),
wulaupun IndMdu bamama Fang disebul dldalzm parakapan
bstzmaran on, Mahkamah Rayusn memuluskan human mu max
Iangkap unluk pegnwal plnylasal melekukan svssaun lanjul
Iemang Fang maks Mahkamah mamuluskan indwldu bemama
'Fong' adalah Iakaan om semala—mma D. dalam kers um buksn
saha;a on wax member! maldumal Veogkap (emang Pucnay alau
Hal: kepadn SP6 umuk siasanan Iamm, Individu dmmbmkan
hanya kettka nflrbicaraan. Cllah nu, Mahknmah mmuluskan
bahawa mmvmu bsmama Pmcnay @ Hafz hanya rakaan samala»
mm. on man mengsmukakan salu psnIbe\aan dan luduhan
yang hsra| kapada pmak pohs bahawa ma (slan auenaang seha\K
sahapl sm am pasukun masuk ks ruman layman: namun liada
sebaranu Vancran polls dihnzt oven on unluk menyaknng
dakwaannya.
39
[37]
RUMUSAN um KEPUTIJSAN
Se|elah meneml den menimbangkan kahsrangan pihak psmbelaan,
Mahkamah msndapafi kelernngsn pmak pembelaan mask
memmhulkan ssharinu keraquan munasahzh temadap kas
pendakwaan bahawa ssbsnamya on ms-mpunyal mlhkan alas
berang kss dadah sepem fllda\am Denuduhan Mahkamah Juga
msndanan on uagal msmatahkan znggapan pemlhkan dun
psngamhuan ke auas dadah menunn Seksyan may ADE 1952
macs: Imbanuan kebaranakaluan dan gagal menimbulkan sebarang
karaguan |eIhadap zmum pengedsran sepam wng anaknvkan an
hawan Seksyen 2 ADE 1952 Oleh nu‘ selzelah manila! ssmua
kexeranaan av akhir verbtraan, Mahkamzh manuapau on gagal
menimbulkan karaguan yang munasubah Iemadap kes
pendakwean den pmak pervdakwaan (elah membukuksn kosnya
Iamsdap DKT mbawan parluduhan yang dlkenakan tamadapnya
msiampui kslaguan munasabah
Oleh Ilu, DKT amapau banalah dan diszhrtkan dangzn kasa\ahan
dibawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADE sepsm pemlduhsn
40
I8!
mashk Iuxsmar (lklhihit PB! (14) mengandurvgi baharvbahan
msyaki dzdah panis syabu
sanamsnya, SP1 mangavahkan on untuk msngamarkan apaapa
barang salah dalam swmpsnannya darn on |.e\ah msngambll 1 bag
kam bsrcarak humna hanlu (ukshlhlt P7)dar1 uaxam lacw kedua
alman pakawannya . Ivk Ievsebut dun menyershkan kepada SP1
aenaan langan kanannya Hasll Demeriksaan 5:21 dw dalam beg
kaln nu uuuapan ada 1 prasnk lnlsmar (ekshlblt van) yang
msngandungl 19 pake: piasllk Mslnar (omlhn PIA (1 -19) yang
nuns kandungarmya an1a\ah balwambahan disyakw dzdah yams
syabu. Kafika F7 umamum kepada sm Lfleh on. beg nu dmam
keadaan hemp dam pxasux Imsmnr nu baleh «mm: kandungannya.
semua nemanksaan Inl flvsaksikan men om dan sue.
Sales:-JV pemenksszin dw blhk kenga nu, on umawa xe many (emu
dan Dada keflka nu ssmua pennhuni rumah ada di mam] Iamu.
Mereka ada\a?I SP2 dan sm 5P2 auaxan kakak on manual.
59.: adalah emu ipar o><7 Menurvl swz den spa, aux Kenna nu
adalah buik on dan hanya dia sanzya yang duduk m bilik rm.
Ruman nu msewa ulah 5P4 den SP5 Sehaln am dan sw duduk
an rumah wu, Kurui nnaual ms-nu sdalah suami SP2 flan men sw
(adlk om sr-1 iuga man membuat pemanksazn .1‘ mix 1 dan 2
[37]
[381
RUMUSAN mm KEPUTUSAM
Swlmah manemi den manimbzrugkan kelarangan pmak pembelaan‘
Mahkamah mendapau kalsmngan pmak pembexaan lwdak
menlmbulkan aebarang kefaguan munasabah nsmadao kes
pendakwaan bahzwa sebenamya on msmpunym minxan anas
barang ks: aaaan sepum didalam Danuduhan. Mahkamah Jugs
manaapeu on gagal msrnalahkun anggapan pzmmksn dan
pangs!/ahuan Ks eras dsdan mammu Seksysn 371d) ADE 1952
mamas mmangan kabarangkallan dan gagal manlmhmkan wbirang
karaguan Iemadap akI\M|A pengsdaran sepam yang dilakrilkan an
nawah Seksyen 2 ADE 1952 Obh nu, selalzh mam . semua
kaleraman ar akhlr Darbicaraan, Mahkamah mendapan on gagal
manimbmkan kamguan yang munasabuh «amauap kes
pendakwaan dan mhak pandikwaan |elah mamnukukan kesnya
herhidap om dibawah pemmuhan yang dlkenaknn (emadapnya
malampul ksraguan munasabah.
clan nu, om dldapan nersawzn dan dlsabllkan dengan kosalahan
mbawah Seksyen 39B1I)|a)ADB sepeni parluduhan.
[391 OKT |e\ah memhuat mihgasi memnhon hukuman Damara dnberi
msnggamwkan hukuman mali on menyesa! dengan perhualannye
dan mohon d\ber( paluang Pmak psndakwaan memohun agai
Mahkamah mengenakan hukuman gannmg sampal man ksrans
pelbualan mengedav aaaan adman sanu keaawanan yang ssrius.
[401 sensxan Mahkumah mendenqar mlflgasl on dan hunahan
Demberalan o\eh nlhak vsnuaxman, Mahkamah memuluskan
-mm marualuhkan hukuman penjars seumur maup dengan
sebaxun rulan sebanyak 12 kali. Barang kas dislmpan salamal o\ah
pmax pendaxwaan samngga selesai pluses rayuan
aanankn as Okbohor 202:
(NOR rm omruu)
H KVM
MAHKAM HTINGGI MALAVA
KLANG
41
am: pmx rsuvu - mam. mu.
pm». mm
mm mm
sewvxr mm 9...»
Yllmn Hunrnrun :. mm.
Sultan ua, um 4‘ um m. 2.114.
Psnhnn mu Bum. SAM:
Jewmonw‘ sswm us‘
40150 sm. Alum sa-Wm um Elvnn
amunnnm mumwuu - ma Fuln mu Aqu.r.amuum.: ma
mum: mam v.mm. am Sdnflwuv
K.umavFumI4M|UndflV1Amarvfl mm Sdiwcr
mm a, Fbdlml sewn‘
so-wmn Sultan snurmaxn Abdul Am Sh-sh
wsu Shah Nam scum
42
sm wwmMI:u::pbAnu4xFoxA
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
[ul
mmah Iarsebul namun Iwdak memumpm apaepa barang selah.
Kamudian SP1 membuwa on bank ke pejabal bersama barang
kas yang senfizsa dldaram kawalanm ssbewun mserankan kepada
pegawal penywassl mum SP9 unluk nnuaxan lanlul.
D1 peJaba| Bahagian Slasatzan Jahayah Narkzmk IPD Kuala
Sehngor‘ sm memhua| pensndaan barang kes dan mamhual
laporan larvgkapan [skshibit P10). sm mm menyedlskan norang
galsdzh dsn burang sarah rnenyarah barang kes dengan SP9.
Pads 1 7.2022 [am 1:: pagx, SP9 dan spa «Ewan pelgi ks lamps!
keiadnan dan mangamm 10 keplng gambar lempal kalaawan
(eklhllm P4 (1)- (1fl)danSP9 wrulmsmbual raiah kasarhknhiblt
FIB). Barang kas «man dlhamav ks Jaba|an Kimia pada 23 7.2021
dan cmenma oxen ahh kimna (spa) dan didalbsrkan dmgnn nombu
nuknm 21-FR-B-K1025. Pads 23.11 2921, SP9 lelah
menganihkin sn=7 umuk mangambfl baring kes besena hpnran
kimia (Ikxhihil P21). Hasll analisns oven spa dlsahknn wrung ks:
yang dlrampu dam on adalah Malhampwlamim dangan bera|
barsih12B.97 gram dan maruuakzn dadah jams herbahaya didzflam
Jadual Panama Am Dadah Berbahnya 1952
[10]
[11]
EEEAN PEMBUKTIAN
unaanwnaang bevkanan baban pembuklian di akhir kes
pendakwaan adalah jaias mu samada pvhak pendskwaan berjaya
membukflkan saw kes puma fade lemadap on diakmr kes
pendakwaan menulul Seksyen ma (1) Kanun Tzlacars Jenayah, an
mane salu Dsmlalan makslmum perm di|7ua| alas ka|erangan saksi-
saksn pendakwaan man Mahkamah sebemm membua| kepuhlsan
samada saw xes Drlma «ass: Kelah dlbukhkan Iemadav on dan
on aswalarnya dinannlahkan unluk msmbsla am aoas parluduhan
yang dmadam.
DI dalam kes Baluhnndran v Public Pros»eu(ar[2Da5]1CLJ as
YA Augustine Pnul NMR memutuskan —
1 mlku in cm. mm an .:.m:.m ul 1:} on m.
721!
Eamon mn.crm alilx use is 2.1 mm null grim: Ilderne whllsi
Suction 11:14 11 «.mr.:=. mu .: m. cnnclullnn aim: mu on. mm
mm consldev .u the evldunu ndduzud Ind mum: vmnmu ma
n his gm 1:. 0. may mmm. mm m Standuvd
a/Wouioflhe Dlmecutian ,4 me and nhls use mm ms and aims mm.
Scclivn 1
use has mu: been sz.mmry wait an! m clnr tum: m. submrsston mm.
mm! Mam/we n. ramzcmnlod ugawm z». mmmuna aims moamng cl Ma
mass ‘prrma facts’!!! mm 190 Station m_og mm. mu: m mun
sn.umo..:.n nrdav aflgmflll u-. gm... rm. 0- . r... nu! um mndl
7
[I2]
[13]
out mm. .. v rm. nun
ho new-d mun n. cllhd tn um: nu flnfmzl. A prlma rm use rs
more/um ans Inatruulfic:-nlforllvslccusadlo puma uponloamrww. ms
um. mm m
m lwm mans ma: mu mam muslnr mn marl! can In uvonhrum nnly
by ewdsnco ... rebuttal ' (punokznan alah Mahkaman)
ELEMEN-ELEMEN YANG PERLU mauxmuu
Plhak par-aakwaan panu mamnukmkan slamendflemsn berikur.
(i) Dadan (srsebm adalah aadan bemahaya yam lermasuk
dmalam Laknran dadah dibawah Jadual Panama ADE 1952-
(ix) Dadah flu mdavam mmkan oxr din kawalan om
um on memvunyax pengetahuan berkenaan daduh; dan
my on mengedur mun tersebul.
ANALISA DAN DAFATAN DI AKNIR KES PENDAKWAAN.
naam Ionuhnt aaalan aadan hnrbihaya ylny lemusuk an-m
Jndunl Panama ADE.
Pendskwnan penu memhukhkan dadah dliumpal mampzkan dadah
bemahaya Katelangan spa ‘elas manuruukkan bahavm dudah
yang dnanallsa mehnya idalah dadsh bemahaya aapem yang
auakmkan dw hawan semen 2 ADE yang disenaraikan dalam
[14]
[15]
Jaduax Panama 5?: |eIah mengasahkan nnnlmsnyn alas barsng
Kes yanfl mserahxan oi-n SP9 kenadanya ma\aluI saw mporan
kimia yang disarflakan nlehnya (P21).
SPE adaflah semang ahli kuma yang barkmayakan unmk
memalankan anaHs\s ms man tevsebul bardasaman kemlusan,
neuaexaman dun klvakarennya. Mahkamah menemna kapumsan
anauins yang dihuzt clan spa berkanen dengan mennn aan kuanflll
amn yang dmyalakan. Malah menjadl keputusan Mahkamah darn
mu nensiilxan‘ dadah yang dirampas adalah dadah sepelllmana
yang disenaralkan an bawah Jadum Panama ADE. Mahkamah jugs
menuspen Hdak ad: Dulusnya ramalan kenarangan can wakm
baranu kos dliurvlnax man s>1 sshingga mwankan kapada sue
flan salemsnya spa msnuhamar kepm spa unluk manahsus ax
Jabman Nmla Meliysxa
mam nu dldalam millkan dun kawaluu on
Earang kes di[umpa\ didaham kovak ‘Memos Cool Chews‘ dan beg
sllsng yang ads naaa Didnn om nan «an m kaln beroorak bunmg
nanm yang diambul man on dari lat: kedua zlmzri pakabnnya dan
kepads
Pfindakwaan own nu flid\am\ olsh om walaunun vlhak Dsmhelaan
mssrahkan SP1 Melalul kecerangan saksw-uksw
cube menurliukkan hahawa bxlnk wm tum! didatangi alsh kawan»
H5]
[17]
kawan om yang benandang kemmah letsebut namun ram Inl
lbdak uzwuc assankan oleh SP2 dan SPA
sm mga mangssahkan barang K9: uuumpax an bulk yang dldiami
on ialm di dalam laci kedua almari yang mana Ianya mamnu
ssndiri men cm dun msemnkan kapada SP! darn ma dl dakam
beg sllung wama nivam yang dlpakau KT Kanika dhahan odeh SP1
Adakah om dlkaukan msmpunym mmxan nan kawa\an kaalas
Danna ks: wammv Mahkamah maru[uk kepzda Divan Pun Lean
v Public Frosaculnr[195B] MLJ 2:7 dun dl mumum 239:
‘Fa:.vass(an' team In regnvd: me mmlnsl law I: dnsmbm as inflows m
Stephen’: Dues? (9" Erin, .7 194; .
-A.,.m.u.m._.g..;.mm..:nm,.m.,m.g;,.,,m.u,,mg
an :1 with
to m Ixduxiwv m .u on... E. .4 mg m, ggmmm .5
sum mum may D: m% .0 :m...a 2., do .. 1,. E231 .r..mvv
numrulmnu W
Va nun! um-rwrs-.
muggy“; mggggmggggmzmmmmrngaanleumgm
uammm
Mm m lnliontolmmonu
with n u
1. . hovm mathchadlhl won I
10
| 5,540 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-25-409-12/2021 | PEMOHON LYE SOOK FUN RESPONDEN 1. ) AMBANK (M) BERHAD 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA | INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Judicial Review - Challenge against decision of Industrial Court - Employee terminated after probation period extended – Whether terminated without just cause and excuse – Principles concerning probation – Finding of facts – Principles on finding of facts – Right to fair trial – Flagrant incompetence of counsel – Whether principle applicable in judicial review proceedings PROCEDURE: Ruling made by Industrial Court - Whether ruling can be revisited - Whether res judicata - Whether ruling made - Non-admission of bundle of documents at the last minute - | 09/11/2023 | YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=61d13ab5-0e76-4710-b8c5-866efc376e88&Inline=true |
23/11/2023 09:55:51
WA-25-409-12/2021 Kand. 44
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N tTrRYXYOEEe4xYZu/DduiA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 8,276 | Tika 2.6.0 |
KB-24NCvC-134-05/2023 | PEMOHON MOHAMMAD AZAHARI BIN ZAKARIA RESPONDEN ROGAYAH BINTI RAMLI | Kes Sivil - permohonan untuk menamatkan milikan bersama hartanah dengan menjual hartanah di bawah seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara. Pemohon memohon hartanah dijual kerana Responden mengingkari terma-terma perintah persetujuan yang direkodkan di Mahkamah Syariah. Seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara memberi Mahkamah budibicara untuk mengarahkan penjualan hartanah tersebut atau membuat perintah yang difikirkan perlu atau suai manafat berdasarkan fakta dan keadaan sesuatu kes. Berdasarkan fakta dan keadaan kes, permohonan telah ditolak. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4d13fe1e-e915-4cbf-81f2-d2c6c11226ac&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 10:04:39
KB-24NCvC-134-05/2023 Kand. 15
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N Hv4TTRXpv0yB8tLGwRImrA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
ma-zmcvc-134-05/2023 «and. 15
59/11/2023 1a:u-39
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SUNGAI PETANI
DALAM MEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN, MALAVSIA
SAMAN PEMULA N > KB-HNCVC-134415/2023
AMTARA
MOHAMMAD AZAHARI am ZAKARIA
(Na KIF: 110129-oz-5013) ...PLAlNTlF
DAN
ROGAYAH EINTI RAMLI
(Nu K/P: 740503-oz-5422) ...DEFENDAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Pengenzlan
1 Me\a\uI saman Pemma benankh 22 5 2023 (Lampvan 1), F'\amM
memohan anlara lam temvasuk —
(ij perinlah unmk menamalkan kepunyaan bersama harlanah
yang dnpegang dl hawah hakmmk GRN 201951 La: 13559
Bandar Sungal Pecan‘, Daerah Kua\a Muda, Negen Kedah
dan yang beralamal ax No 23175‘ Lovong Astana 7/7 Bandar
Sen Astana, manna Sungaw Peram, Kedah Daml Aman
(Hananam
IN mrmx..va,aam.m.wA
‘Nate sum runny WW ... M » «My n.. nH§\mH|V MW; mm. Vfl muws NM!
(n) perinlah penjualan Harlanah levsebul secara lelongan awam
alau perjanuan persendinan unluk hsrga ]ua\an ludak kuvang
den RM 300.000 00‘
(w) perimsh agar Deiendan mengambvl segala tlndakan yang
perlu unluk memksanakan perinlah Mahkamah m dan
(IV) pennfah agav mu jua\an dlbahaglkan same rate d\ antara
F\a\n(i( dan Defendan sewepas bayarin bakn nmang kepada
pemegang gadawan Lembaga Pembwayasn Perumahan Seklor
Awam (LPPSA) den kos-kos bsrkawlan lam dflaksanakan.
2 Setelah menehu suraecara den hujahan pmak-pihak, Mahkamah ml
memuluskan unluk membenarkan Lampxran 1 Eenkut alasan
unmk kspumsan Iersebm
Eamahan awal Plaimil
3. P\a\nM msmhantah Kepada penenmipakai andavu Den-man yang
dvkrarkan pada 412023 (Lampiran 5) dalam pendengaran
Lampiran 1
4 Plamm berhmah mengxkm A 32 K1312) Kaedahrkaedah
Mahkamah 2012 (KM). Defendan hanya mbenarkan memraukan 1
anam balasan Seklranya Defsndan hendak memvailkan spa»
apa afidavn lanym‘ Ianya hanya buleh dmuac dengan kebenaran
Mahkamah
m mnaxvwysa-Lewmm
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
(VI) Mun Hun ‘(as V S Abdul Rahman Pak Shavk Abdw Kader
293; MLJU1822 291; M BHU1635d\mana Wong Km
Kheong H (pada keuka mu mengkaji perunlukan nu den
memuk kepada beberapa nas unaangamaang yang
berkawtan den memuluskan anfara lam, Mahkamah
mempunyal budwbwcara dan budlbxcara Iersebm hendaklah
dllakssnakan bevdasarkan «am dan kendaan keslevsebul
lsu — sama ad: perm alau mnnmt Hlrlanah lersebul 'uaI
29 Berpandukan pemn|ul<an undang-undang dan nas undang-
Imdang dx atas, Mshkamah Inn Ielah menehu den memmbang
permnhonan Plamm .1. Lamplran 1
30. Tidak dipen an bahawa Denmah Devseluyuan Mahkamah
syanah (Eksubix “MAZ-2' Lammran 2) adalah —
(a) P\am||f bersemju membayar nafkah 4 many anak secara
1Imbal—bahk\a\tu dengan membayav ansuran rumah bahaalan
yang dlmilikmya sebanyak RM5B8.0D sehingga anak keempal
bsrusla Z1 lahun‘ dam
on Defendan amen hak mendudukw Hananah lersebul sehgl
rnana Delendan Ixdak berkahwm lam dan lika Delendan
berkahwm lain. Harman lersebul hendaklah duual dan hasul
;ua\an mbanagu menglkul bahagwan masungmasmg
m Hv4TrRXpwyBIILGwR\mrA “
W. sum rumba wm be um In mm m. mwgmuly mm 5..."... VI muws PM]!
31
32
33
35.
Juga lndak dlpemkalkan bahawa Defendan xerah berkahrwm lagx
(Eksibll “MALT Lampuan 2)
Mahkamah IN tldak bersetmu klzusa Ingkar i|u lenkal kepadi iS|J»
Isu yang dwbangkwlkan men Defendan wknl — ma dalam pmses
penceralan perkahwman keduinya dan ma lldak mendudukn
Hanannh (ersebul sepiruang perkarvwman keduanya
Kmusa Ingkar da\am perlnlah pelsemuan lersebut nampak ;eIas
den nyala, yakni Hananah nu akan duual jika Defendan berkahwm
Iain Dalam kes ml, Defendan cenan berkahwm lam dan o\eh nu
klausa mgkar Ilu herkuatkuasa dan Harlan:-1h lersebul hams dIj|J3\
Wa\au bagaxmanapun sebarang perimah pamualan Hananah
fersebut men Mahkamah vnv ikan menyemuh penmah Mahkamah
Syanah berhubung bayaran narkah P\a|nlI1 kepada anamnaxnya.
mu kerana bayaran naokan nu herpaul dengan bayavan ansuran
gadalan Hananah tzrsebul
Mahkamah im fidak privy kepada vakca den keadaan yang
membawa Kepada pIhak—pII1ak berselmu merekodkan
penghaklman atas |erma—Ierma |ersebul dx Mahkamah Syanah
Oleh ilu Mahkamah W hams was-was dalam membenkan apa—apa
penmarv yang mungkwn benenxangan acau membewakangkan
pennlah Mahkamah Syanah darn kesannya
m mnaxvwysa-Lewmm
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
as Oleh yang aemman, Mahkamah ml berpendapat herdasarkan
{akla dan Keadaan kes ml adalah Iidak perm alau maniaal un|uk
Mahkamah Im menggunakan budibicar-anya untuk membenarkan
pevmohonan Plamm dan menamalkan pemmkan bersama
Hananah flu dengan msmualnya
Keputusan
37 Bemasarkan alasan-a\asan dw alas, Mahkarnah um menolak
permahonan Plalntw dalam Lamplran 1 dengan kus RM lenakluk
kepada fi amkalur
aenamm 7 Nnvembev 2023
Narkunavalhy un
Pesurumaya Kelwaklman
Mahkamah Tinggw Mama dw S\mga1Felam
Foquam haul plhak Femohon
Puan NurSyafiqah mm Pardee
Tetuan ZuVa4dI 5 Associates
No. 57, Jana" cempaka, Taman Cempaka Bum‘
25400 F-am Raja, Batu Pahal‘ Johar
m mnaxvwysa-Lewmm
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm
Peguam bag] yihak Respondent
Enclk mrarum bin Han Ismawl
Teluan Farahaxllnda & Ca
No 15A, Larong PFZ 1, Fuse! Permagaan Zamrud,
usooo Sungaw Petam, Kedah
m Hv4TrRXpwysaILGwmmrA
W. sum lhlhhfl MU .. wed In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm
5 0\eh yang aemikuan, peunvanan Lamplran 5 menglngkan
perunlukan Ierssbut
6 Delendan pula nneruyuk kepada A28 «ac KM yang Iemakai
kepada prosimng yang durnmakan secara saman Femma A28
k 30 KM mempemnmkxan »
(3) Jika delendan bermat unluk mengemukakan kmerangan
dengan sebulan kepada saman pernma yang dlsampaukan
kepadanya‘ ma nenaaklah berbual demikxan me\a\uI anaame dan
afidavit nu I1endak\ah awanlkan dan salu sallnan afidavn nu
nendaxxan msampankan kepada plamm hdak lewat daripada dua
pmuh salu hari se\epas msampaxkan dengan sam salinan anuavn
aleh p\aml|l m aawan perenggan (1)
(4) Melamkan Ma marihkan se\amnya alen Mar-karnan, sualu
pmak yang bermal urvtuk menjawab suacu andavu yang
dwsampaxkan kepadanya hendaklah memfiillkan anaavnnya dan
menyampawkan anaavn mu kepada plhak yang salu lag» da\am
empat belas han davi \ankh afidavn yang ma bemvat umuk
rnemawab msampaikan kepsdanya “
7. Dakam kes rm, Lamplran 5 yang dwailkan darn dlserahkan pads
10 7 2023 dnbuat mengwkut penelapan masa olen KM
3 Mankarnan rnernumskan bimahan awa\ Plainmdnolak Lamplran
5 udak mengmgkan perunlukan K 28 K 3c KM
m mnaxvwysa-Lawm
Wale sum lhlhhfl M“ be um In my m. .ngn.ny wnu 3..."... VI muus bum!
Fermohonan Plainlif
Kes PIaintif(Lam;1iran 2 dun 4)
9 Secara nngkas, naratif Plairmi ada\ah bahswa »
(1) ma dan Deiendan adalah pemlllk bevsama Hananah tersenm
(Ekslbn “MAZ~1' Lampnan 2;,
on) Hananah lersebuf digadsrkan kepada LPPSA‘
(m) we lslah bsrceral dengan Deiendan pads 20 4 2015;
(w) anlara «em-a nenman Derceralan an Mahkamah Syariah Kuala
Muda yang dipBV'S€flJj|A\PI|1flK'plIVak adalah bahawa Defendan
mbenarkan duduk dw Harlanah (ersebul se\ag| dis udak kahwm
ssmula.
(V) pkz Delendan berkahwm, Hartanah Mu madman dijua\ dan
hasll yua\an hendaklah dwbahagxkan mengm bahagwan
masmg-maslng (Eksmn “MAL ' Lampvan 2);
my Devendan lelah kahwm ssmula pada 14 1 2021 (Ekslbu ‘MAZ-
3' Lampvran 2),
(vu)De1endan enggan mernberi kenasama unluk urusan
perwanan Harlanah lersebul. dan
(vm)mIa\ pssaran semasa Harlanah Aeusebuc RM zuuuoo no
(Eksmu 'MAz—5“ Lamplran 2;
m mnaxvwysa-Lewmm
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
Kes Delendan (Lampirarl 3 den 5)
10 Dmendan lidak menankan ma (elah herkahwm semula tetapw
menyacakan anakanak mereka bemak menduduki Hananah
terselnfl sehmgga anak bongsu mencapar usla 21 (ahun
11 Deiendan membamah kepada Lammran 1 alas alasan
permohcnan W akan memqaskan, menghalang den membamkan
pemuan Mahkamah Syanah yang masih berkualkuasi. Defendan
mempenlkaxkan muangkuasa Mahkamah Im unmk mendengar
Lammran1
12 Defender: juga menyalakan Plalrmllxdak membual bayavan nalkah
denganleralurdan ada Xunggikan nafkah sebanyak RM 55,860 on
(Eksibit “RR-5" Lampuran 3».
Hujahan Pmmn (Lampllan .5;
13 Plainlfl bemuiah penuommannya adalah unluk menamalkan
pemvlikan bersama Hananah lerssbul dl bawah seksyen 145
Kanun Tanah Negara flan Mahkamah mempunyax kuasa umuk
menamalkan pemmkan bevsama Iersebul dengan mengarahkan
pen;ua\an Hananah Iersebuf
14 Wawnllfiuga marujuk Kepada Kuasa camnanan Mahkamah m bawah
seksyen 25 dan perenggan 3 .|adua\ Akla Mahkamah Kehamman
1964 (Akta 91) den kuasa Mahkamah umuk memennlah walan
harla Iak alih dw bawah A 31 KM.
m mnaxvwysa-Lewmm
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm
15 Perunlukanverunlukan Ini Ie\ah dwtelili dmam nas undang-undang
benkul —
(I) You Vean cmnaom u KY kVan &0rs 2015 ecu
860d B87,
(in Lew Chyl Sher: v. Md Zm hm swat 2017 1LNS 271 m gar-a
I‘_3]‘
(nu) Hasxah bl Ma\ v. Johananmn bun Dun dan Vam-Vam [gum 7 MLJ
51 dv 19‘ darn
(M Ong Chm Hal 5. Anur v Ong Hou see & Ors rgozz 5 ML! 690
696 702
nu/um. Dofendnn (Lnmplnn 5)
16 Delendan pma bemujah auawammx mm. Kidak perm alau suar
manlaal umuk Mahkamah W memenmahkan Hananah (ersaebut
duual
17 Berdasarkan periman peuset-wan yang drrekodkan di Mahkamah
syaxian, P\am\ii benanggungan membayar nalkah unluk 4 many
anak mereka dengin membayar ansuran rumah sebanyak RM
sea on sebman sehmgga anak Keempal bemswa 15 tahun
m Hv4TrRXpwyBa4LGwmmrA
Wale sum IHIHDIV wm be um law may m. mwgmuly mm anuumnl m mm wvm
1a Sekwanya Harlanah rlu duual, Plalnlfl akan Ierlepas dan bayiran
nalkah unluk anak keempat mereka yang kim bevuswa mamm flan
ber1en1angan dengan Perinlah Mahkamah Syanah
19 Dsfendan bemmah Mahkamah hams berpandukan pnnsip
keadulan dan memyuk kepada nas undang-undang benkul -
(ii KM S Kumarappan Chemsr v s Ramasamy :10 KM s
Chockallngam [2000 7 MLJ 532 111 636, dan
hi) Awshah Mohd Saman & yang mm v Kalsum H’ Mnhamad Nur
2000 2 CLJ 592 d1 555 (Arshah Mahd Saman)
20 Defendan herpenmnan ml bukan sualu ks yang mewijarkan
penggunaan budmlcara Mahkarnah nan menquk Mahkamah
kenada kes Eng Mee Vong 3. Ora y Leuzhumanan 1979 MLRA
m, 1975 1 MLRA 143 di mama Lard Dlplock memuluskan an 211
11.. makmy such omev on ID: apm-cam. as he ‘may mm 1.151» the mags 1;
vested mm a dlicveuon much 1» must e>1evc1ss|umc1aHy. n 5 for mm to
determine 1.1»: «.51 Infllnce whtlhsr slalamsnls oumamad m alfida»/11s1rvaI
are vehed upon .5 msmg 3 1:aMIn:1 M emdenue upun a rs\avan| oaa have
summenlpnma fame mauswbwlfly la meml1mheHnvesI1ga1\e» am 1hei1 mm. -
m Hv4TrRXpwyBa1LGwR\mrA
«.1. sum rumhnv wm ». um law may m. mV§\n|HIy mm dnunvmnl «. muus mum
21 Eemubung Isu perlenlangan as amara penmah Mahkamih Syanah
dan Derinlam yang bakal dibual meh Mahkamah Im pka
permahonan Plainm umenaman, Dederman menuuk Mahkamalw
kepada kes Vlran Nagagan v Deeng § pvgmgmam 8. other
aggems 2016 3 CLJ 505 dl 527
22. Deiendan bemujah Plamm lidak aaprqumsxan sekwanya
permohanan Inl dmalak Kerana ma maslh bcleh memuhun perinlah
]ua|an selepas anak keempat mereka mencapax umur 21 lahun
Dapltlu dun Inuliu Mahkamah
lsu unluk pemmnmgan Mahkamah
23 lsu mnggal umuk pemmnangan Mahkamah dalam Lampxran 1
adaxan sama ada Ianya penu dan suax manfaal unluk Mahkamah
mi memennlahkan pemualan Hananah telsebut
Prinsip undang-undang
24 Seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara 1955 msmperumukkan —
my Whnva, m me. 1255 Many hm waned m uwpvopvrelori —
my any at the ownvonnehms mu nemhel gum m, rmr mnwm to Ina
mam M, an apancaxmn «orpammn under Ins Chapter‘ or
{b) hy venom of me epemian M yirngvlph nemm (as apvhed by
seamen m) nanmen mm mm belween i\| .71 he copvvpnelovi
‘s mcapame an my aopnwed under Ims Chavler
m Hv4TrRXpwyBa4LGwmmrA
Wale sum IHIHDIV wm be um law may m. mwgmuly mm anuumnl m mm wvm
me Courl,sub1l:1m and m accmdance wnh ma Dvwmuns Many law (av mm
mm. being m was Iehluvg to cm pmbedme‘ mly, an m ippficilnn ahny
at me cc-pmpviemrs‘ mnke such avder .5 u my am just for (he pmpnqe av
enammg me cwvmnneluvsmv In belermmaled.
(2) Wwlhoulvlstudwua In nu gm-amy ohm Wwerwmarvid by wbssdwon
11 y, me Calm may on arw -Iupluzulmn mer om suhsedmn order —
(5) mac. suD1sc1 In the mam bemeen me wpmnnem or such
vayrr-am am-acaun maycons-uaraqunaosenav-nu vagamome
aumpaum valu-I M the muwaam pmlmnx msmby wnpowd.
my nppmcm var pnmuon made by an: or more 01 me am
pmnnemvs m we lems summed m the my man be deemed for
me Dmpuses mm: Crvamerm have bsen mm Dythsm an.
my «mun: Imflwided shme alany Mme cc-pmyrmors be mnslened
an Ihelemu specified m the mm! In the me: mpmmmus. one
any M lnem. or
my mama land he mm-
25 Seksyen 25(2) Akta 91 berkenaan kuasa Mahkamah Tlnggl
mempenmtukkan 4
"ram meruejnskan kemasnn suhsevéyen m. Mahkamnh finagl hevwdaklah
memnurwaw kuasa lambahan my dmyalakan dawn .ladua\
Dwgan syir-I| mm. wax. kuisa nu hendakmh mmmn mengm
mm:-mum undang—nndang nemms alau Kaederrkaedah mahkamah yang
hen-mburlgan denganflya ~
sm Hv4rrRxvv11yBaALGwmmrA
"nun: sum M... W be um In «My like .m.u.y mm um... «. IFVLING Wm
zs. Pevenggan 3 Jadual Akla 91 berkenaan kuasa Mahkamah pecah
mlllk lanah mempemnlukkan —
-Kuasa unmk nnengavahkan peniualan sabagaw garm yeah mllwk dalam spar
ap. dndakin uuluk pecan mmklanah‘ dun dahm .pa..pa kausn am. penkam
yang bemubungan deugan tannin. nu. maapan pellu alau sualmarwaal‘ unluk
memennlahkan suvaya «anan nu alau manzmina nanamannya an-nan, aan
untuk mambenkan sagala Irihan yam Punu dan bsmamlkn -
27 A 31 KM pma berkenaan kuasa Mahkaman msmenntahkan Jualan
nana cak ann uka cemyaca psnu atau suax manlaat nan msnetapkan
cave-cans iua\an flu hams dumankan
25 Eudangkuasa Mankaman unmk mensmalkan pemlllkan bersama ax
nawan seksyen 145 mu le\ah mpenksa dalam beherapa
kepmusan Mankaman termasuk —
(i) Vaung vean Chm 3. or: v QuekYak Kang 3. Drs 2016 MLJU
1737 :11 mana AbduIAzI1 hm Abdm Rahlm HMR memutuskan
Jmlflk
'Unders145 anne NLc1sa5,1ne mun Vs amwwemd WM .3 dvschahon
In omev me pamnun ul any land cwnsd undev a our wunnalcvimp av 10
make any nvder «nu ma cmnl thunk: just fur (ha pulpusl av znlblmg the
ca.pmpnexman.p m be Izvmmmed Thus nmvmnn .a mm: In any at
me empmnlbetors wnu wanted (0 |ermInate me vrovrlelorshlv cm \s
Vacmw a pvomam when any ul ma ou—PvuvHa|ovs wnl nmlnsv [um M Mr
oansnm «a ma mlkmg unna appnuuan my yanmun A71 gmnfly Dwliad by
am as \n «ne case belave us “ den
sm Hv4TrRXvwyBn4LGwR\mrA
-W. sum rumhnv Mu ». um law may m. mtgwmuly mm unanvmnl «. muus mm
| 1,878 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
AC-A51KJ-1-06/2022 | PLAINTIF 1. ) JAWIPAH BINTI IBRAHIM 2. ) NORHAYATI BINTI ABDUL NAYAN DEFENDAN 1. ) SENTHAMERADEVI A/P MUNIANDY 2. ) Pengarah, Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Perak 3. ) KEMENTERIAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia | Plaintif-Plaintif telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan saya yang diberikan pada 6/10/2023 atas isu liabiliti dan sebahagian isu kuantum (Lamp 40). Manakala Defendan memfailkan rayuan atas isu liabiliti sahaja (Lamp 45).Saya mendapati Plaintif-Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan kes atas imbangan kebarangkalian terhadap Defendan Pertama sahaja dan gagal membuktikan kes atas imbangan kebarangkalian terhadap Defendan Kedua hingga Keempat.Saya mendapati Defendan Pertama bertanggungan sebanyak 60% manakala 40% ialah kecuaian sumbangan si mati. | 09/11/2023 | Tuan Gan Peng Kun | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7a7d58fb-f833-4ae4-a936-2d5c1801a01c&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 16:22:12
AC-A51KJ-1-06/2022 Kand. 49
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 1h9ejP45EqpNi1cGAGgHA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4:)
[Bl
AC—A51KJ—1—D6/2022 Kand. 4 9
09/11/2224 15:12-12
mum mmumm szsvsu pl Yguug mun
mum «eggs: PERAK DARUL Iunzunu
eunmu SIVIL NQ.AC-A51KJ-1-I16/2I122
Imnuu
JAWIPAH awn wasumm
uomuvm sum mom raw»: .. PLAINYIF-PLAIMTIF
mu
ssummsuuevu up uummnv
psucmxn mum: KERJA nu NEGERI PERAK
usursm mu; nu
KERAJAAN muvsu DEFENDAN-DEFEMDAM
A gym PEMGHAKIMAN
pzngsnguu
maummamm \e\ah memnmn rayuan terhadap kepumun say: yam:
amnm paaa em/2023 alas Eu Iwamlm flan sebahagwan Wsu kuamum (lamp
am Marmknli Dsisnflln mamfaflkan vayuan alas xsu Iubmh gm‘: (Lamp cs)
LIABILITI
Pad: 2411/2021 ‘am Vemh mm ms Kenyan ma\am spa memmggang
mnlasxkzl damn paljahnan pmang ke mman den (empal ken:
Semasa memm Jalan mun — mus Lumpur bevdekalan mug Canaya Mm
am, spa nampak kereva m hmiparmyn mengenau sesunhz a. alas nlan
Se\eps.I swa mambemermkarv mawslkalnya bshau nampak snoring
pemmgging m4.7(LwkaYyang ksmumarv dwkenahsebagamm:|v|e1hamvg m alas
}a\an raya sy mam bargevak an ma mengangkal kepahu pm]: Man \|u
N mu-n=45£~1nNm:GM3wHA
um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
: spa satalvmya mencapal [eleven pmrar dalam hag hanunnnyl mnmbukz
lampu lelehn puma! am melambal ke nah ‘aw! ray: Tujuan 5P3 Delbull
demlklan max mu mpasmn
5 Kemudnnn, k-vat: yang mama mall Dalendan mm. Mn: m Iempal kemamn
mu Inelznggar s. man yang sedanu Invbnnng an alas man ray:
5 sm Iarm plglwax penywasmkes yang (ma .1. Iemaal xemanxenzn meruumpm
soekor pm Man a. flalam Vengknng m up man aam hulnn m. mm den
mwcaym dllanggar man u man iebelum s. malatarpaluh Gan Ielblnng a-am
‘am
7 5»: wan memhual mu rayot pans pm 31/112021 mu ssmmggu Idspai
uepm... (P9; Eehau menylulun bahama berm: perm ka am Palm mm
Tapah Imluk memmm vepol Did] mnlam maman mg: berxami Deienflan
Panama new 591 «am mambenlahurwfi hahawa belwau mu menu mmnuan
Sehivirlg lapuran polls
5 SF1Ialan menaflkan mam beilau membenlarw sva bahawamaknanu Dual
vepal puhs
9 Say: menenma pemehlan sedsmnklan Ream puns Vsval mbum man 5;’:
mm. unmk msnuloflg Plamul-?\nm\\V map. msehahkan den kesxlnpin
pemahaman spa Tambahan pula um ktwnppan m 5... undangrundang
unluk saksw bebas seven: SP3 memhual new um:
10 Detenflan mum. nwnghmahkan hahaw: 5‘ main memnggil duma mm
palinggaran dengan mm hulzn bukan mlanggiroleh naveman Perhma
11 say: hdak dapal menenma mqahnn .m kerana spa nampik 5‘ man mislh
bergemk an Cuba angkal kepala sebelum dvhlvgqav nleh Dflendan mm.
s‘ man bemerm bergemk xelevas dllanggav aleh Defsndan Penzma
1
sm um Pasianwcsuswnn
“Nair slam n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum W
12
43
45
1s
17
«a
19
2o
Salim nu, dapzlan dnkmr yang melakukzn ma.» s\ua| um. 5P5 mendapall
kensdaraan mm m bahagmn kupala menunjukxan mm...g... dsngin
kendeviln bemmlnr
5P5 max Dursmuju keosdevaan pamh sedamman ur bahagwan mm: bcfleh
dwsebabknn man pemnwam. dengan mm mm
Penning unmk d-hen gemauan bahamn srs nupeuuapac keuedelann pnlih
yang dmam a‘ Dahaglan knnah m man admah dwehnhian clan ksvmeman
yang bevgenak W man: usu amk kalulv dan mm; s\ man
Selaxn nu, Dafundarv Fennms ‘uga merwalakan ham. kzveta yang fllpandu
mehnya xemh mix «as sesualu emu Dalandan Pemamn um kamukakan
pemlzelian hahawn new malanggal mamxxkam man
Olen m.‘ sayn mendapall nemaan Panama man menanggam mall seivlngga
manyebabkan kzmamln 5. man
Semnwlnyn Dzfendan Panama menyaiakan ipabvla beluu Iampaw dekal
dangzn Iempal kepndmn, nalwau namnak mm mmoslkal spa nu rem:
menyahlbkan bebau nuang (umpuan lemadap pindingln hadapan
Amal mahng sekah karlna undakan spa yang menyalakan um.» telelun
pwmav flan melambiu aengan Ielelun panamya ma lamuu mmosmamy. man
menyebubbun Drfundan Panama mengalmkan tumpuan sakawp kg min 5P1
Keadaan dl lempll mamnn mg: amalgelip flan
as Iampu .aran
Undangundang man Jaye mengkzhendikw wman Perllma bamatwvalx
dlngan mempeflanankan kewlanya apahfla bamadapan dengin mm
sldarmklarv Dakam Keleungarmya‘ beluau menyllalcan kebjuannyn pm
mass Ierubm nalah 70 km/lam
;
sm um Pasianwcsuswnn
“Nair slam n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum W
21
22
2:
24
25
2s
27
Wabupun Kehamnn mu masvh a. bawah had mu kehnngsaan umuk mm
pw:eku|uan‘ helzpx Delendan Pennma plllu mumplllahinknn Ingl buavvlanya
apahun balnau (emumpak Iampu mam: SP3 flan Vampu laleflon mm ylng
dwlambav am. spa kerana tumpunn new man mu.» din pindarwan
hlflznan‘ dnlnmbah my dengan keadaan mm mg gflap
Salammnya‘ mamm.pu..nm..ga menymnkan barlwa Dulendan Kedua mngga
Keanpal manpunyal kewaunin mm memnsang my alau Penghadsug dw
saepnrqlng nu... m lempal kapdmn higl mengelakkan Mvwnn Mar mm mm
hulan davvzda rnshnus man
Pnpan mm: amamn human Irar mzmang man fllpasnng mm kulfing 1
ktlnmelerdan temval xeman (uzzm an (07
In: mm. uleh sm‘ spa dan Defendan Panama
Menum| snz. pmak Jahman me am nkzn mangzmmu (mdakan
pznmgahan sexmya mandapal Vapor-In davrpada pmnk pun: dan kawuan
yang .1 woman an dwenamhnamkan sebigawkawasan yang senng benaku
kamalarman
l'emp3| keladlan mm kaw: n yzng msmmmumkan sehagaw kemalangnn
mam mehhnlkzn nawan ha!
m..mn.m..nm ma wax mengtmukakan has ying manqgnakan kswajlpan kg
11:: Deiendxn Kndua mum Ksempal unmk mmasana Muir alau
penghadang Na: yang dlksmukakan avg» PhannI—P\mnM dalam hujiharl
nemms mulu Palvmila Mulhusamy V nmm Lebuh Ray; L/lalz-Selufzm [1997]
: cu 54 am. LE5 new Sim Em! A Santa Lam v Nathan Mulhsysh 5 Yang
Lmn|2D1D] 2 cu H3 mehbaman syankm muses: Iehun raya flan bo\ah
dmezakan mas mm
.
sm mu m mm HA
mm. s£n.x5..‘2‘&.mm .. E... m mm .. mmy mm: dun-mm VII mum W
2a
2»:
an
3:
32
33
mm dungnlkzn hnhawa Plmnm-Flannlxl memwkul Dahan umuk membuku
Dmnm kars Mond Slubudin Abu um... vrlummnud samn AM Amy
mm 1 ms 4£4,Mahka1nah Tmggl memuluskln sedermkmn
‘Wu: sun was amugm Dy my Plamhlf nmilrw burden s on me Plalnlrlf
m paw: ms olaam, mm on mu mam arpmn-.mm»as. Yhe mum av
prove mm wan the Plirnnlland mu Pnamhlm Io msmarye 115 mm (0
fimve #3 cause of aotmn lgamst me Dnluvdml as dscnded by lha
Fsdanl Com! m In: case or Lolcnumanan Cnemar Alsgappan (As
Exsculov la 5/ A/ameluu Acm (Doaensadfl .5 /war V Secure Ptantnbon
Son sm1[2a17] 5 cm as, 4201714 ML./ 557 Based on Lolchumanun
Chem-r(supIs} cm, sea-1/on 101 arms Ewdenm Ac11950 was rafarrsd
rmldvng that me Damian Io sstablun ma case 12:1: Imuuwhmu an M9
pany wna asserts the arrmme aims Issue '
Dawn mas." iedenukmu. says mendspan mm«.m..nur man bauayn
mzmhukhkan Xe: alas Ambangan Kebzlangknhan lemsdap Ddendan mama
sans‘: um gage! membubmkan kas alas mmangan kgbatangkxlmn mum...
Deieman mu: mum Kostunfl
Pevangglmn denqan seakov ham huun pada mam Kejamin minuruukknn 5!
mill menunggang dengan mu semngga (mk um: mengalak dan mehnggzt
ham man (ersebm
Sakwznya .. mm Vebm bemaivrhalu new dauel mengmk pelnnggavzn
flengnn mm Mun lerwbul
Kewumdan man cam. nmnvan havwan lur um kumng I kflometer dun
mmpil kepadmn upalulnya lelah membenkan Imaran mm: 5‘ man un|uk
Iebm hnmalwuan
spa dalam katevangannyn menyilzkzn hehnu vamah marvgelak hirwan Iwar m
kswasan yang um: sshemm (ink?! uqaam
5
P4 NHcGM3 HA
«5%1.,‘.““s'£n.F..‘2‘&.mm .. E... w my .. m,m.u.y mm: dun-mm VII mum W
34 Seklmnya pshrtggaun flsngan mm mm udak umam Inuam yang
menyebabkan mm mlangglr clan oevemm Panama ma mak aknn
heflaku
as (Nah nu, iaya mandapalr mama." Panama henangnungan ubanyak am»
manaknli oov. walah kacuavan sumhanqnn 5. man
my um»:
35 Pmsun undang—unun»g bsmubung laksumn gum rugladalah manlip Dulam
km ugoomu sum 5. Anal v Aim Ahdurlan new 2 cu Isa, Mahkamnh
Peaekuluan memmuxkan isdermkun
‘Germs! damagw my to me damage won me /aw Tmphes m wmngs
uVrorvab(e per 3. W and rs mm m guneva/19/ms All the pludmgt
mm the neoemyozquannmng ms amnunl may mnlade MM: /05:
ul eamrngs .s well as rlnmags: lol [Jam and mm; and /ox: or
amenfl/es Yhfiy Islam m mam: of damage mm Decumury mm
pecuniary Spsmal danuga: on ma alherhnnd have 10 be specifically
pleaded and merry pruvsd Thcy ruler .0 past expznsss and fax: or
sammgs The exam has mus! be Wemod wlwn me amrrse nmounl ol
Item has become clearballm the ma! Lass of/ulma earning: arposb
mat mu diflnrs lrom pmnaz has wmcn comes under spvclal damage:
The rsesun mm mm: damapes have In 1.. spsaIcs!ly D/wdcdts m
ammo comply w/In rt: am: much rs m mam Ms Issue and la ,...r
the delendumson mevrguardandleltlncmwnalmeyhavvlo meslwhen
me case came: on ma! (See Domsafla V flarrl1569] wua A30, mm»:
V Plump:/18751050 127, my and (my Ah Lung V m s L/ndorwand
[19BJ[CLI(F9pI Joe"
37 Ganll mgx am mxwm mm nenkm
(a) Kamlanqanlanaflungnn
5
sm um ma; Nncsuswnn
mm. slam ...%.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII murm pm.‘
. sm menyslzkzn pendapnun m.xa..amu.a.. ulxh wM22au Rmmo
yang dlbenkm oleil n man walah umukmernhelx hmnng penbam we
ms» nu‘ say: berpendapsl Rnnaun uhuvan man sam wmhh ylng
munasahnh umuk kedua-due nmm
V RMB00 x :2 man x 13 lalvun = RMm.eoa
Ln) Kedukamlaan — nmauwu
as Glnh rug! knas mmuwxan sepem mum
4:; vemewmuan pengehumlin . amazon
7 P\amM—P\amlrV mzmohon wmlah sehanynk main Yevapx ‘umhah
um max diam mmman men m.m:ma.nm Mahkamah
membenavkan jumlah ma one man persllujuan Derendan Panama
(:2; Pamewan,.an dukumen-dukumen — hawah K0:
{2} Pemebmain um ks Momma! Ieluk mm — hdak mnuman
my Pemalaruazn lapcmn past-munem — um» kos
[57 K05 membmkv mmomw —Mak «mam
39 Eerhuhung dengan garm mg: Ieruk Plmnm-Plmnlwltmak memnmm dawn
Pamyalaan Tunlumn «emu hanya membangkman wanting ganln mgx mm
dalzm huflhan benuhs mask:
on Dawn K25 Pmj-k mun my. um. Selamn sun arm v Kim Song
Enmwnro (Kw-n) 5:11: am: [2013] s cu ass, Mamman Rayuan
memutuikan senem aenkul
7
sm my-n=45E<:nNncsM3wHA
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
‘Al 1»... ,.1..a...-. .11. rdaal to 5.1.1.2.. each and wary munch ma! ms
nspondsm has tlnrmsed m we stalsnvenl o/cm... 5.1.1 ml mm mm
acconimgly 5.11 bafoml do 51:. Imus: cnegomtnlly stale mar lhaunmu:
an Dnwdby Iimvplosdmqs 7». pamos Arsrsqmmd Io s1aIelns1ss0ss
aflscl and fame ma quashons DU-aw ... mdcr to ma mime om. case:
...:s..ao.1 1.. D5 :6! up and to plan!!! ertherpalry m In mm. by surpme
:1 the 1.1.1 1:... malerul (ms mull no Illsaded nu! ma tom
oalusqumces my ....: n. pleaded (Wong See my 1 c Saruwutny
Ammar (19541 1 ms 133, 119541 MLJ 141 ca. .1 142, Ken s»a»< Pan 1
Sayang Planlnnon 5.1112002} 1 cu 501, /2124221 1 ML./ 55, ca, ouan
Swee Khoon v s..... Darby am [21201] 1 cm a /209012 MLJ we, on,
and ma. s.u4»e.s, Lwvlted ma Omar: .1 Eel! .9 Armmsr [1931] 1 xa
557;
we: lms anloumx 1.. .3 .1... 171:! me mm-1 m not ....1.1...: 5.1.1 mm
not dsmde . 5.... .=.. .....s.1. 11.1.1. .5 ....1 plcaded 1.. mm, the 1.... a1
1... 5.1.. muxl be m..11....1 1.. ms ple.!d1rrg.1(Yaw w... 1...... 1 La! Kak
Chya 11991;; 1 CL./1113 /1:91:11 cu {Rap} no 11.190.21.111 152, so,
at 15:; and 1... p1...1.ngs opemre .1. .r1.=1....1y define ....1 .1.1....11 .1...
ma...» c/alrly and pncrsnn 1.... real mum .. conlmvarsy balwsen
11.. .....1.-.5 1.. (ms way. we numb: m.11.1;ma.e ma.-. rssoeclrva casas
and the mun mu w1lud/udncats o..»o.e.ss...s amino mm: 1.15.. Hale!
sa.. arm 1 1.1.1...1...1..m....=. 11.1; sm. 51.111992); cu ms, /19921
2 cu map. 121, 119921 2 Mm 515, s Maruckam s Ovs .1 1......
Mohamed .1. Or: 11991.7 1 LN: 11:, may 2 MLJ 99, Narayanan
Panrmramy 1 »<.....sm... Par1r1II5flrILVI1993I4 cu ass (1993/3 MLJ
7312, mm... .1m....1 5. Anal .1 Abdul Kareem [1955] 1 ms 1 [1959] 1
ML./ 22, H2 m......ay 5 Anal .1, 1.1.1.»: Abdul Kader ».1.....1 seam .1.
on (199912 cm 517, 11921211 cL./ (Rev) 115, 1195912 Mu :1: sc
5. 41:, Wsma Panes Ema: San End 1 Druon-H? O'Ho)nhar1 1195511
ms :s, (193711 MLJ 393 so, Grmstsm Corp 1111. Sun 5...: A Anor 1
5195.1 1......a..c. Co 3011 5111111957] 1 on 12: 119.11; cm pm; 1.12,
(195711 MLJ 3.22, 5:, and 1... Ah on... 4 Sons s.1.. am 1 01:1 Bee
1... 5 Ar1ar[1Y9.’!] o cu 4m /1993} :1 MLJ 5.13)‘
5... 1.... Pl .1 csuswnn
«.1... s£1..5..‘.‘.‘%..1... .. .... .1 mm .. .1....11.. M1... 1....... 1.. ......1a Wm!
u Oieh Ilu. bemasavkan Has m ms‘ saya mm hmah mempemmbangkan
pembanarv ganu rugv lemk kevana mm anmmun sum Femyalnan Tumulan
Faedah
2 5% utahun alas gm mg: khas den Iankh kemahsngan :ehInggn mm
pengmmn
5-A, selamm alas garm mg. am dam mun penyaramn samin semngga lankh
pengnaman
I 5%seInmm 2.1.. punflah penghaklman din lankhpenghaklman senmgga ram
penyaesawan pemm
Kos mengnkut mu
5 u»
nmm manmmm szsvsn swn.
rewx mun
s oxmsék 2:12:
Flguamcara Plalntll
w Ahdullxh. Mznoharan
Yemm on A Pammn
Flguamcara Dolnnflan Penm-
Kzmallwam
Yehun an. Manlckihx L Auocmlu
3.9. plhak Dewndnn K-dun nun“. ommnu
s Nanida
Ftquim Fnnnkuluan
man Penumn Undxng-Undang Ncgm P nu
9
sm my-n=45E<:nNncsM3wHA
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
| 1,226 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
JA-45A-37-12/2020 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) MUHAMAD RAFI BIN ROSDIN 2. ) MUHAMMAD HANAFI BIN MOHD AZNEE | Perbicaraan jenayah terhadap 2 tertuduh- terdapat tiga pertuduhan- S.39B91)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta Racun 1952 dibaca bersama S34 Kanun Keseksaan-tempat kejadian di sebuah rumah beralamat di Jalan Sekuntum, Taman Bukit Dahlia,Pasir Gudang, Johor Bahru-OKT1 melarikan diri dan berjaya diberkas-dadah di badan dijumpai- pemeriksaan di dalam bonet Kereta Mercedes Benz menjumpai 1 bag kanvas biru IKEA dan bag kertas "Just Do It"-mengandungi 6 ketulan mampt dipercayai ganja- pendakwaan gagal buktikan kes prima facia atas semua pertuduhan-dilepas dan dibebaskan untuk semua pertuduhan. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3109f51c-6bcc-41e0-936a-df061c196e74&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 14:03:50
JA-45A-37-12/2020 Kand. 46
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
.m—¢5A—37—12/2020 Kand. 46
zeumozs uvzs
DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JONDW amnu
DALAM NEGERI JOHDR DARUL uxzmu
PEREICARAAN JENAYAH NO: JA-45A-(35-la)-11I2o1I1
FENDAKWA mu
uwnu
MUHAMAD RAFI am ROSDIN
MUHAMMAD HANAFI am MOHD AZNEE
ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN
Panglnllln
[<1 Keduz<1ua|enuduh\s\ah dfluduh dengan mat beuama mengedar
dadah an bawah s a9s<1)<a) Akla Dadah Eevbahaya v952 (Anny can 5
9(1)Ak|a Racun I952 mbaca hevsama s 34 Kamm Keseksazn
[21 Tevdapfl nga (3) Defluduhan |emadap meveka, sepem henkm
F-mmuvun Panama
1JAr45A—a$1Mo2a — Tan-mun Panama dun Temmun Kzmm 4/uudun
nm.nmama)
IN »«=umu.4zm=asuam
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
'Eahawa kamu barsamzruma pad: 215 mm, pm Izhm kn-inn n an mllnm
m nnflannn mmah No 9:‘ Jilan Sdmmum <4. Yaman auxm mam rm
Gudang‘ m dahm dnauh Juhut Blhm m dullm mum John! Dam ‘(aknm
Iehah menuedlr dadah wmaya pm: bmm um: gum lulu c......a..
om Mu kamu «aim mnhxukuu sun kesiluhm m mm Seksyen as: may
Am Eladah E-erbaluya «:52 flan mm dmnkum m buwan Seksyen ass (2;
Anayang xnmndmmhncanasnmadvlzawnh Se«sy:n34 Kanun Keseksaan‘
P-mmun-n mu
(JA45A—a7—1z/2020 — nu-mun Paflaml um;
‘Bahawa kamu pada 2152:1211, .m mam kuung 11 4a mum u. hldnpan
mmnh No at man Sekumum u, Taman Bum nam Pam smug. a
mm mm. Jmur Elihu‘ m mm. Negen Jahor mm Vukzlm man mmxm
am.» aemanm beral bemh 24.34 gum mm Imlamphuuminl om. nu
klmu mun memunn mu xmnnan dv hawah Seksyarv I212)AkIa Dzdah
Bemuhaya I952 dun mm «mm. um um). Seiuyen mm Ann ynrw
Plrluduhan Kaila:
musaauzaazo . Tmuaulv Panama flan Yam.-tun Kedua duuduh
basnma-sums)
-Baum Iumu bersamtxama pad: 2: a ma, pm mam kunnn 1: 40 mnlnm
a. amp... rumah Na ea. man Sakunwm <4, Tamar: Euiul mam pm
Gudang, a. dzlam mm. Jnhar mm m dnrnm Nesyen Jana! Diml Yakzlm
lnllnmdnpnndalammnhkankamulawnyang!.ersanava\da\amJ:du:lPnn,:mI
din Jamal mg. (Bmxn Pukmvamk) Am mm 125: mu Milruaynlnn
s.u..w.x Issamllllll-vain flu-ganlru kamu wan msiakukan um kauhmn
u. bawm Stxsyen am An; Raw 1952 my w-n «mum m bawah
semen 3242; Kali ‘/ing um: dzn mm. mum. Slksyun 34 Knmm
Kzuksurv
sm »«=wM.=.4zm.usua.m
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
arang Vain Gan mampunya. pengelahusn (enmng dzman yang
evsaalkan
[36] Dahm kes vm. mhsk pendakwaan Isiah mengemukakan Iaklz darn
mrem benkut unluk membukukan pamillkzn lamadau dadah
1. xeuua-ans «enumm nan Amnm dnlmat sedang bevkumpul an
naaapnn mman bardakalan dengan kereva Mercedes yang
mnakn dmadapan mman yang mana dadah da\am penuduhan
panama duumpax dl da\am bonel newakang keveta dan oecanr
kelum dalzrn pammnnan kehga dljumpax hemumplmn mereka
berkumpm
2 Dadah anvnm pemmunan keduz duumpai daiam seVua( yang
mam: nleh Tammnn Panama
3 Tenuduh Panama dvlangkap 52121571 cubs melankan am dan
alan umuax uneven aanawa bellau ada pengelahuan mengenau
fladah mg dqumpaw
A Panamuan kad nama keduzrdua Ierluduh dw dalam arm rssl
keruta memhuknkan meleka msmpunyzw zksus |emadID xerexa
flan jarak keve|a yang pamn aawam jarsk deksl an naunpan
mman Tenuduh Penams wga memhenkan mlenans
uengelahuan
5 Keoemngan Anna: Anaka Nov Aznn, SP6 warm lunang kepada
Termduh Kaduz menyatakan calah membenkan Harem Iersebul
unluk kegunaan Tenuduh Kedua sepzruang kehadaan spa an
John! aanm sejak hmzn Januan, 2u2o. Hanya «maps: 1 kunm
unluk kevela Ievsehln dan |elah flvsevahkan kepada Tenuduh
Kedua darn spa mangesankan hahawa kerela |eIsebutadz\zh dw
bawah jagaan Temmuh Kedua pads nan k€|advan
aw HPwMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
"Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; me mn.u.y mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
s Kunm keIe(a dljumpaw pada Temmuh Kedua. maka barang kes
yang mjwnpa. sdalah dmawah kawalan Tenuduh Keduz
sspsnuhnya dan dmam pengelahuannya
7 Mflrugymne yang dwampzs mg: berada an dapan kedua-flu:
tenudu ' |u p/am srghlkelrka anenun alen sm
[371 Fada penngkal mu, pihak pembexaan mengaiakan sepem berikm
1 Terpulusnya rzmaall keterangan kes aan Keragunn kepada
krednbililx SP1 uan spz. Pemaaxaan hwahkan kelerzngan
bahawa selepas serbuan di mman Terluduh Panama. barang
kes tevus amawa ke lbu Pe;iba| Polls Daemh Sen Alan: W lndak
banar kerina pembelaan |elah mervgemukakan Iapmamaporan
pulls n24, D25, nzs yang mamkzuklikan sm max xems pulang
ke mu sen mam
2 Teldapal pevcsnggahan dalam kemrangan sm flan spa dan
hada peruelasan dlhual man mana-mana saw
3 Pada panngkat wm pembenaan menegaskan bahawz uada
keterangan danpada sm akan smpakah yang rnempunyai
kawalan darn jagaan pzda bzrang kes dan dua beg mu semasa
serhuan dilakukan dv fig: xampac yang benaman
4 Pmak Pendakwaan eenan gagm unmk memanggn Amwul Aflan
Fahmn hm Hshammuddm sebagzw szksx maaan pmak
Pendakvraxan mengaiakzn Annmv max ho\eh member:
kaevangan aeas laklur kealhalan man maakang aleh dukumen
peruhakan man ad: sebarang mm. manunjnkkan Armml ‘unfit
Io give evrdemze”
5 Pmak Pendakwaan wga gagax unmk mengemukakan keputusan
anahs: mnna DNA walaupun mkanakan caman man mamb-
aw HPLuMcu4E:7ra¢AsHaIuaA
«-ma s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m van; ..a nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
s Keaunua (emmuh max mempunyal kawakan aksmsxf pad:
kenderaan wvn 129 kerana nzda saksx yang nampak swap:
yang membawa keraka lersehm ke Iempal kejadwin Jugs ma
saks: yang nampak sama ads meleka ada hevumszn dengan
bamng kes dan Mada kelsrangan sukongan sepsm DNA
mzhupun can ‘an yang menuruukkan having kes pemah
dmvuskan a\ah kedua-dua lenuduh
7 Pmak pendakwaan wga gzgal membuklwkan mat hersama dx
hzwah 5 34 Kanun Keseksaan (emadap keaemua oxnemaaap
peauuum ca. 3155 Pemuexaan menghupahkan hanawa nada
kelerangan memmgukkan mu.-mua terluduh mampurvyaw "prs—
arrange p/an” Imluk mengedar dadah aan kehadvan mareka
hanyalah semahrmata ‘mere plswnce"
5 Tmflnkan Terluduh Panama melankan um Im hanya se\alI
dengan dadah yang duumpaw m da\am kuceknys an bawah
S1212)/39A ADE Peruuatan Terluduh Kedua dan Arrwul
kehl-waLan "emu max menyumbang kepada pemnukuan
wujudnyz pengelahuan tenlallg adanya dadah yang dnrampas
om. SP1 kerana M3 mar mereka lahu‘ pasll meteka Inga akan
melankan am
[an] Undang-undang aflalah mmap bahawz dengan hanya mempunyal
jagaan aluu kzwalan ke a\as dadah lersebm lwdak mancukuw unmk
memhukukan pemmkan (hhal Inrnhlm Mnllnrnad v. PF (101 114 cu 1)
[39] Adalah ma berdassvkan nas keskes dmuan banawa dua esemen
yang dvpevlukan LIMHK memhukhkan pemilxkan man kawalan fizxkal dan
pzngelahuan Umukmemenulmmsurl Lia meslvdmuuukkanbahawa
IerIud\m—|enuduh berida barhamplran dengan dadah dan meveka bnleh
mengendahkannya seowarmnan Ia zdalah mum mereka Bag! unsurmerflal
.3
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
axan msns rea puua Derlu fllbukhkan bahawa Cerludulrlevluduh Dermal
axan hemasral unmk bemrusan dengan dadah Iersebul (mlsndsd In deal
mm ma drugs) (vuiuk kes FF v Abdul Ranman Ah!/[2007] 5 ML! 237
(F0), Chan Pun Lana v PF [1955] 22 ML] 217 Inc); nalam em ksia
lam‘ kapeduan unsur fifikal dun menus! tersebul perm wuwd nan
dlhukbkan sehemm pem kzn dapzl dihukukan.
[AD] D. am has pendakwzan saya mendapzu bahawa keduadua
Ierluduh mempnnyai kawa\an dan ;agaan aana pengellhuan mengenm
dadah yang auumna. maka Ianya aaaxan dalam mmkan meleka semzsa
anangkap
[.41] vaaa penngkal nn szya menevima keterznqan sm bahawa
Tenuduh Kedua Ie\ah dutahan samasa mluar rumah berssma Amnul flan
kuncl karma Memfles yang dljumpaw flan semar Tennmm Kedna
mamaawa kepada penemuan barzng kes dadah Cannabis darn banal
helakang karara Tarluduh Panama pnva lelah bemndak malaflkan dm
dan dadah dljumpaw d:\:m selunr yang mpakaw auahm Fada peungkat
W, saya berparmangan naaa sebab urnuk merzg elerzngan sm dan
spz (mwk PP V. MnPI.lmIdAIi[19£2]18ML.I 257 um Shah Vrwm Ton
v. ;=P{2o13) 1 ms 377)
[421 Olah yang uennxnan, saya memmuskan aanawa aamaaaman
kapada Ke(erarI§an mg dlkemukakan‘ shaman permhkan dadah lelsehul
lelah flmukhkan seczva afivmam
Keduadua Temlduh man mengedardadah
[431 Bagi alaman psngedaran Imlnk pammnhan panama‘
memandangkan elemen pammxan Devan beqaya amnman maka saya
membual dapalan bahawa sa|u kes prfma ram pangedzvan umnknkan
bawah seks‘/En 130(4) Kn aenaan pemskauan angaspan bawah
sakswn 37(da) ADE (mmk kes Abdullah Man) berdasarkan berm dadah
Cannabis yang melamm wax rmmma znu gram (5 37(da)(vi))
[44] Cfleh yang aenukuan, kedua-dun lenuduh (emu mpanggu unmk
membela din dan mereka memllm uruuk mamben kstsvangan secara
hmumpan
xaa P-mbolun
[451 Kedua-due lenuduh |eIah membenkan ketzerangan secara
hersumpah den memanggwl Ilma (5) bring Saks! awam yang melupakan
zhh keluarga mereka dan Amlm
[46] Pada malam 21 52020, keduadua lerluduh dan Amm-I sedan;
herkumpm din lepak dv nadapan rumah Na 94, mm Tenuduh Panama
Supasukan anggala polvs man membual serhuan pzda anggaran jam
11 an mz\zm aan semass han keiaman. negzva maivh dalam oempan
Parmlah Kawaxan Pergevakan Eevsyaval
[47] Semssa samuany Tenuduh Panama man me\ankan am can
beqsya mlangkap dan mbawa ke hadapan mmah lersahut. Pemanksaan
badan acaa kedua-dun ienuduh flan Armml max msmumpaw barang salsh
(slaw kemuduan merwmpaw dadah dahm poxecseluar Tsfluduh Fensma
[451 Pemenksann pana kenderzan WYR 125 yang berafla herdekman
dengan mereka juga tidzk menemul apa-spa harang sa\ah
[491 Pemenksaan a. da\am bmk Tenuduh Penama ax aauam vumahnya
‘ugz hdak manamui ape-apa barring salah sanammya SP1 membawa
kedua-dua |enuduh flan Amwul ke rumah Tanuaun Kedua ax Na 32, Jalzn
Sekunlum s, Tamzn amt Dahha Pnsv Gudang‘ (myuk Vzpman Pulvr 7025)
yang mana serhuan ml mam aleh spa sun Mohd Aznee bin AN Malek
(hapa Tenuduh Keauay dan sos, sm Nur Az\e\a mm. Mona Aznee (mm
.5
am »«=wMq.4zm.asua.aaa
«-ma Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
Tarluduh Katina) mml berada m da\am rumah Terluduh Kedua pada
masa sevhuan kevana mavaka (Inggal :1: sum
[50] Femenksaan Dada wk Tenuduh Kedua lelah menemm 1 bag mm
beflulrsan KKEA flan 1 beg kenas hertuhsan Nike yang mana an dzlamnya
duumpal sejumlnh dadah msyakkl gznya salapas pemenman dawn
nmk Termduh Keaua, menglkul sm nan sns‘ sw amnax kaluar dari umu
nu memegang 1 bag mm henullsan IKEA man 1 beg kenas herlullszn
Nike
[51] sns .uga mengalakan bahawa nag hum berluhian IKEA dan beg
kenas berlullszn Nwke tersebut gmawa oleh rnkun Temmuh Kedua
hernama Hahm yang paga masa nu ads dalang ks lumah unmk naqumpa
Tarluduh Kedua Dlsebahkan sos makmmkan yang Tenuduh Kadua
naaa m rumah‘ Hallm man memmca um umuk masuk ke hmk Tenuduh
Kedua un|uk maletakkan dahum harang kelengkapan pevmaman
compu(erc1IbII\kTenuduh Kedua dan zkan kambah samma Dada mamm
nanh sns nampak Hahm bawa beg mm benuhs IKEA flan beg kenas
bsrlulis Nike masuk xe bmk Tenuduh Kedua sebalum memmla mri unmk
pmang lanpa mernegang heg—beg |eIsehut lagi
[52] Hanna Ideflah mkan Tsrluduh Kedua yang salam amnau datang ke
rumah hersama Amlrm untuk hermamin E-Spoil yang dlarwrkan hampw
aamap ma\am sn5 wga mngavaxan banawa Tenumm Kedua se\a!u
mangaruurkan pelmaman E-Sporl a|as lahan sevem Dma den PUBG aan
sememangnya kamasaannya Halvm akan aaxang ke Nmsh mereka
nenemh dahuhl unluk mewezaxkan perkakasan permainan darn makanzn
aaaemm memmakan pevmaman
[531 Talah jug: dlhlqahknn hahawa mjuan ymak pnlis mambual Iarhuan
ke mman Teduduh Kedua adalah kerana barang kes hdak pemeh
15
am »«=wMq.4zma«aaua.aaa
«-ma am n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
ayumpa. dalam kevela WYR 129 sehagawmana kelerangan saksx
pendakwian
Analin din Dapalan cfllkhlr kes Pembelaan
[54] Eevdavarkan kepada seksyen 182A KTJ, uka pendakwaan hanaya
membukhksn kesnya melampaui saharang keraguan yang munasahah,
xeauama nenumm nenaaman umapau bslsalah din 1.5mm Namun
uka senammya, Mahkamah hendmdah mmepas dzn membehaskan
cenumm uzuyuk kes Ealzchandnn y. PP {zoos} 1 cu :5 asn
Monnmad Radhl um Yizcob y. PF (1991) 1 cu Rap 311)
[551 Mengenal anggapzn pengadarin dnhawah saws), beban akan
harpindah kepada kedua-dua lenuduh mm menyangkau anggapan
versebul alas Imhengan kehavangkzhan yang mana bebarmya ada¥=h
new heval dari memmbulkzn keraguan yang munasabah (Muk ks: pp y.
vuym/{ms} 1 ms 116)
[as] Mengwkul kes Liam Hung Boon y. up [2012] 1 LIVE 1455,
Mahksmah Rayuan memuluskan
‘So me Ippeflanl had in renal m. npevltlve Dresumpfiun .71 Imlficxmw uvdev x
mm mm mm on the mm at pwbabtlwex mm Vuvel at rebulm Nice:
3 71-whet emdarmary burden an the anpe\lnn\'
[571 Dengan pemzkam anggapan dv bawan 5371637 Im juga, e\emen
pengedaran Ievah dlanggap maka keduama lenuduh mkanaxan
msngedar fladah (ersebut semnggz umukukan sebahknys (mm: the
canfraryls pmyed; Tenuduh-lertuduh flengan W peflu mengemukaksn
kelerangan yang mencukupv umuk mengakas anggzpan leysebut alas
wubangan keharangkalmn (nquk Ny cm Km y PP (1594; 2 cm 591
darn Manamad Radhi y PF(1992)1 so» 445;.
[59] Ds\am Dembalaan mereka. Iertuduh-(enuduh mengemukakan Iakla
mbawah szbagzw mm. sangganan (rabumz/evidence)
1 raaa dadah awnpaz semasa serbuzn dlbuat amaaapan rumah
Na 94
2 Dadah Cirmabss hanya auumusx ax ds\am mum Tertuduh Keduay
dmlmahnya d\ No 32, Jalan Sekunlum a
3. sakn panmaxaan sm dan sns mengeszhkan sm memegang
beg lkaa |urun uan mllk Terluduh Kadua.
4 Saks: sos ma mengalaksn meVma| Ham membawa Deg
ban-maan Ikea |erse|>u(na1k ks Tenuduh Kenna
5 sns (Am\ru¥) menaalaksn Dada ma\am xaaman, ma man
dxhanlar olsh nakmn ke mman renuaun Panama nan mereka
hevmain game Manna Legsnddmadapan mrnzhnya Amnrm [ugz
mengalakan saarang yang meraka pinggll sebagax -um datang
menghamar kereua Memedes yang dlgunakan oleh Temmuh
Kedua. pakw berdekatan dengzn mnan, menguncv kerata dan
malelakkan kuncw alas Iembok pager n-man Tenuduh Panama
flan beflam pelgw menallu kendevaan Vain (Araham puun)
Semasa pnhs dztang membua| serhuan‘ Terluduh Penama
melankan dm sus nampix Pohs ambvl kuncl dan atas lambvk
uan memenksa keuava Mercedes Seae\sh dflahan xeuga-uga
meveka caran dnhawa ke mmah Tenudun Kenna dan selelah
memenksaan dI|7ua| dw bllxk Tammun Kedua, sue mangarakan
mehha| pohs meluumpaw neg hewarna bvu benullsan Vkea flan
Sam beg kenas bellulisan Nike yang mana cam. dwlurqukkan men
pafis mengandungw gama
6. Usm Demenkssan uxama namau-p Amm mhax Panaakwaan
memahun (ankh lam unluk memenksa naxaa dan menyemak
beberapa an yang dmmbulkzn Manangnya Amwul hdak Vagi
in
am HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
«-ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ma nrW\nnU|:I mm: flan-mm VII nF\uNG Wm!
dapal mkesan aiei. pihak Pendakwaan pada |ankh henkumya
wz\aupun sapma lelih aixeiuai-kan Kegagalan serahan saplna
dlkalakan kerana Amiml cam. puiang xe Keiaman dan hdzk iagi
flupal mkeaan Maka xaeiangan spa lerhenh saiakac
pemenksazn mama lanpa dlwal bales olen pmax Pendskwsan
[591 Saya meneml dan mempemmbsngkan keseiunman pembaiaan
keduadua Ierluduh dan saks>-saksi pemneiaai. dan oeipemapan,
lemiduh-Iertuduh (elah mengemukakan versl yang berbeza dengan kas
pendnkwaan iaiapi selan darn dvsokong oxen xeiarangan sm, SD5 aai.
5D6(/lmirul)
[ea] Meruiuk kepada xeiemngan sud flan 505‘ darn pengamalan saya
dan segi demenaur dim kanslslsnsl kelerangan, saya berpendapal
merekatidak mermruukkzn ada herkemungklnan msmhenksn xexaiangan
urmik kapenlingan Terluduh Kedua semala-mafia zlau eeigaiang dengan
ielas saksi yang berkepenlmgan (mlemsted) alau yang mak man
mperzayal iunimsmimyi sagiiu iuga dengan xeieiangan sue
[61] Puma pelingkal mi, pemneiaan hanya peiiu menyangkal bllkh
pengedaran alas imnangan kebalangkallan dan se|emsnyanya
mammbulkan keraguan yang rmmasabah lerhadzp ks: Pendakwaan
xeauamia Ierluduh lidak sekadar manafikan ieiapi memhenkan sam
versl kejadian yang bane» dilenms nemvama lakls bahawa memang
|erdapa| beherapa semuan iam miaxuxan pada nan yang sama
bersangkm dengan panangkipan maieka
[521 Mahkamah Rayuan daiam supwimanu-nra/Lands nrrdsmveys
Kucliing Division v uaiianmi RAmblIK-M12014] 1 LNS m ada
mew/abut mengenai lahap pembu
n‘ szya pellk sehagai panduan
‘- Thu aavanaa ul nmbabmes may he vwsuaflsed is a scale mm ma pmnm
plncmg ms ewdenue on ana ma and ma aaranaam umnaa on ma am ma
Cum waluavu ma amanca aa In ma wugm .: clmes ov mun: mnvumbls
uvwaenue names no wewqhl nemana mmut evwdenw «a puxmy ma durum
hkewwsa can curvy nawa-am ana hence ma ram ‘bale demaf
[ea] Saya ‘uga mengamhll pandusn makwd -xenaguaa mImasahah‘dan
pehkln dalam kes PP v Smmln 11511 1 LNS 1 15 sepeni amawan.
-u \s ml maa possible aaum, uauusa everymmg mmmg m human awaaa ana
dlpandmq upvm mum amdsnm .a apen m same possnaa er ma-navy flwbl
n V: IMI stale am-a case wmch ans! ma am. mmaanmn Ind mnanmanan
at an evmeme was ma mmds av Mars In men conduun In a mom cenamly
M the am av me an-ge
I: ran aaam am um Hut -maananua mum’ is me mm which mam
ywu naasuxa as to m. eomanua M m. cnncllulun mun. yaa much. :4
unanr your aim: Ind upon your cwuclenun am you um Vully
lnvucyrlnd ma wldcncv and complnd n m an n. aana, you a In
ymnsifl n mm Mlle is gulhy, men 1: V: a maanam. man u h a mum:
wman umu u. ynur ...aa.n..n am am: a rlslmy plant mm or a
somehmzs smd Imus! b: aaam so iommn am mazannax 2x to pmducem
ma mmdx «:1 ma |umrs aama uucanmnly us «a ma vevflln lo he given A
reasanalfle daum must be a aouhl ansmg Hum ma ewdervue av want av
nmdsnne and c:mu7| be an wmawury duuhl or oanpeclwv unvedabw w
ev\denae'
-Penakanan mlambah
[ea] Selelah menflaw kembalx krsdxbllm sm din SP2 dan maaamngkan
dennan ketevangan pambexaan, saya aapan vets: pemaaxaan ada
kamungkvnan (probable) benar saya menquk kepzda pvmsxa asas da\am
kes Ma: v PP (19531 ms 32 yang mana ma lakla yang dlkemukaknn
aleh pembnflaan In: new drpercays: maka keduadua (emmuh perm
anepaauan Jtkapun fakm yang amukakan alah mervka mak
an
an HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
ma. sanaw n-nhnrwm a. med a mm .. nrighvnflly MIMI dun-mm van mum perm
[31 D\ am kes pendakwaan, saya memumskan hahawa pmak
pendakwaan benzya mamhukukan Xe: pnma Yams alas pemmuhan
kezlas mereka nan (anuduh-(enuduh mpanggu unluk memnaxa dun
[4] Mereka lelah memmh member: katemngan bersumpah dan1imz(5)
saksx awam pembalaan yang Vzinlelah mpanggll D. akmrkas pemhelaany
saya menaapan xenuuumemaun bsrjaya mengakas anggavan an bawah
s27 (Ga) den salemsnys benaya memmhulkan keraguan yang
mlmasahih lamadap kes panflakwaan Maka mpumakan bzhawa
pendakwaan Isiah gagal memnukmkan ks: mmampam keraguan
mlmasahzh
[5] owan yang darmkvany kedua-dua lenuduh |e\ah flflepaskan dzn
dibehatkan nan sauap penuduhan ks alas mevska.
[6] Pmak Pendakwaan |e\ah merayu ke Mahkamall Rayuan alas
kepumsan (ersebul, maka benkut adalah imam says
Nlrill kn Plndakwnn
[71 Bemndak a«as mzklumal keglatan daflah, pada 21 Jun 2:120‘ yam
lebm kurang 11 zu malam. lnsp Mahd Aflzwm Fairuz bin Ramlv (sum
hersama bebsrapa anggmanyz lelah bevgsrak ks Vokasn m No. 94‘ man
Sekunmm 14‘ Tzmzn sum Dahlm Fun Gudangy Juhov (mmnh Na. :4)
[31 Kerela apevasl mpamra. hadapan rumah Na 94 nan sm melmal
lerdapal M93 13) nrang max. Memyu seflang bemln den herkumpm dn
hadapan vumah (ersehut Persekn:-nan Vukasl kanka nu muarangi cahaya
lampu ]alan dzn pagar rumah dalam xeaaaan lerbuka Fads: masa yang
sama, sa\ah saarang anggom semuan‘ Sjn Mahd Fawzal bin Ra1aI|(SP2)
mehlwafi iebuah Kereva jams Mercedes Eenz parklr aw nauapan rumah
(elsebul
sw HPwMcu4Ema1AsHaIuaA
"Nuns Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; .. gummy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
mpamayai sekalipum saya max bcleh mensahllkan mereka memnkan
ada absan bahawa xlnya gagan memmhulkan keraguan yang munasabah
am Manama mum Yaacab I/PP (1921) 2 cu 2011)
[65] Says telah mermaw dengan |elm kes pembelaan aan man msmbual
dnpmnn sa<a:as dengan 5152A KTJ Sayapxga mermux xevaaa Dinduan
Radni m da\am kes Mahmud mam Yukon sapem berikut
-n m . wafl uuhluhed rmnm|2\e an Mnmysmn amnmax law max me genera!
mean ac pram hes Imroughuul ma Ina! on ma Dvusecmmn in mm bsynnd
rl snnihle duum me gum ar Ihe mum ran ma Lmervoe mn vmum na ..
durged were 1: no swmlzv human mined on me nursed m pnwe ms
mnuuarwee Ne up/esumad nnaaam unm woven gumy
Yo eam an aoqmflak ma cue, .; nmary in 12.“: relsunlme duuhl m Ihe
pvusacumm case \n ma mwse a~ me proeecuonn saw, me pmxecmmn may
clown: My on mnama Ihmlmy mmumphuns In Draw: aue armare M In
aaaamm Ingredients at In charge wnan «na« occurs «n. pamcmar um... ac
pron! as append In ma ganam burden shm m ma fleverwe to ram sum
presumpbans an we balance m pnanannmaa Much Imm ma amends Dam! av
vnew u haavmltun una burden ulcaslma araaaenaua mm, hunllwicuwnw
hyhnec man he bumon anna mammmn m wave beynnd reawrlnlzle mm
[66] Keslmpmannya‘ szya bsrpandaual hahawa xexevangnn bukv kes
pemhelazn ada kemungklnan Dena: Sehubungan dengan nu, walzupun
udak yak: saya jugs berpendapat keselmuhzn kas namnexaan man
benaya memmbmkan kavaguan yang munasabah (emadap kes
pendakwaan dan salerusnya memslahksn anggapan amawan s 37(fla)
a|as wrlbangan keharingkallan
Punilaian kumangan Pombalaan
[57] Dadah (perluduhan panama) ada ksmungkmzn lelah mjumpa. an
rumah Tenuduh Keduz we 1:) many saksx manganaxan xanyi «mam
11
am HPLuMcu4Ema1AsHaIuuA
«ma am.‘ n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm van mum am
mum oxen spa, (mime: uleh sm, sns dan sue) sa|u beg mm benuhsan
IKEA dan salu beg kenas hanullsan NIKE sns mangalakan bag nu
dxbawa nleh Halvm sebemm Tenuduh Kmua dwangkap Fakla ml yuga
mum web sue (Amlvw)
[ea] vem buhawn kenumgkman dadah sebenamya hdak duumpzw
damn kerela kerana pmak pulvs lelah membua| serbuzn m we (3) Inkasx
Iain, txfleh dilevima
[as] Padz han kqadian, Tenuduh Kadua pavw Nmah Tertuduh Penama
sslalah amanm alsh sD7 Fakla mi disoknng dengan kelevangan so:
(ayah Terluduh Perlama) yang nampak Terluduh Kedua datang (Idak
menawkl kendaraan Mengvkut sum semasa mum-mula sampm kerela
Mercedes (yang dlkalakan ads dadah flldmamnya) mad: :1! lempal parkvr
mluu mmah Yermduh Panama Vni menyokung kumungkman kere|a
Mercedes Ievsebul sebsnamya mm d\ (empal psklrpafls mas: Tenudun
Ksdua mma-mws sampaw m mmah Telluduh Pellama
[701 Kewujudan panama Hzhm‘ msem dalam kes pendakwaan Iagw
Dlsahkan uleh sps bahawa Tenuduh Kedua man sswakan karma
kepada Hahm pada harl kuaman ram ml mengxkat pmak Pendakwaan
kerana Ia dmmbulksn flan kelerangan saksl meveka — mink kes 1» v Ha
ha Kun (mu) 3 cm 71, on Mzka ada kemungkman walak Hllxm
bukan vekaan (finflousj
[71] Peguam te\ah hevhmah bahavwa ke|erangin SD4 uan sns nampak
SP1 membawa keluar dadah max dlpenksa ba\as aleh plhak
Penflakwaan Twdalquga amankan hahawa mhak pohs ads pelgw ks lumah
Tenudun Kedua kerana Pandakwlan hdak menamkan xewumaan Iaper.-n
Wlvs ms
22
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
172] Saya dapzu. whak Pendakwaan ada mencadangkan kepuda
Terluduh Panama, sm mm 505 bahawa «am sw «mm: menjumpax
barsng kes m mmzh Tenuduh Kedua am vekaan kerana mengikut ms‘
uaaa barang sa\ah man duumpal semasa pemzviksazn mwat din
meveka udzk berxelujn Se|elah menyemak nn|a kelemngan‘ waapau
nmak Pendakwaan ndak meny:1a\ ba\as tau ml kepsda Tenuduh Kedua
Mengenal sue pula‘ pihak Pendikwun mink belpeluang mm menyoal
hams mm m. aias kegagalan unmk mengesannya
[13] Sungguhpun begnu‘ seya bevpendapal, huuan D25 dxkzmukakan
oxen pmak Pemnexaan adakah uniuk menyanggah ke|emngan sw yang
menguakan pasukan sevbuan Ie\ah (ems bavgerak balnk he IF-‘D Sen Mam
pads malam |alssbu| sedsngkan ada semuan lam dmuan
[74] Selerusnya, lakia bahawn sm, sns dan sns secsra kunsislen
mengaiakin ads mehha|SP1 membawa am having mg menyerupaw
beg yang fllrampas, mamamkau kreammu ss-1 semkimmaxarkama sm
Vangsung lvdak menyanmh Iakta benzwa hahau dan pasuksn ad: pergl ke
mmah Tertufluh Kedua Naratil mi pammg kerana susulan dan nu,
persoalan mg hmbm adzlall mengenal ramalan kelzvangan barana Keys
[75] Jwka pmak Fendzkwaan hdak menankan sevbnan lawn ad: dxbust
semeslmya penjelasan mengenaw keberadaan baring kes yang helum
dllandakan mmaxvumxan kapadz Mahkamah Tanya maK\uma| mengena.
kawa\an barang Res sebemm SP1 sampaw ke mu‘ saya (idak none»
menulup sebelah maca em memhua\ mlevan Ianya dalam jagaan SF1
[151 ms lalah dmux kepada spa dan bellau wga tebh mengesahkan
kewugudannya Fercanggahan kmevangan sm. swz flengnn D25 perm
duelasksn Saya menquk kepada s 91 Ana Kelemgan dan keg Ah M: v
PP[1.v51)1 Mu 22:1, Namun begun, dalam kes ml. hada penmaian man
mbuax o\eh svc
rm wamaun sna (Amwrul) gagal maawa a\eh pmik Pendakwaan
semasa kes Pendakwaan, namun behau lelah benaya msapma \m|uk kes
pembelzan waxauaagamnapun, usal pemanksaan mama, kanamran
Amvm lehh gagal an umskan aleh plhzk Pendakwaan dan kmemngannya
Malt dapal dlperiksa balas men plhak Psudakwaan Fembelann bemmah
flan szya se|u]u bahawa kesdaan W cexan member! kesan kepada m\a|
keuennan Kerlersngannya yang mana zkan mamvrajudnskan xenuaun.
lertuduh ketana ke|erangzn sna menyokang pembelaan bahawa dadah
hdak duumpaw da\am karela mam cu mmah Terluduh Kedua uan bahawa
pada nan Kajaduan Halwm ada aacang menyerahkan kerala Mercedes
sehemm benam dalam sebuah kere1aAIphavfl puhh
[75] Mengenaw an kagagaxan pvhak Pendakwaan memasnkan kehadvran
saksl Amllm mu. aaya meruwk kepeda kes ‘n Cnuee Hizng v PP [1955]
2 ML./ 431,dm-zsna Mahkamah Agony ta\ah mamumsxan, amara Vain‘
‘WM: me vroseaunw ha: a cum;-Lat: aaamn .a in ma maybe at mmssas
in n. clued It me man. u msu nas the duty In an an necuury wwnesus
essenlm za the ufloldmg or in: natntive a! me pruseumou case to eslahflih
pmm .g..na¢ lhe necused beyond an mwnanne awn: Aum vury mm, m.
pmnecuwr should makn mum . ’ bl: Var cmsscximlnallon by an-
amna. n ma pmseculnun lafled In mm m my. ma Iuculed must he
newnes-
—Penekanan dvlambah
[79] Saya mga berpendspal bahawa Armrm aua>ah aaxa yang manna!
dan pemmg unluk mekangkapkan nzrahl kes pendakwian uan yugn
pamneman aexexan isu kamungkinan man duumpaw when m tempa|
kepdlan aanagannana dalam perluflnhan dmmbulkan Mungkin vanya
syn HPLuMcu4Ema1AsHaIuuA
«-ma am.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mums dun-mm vu mum an.‘
max hegim penlmg semasa ken nendakwaan‘ namun se1e\ah dmmbmkan
lakva yang beycangganan, ketevangan Amm meruadl relevan dan
kagagaxan mengemukakannya msmmxenkan saya mengguna mm:
mcara unmk mengangnap kelerangan mum yang bakaldnkemukakin alsh
Amlml Udzk mamihak kepsda pmak Pendakwaan Say: dengan Im
mengguna pike! anggapan dmzwan s114(g)Ak(3 xewangan
[so] Dalam ks: Amrl Ibrahim A Anni. V‘ PP [1017] 1 cu 511‘
Mahkamah Pesekuluan |e|ah mamutunksn, anxnm lam
‘<2; The pnwer m 12-: own m draw an Idvane Wevunca undar 1 mm ov me
Ewdnrvce M: E dnscvsnnniry u dnpendx an me n:\n:ums(Inoes on me can and
pamzmarlyln casuwheveme mmedal wnlnossss an, um pruduczd -
[51] Adalall lugas an bahu pmak Pendakwaan unluk memnshkan saksi
yang dwawalkan Kapafla Pemhalaan dlkemukakan Saya meruwk kapada
ks: PP v Rasli bln ymomazv) 7 cu m, dipuluskan aleh Mahksmah
Paisekuluan yang telah mermuk kepada hulahan peguam (dalam kes
lelssbul) yang mm telah d\perse|u]uIsepeI1I benkur
1221 n suppofl at In: suhlmulun rehunce was mm an m. Enahsh Caun
Cnmmzl Anne]! use M R '4 Marine Henry Bryant s Ann\‘nsr{194E)31Cr App
x us‘ where the Cum rsaunmsu that me prosewnun ha: . du|y m max. a
pawn ma an we mama: mam. xv lble Ia dflencs w may dead: ml
m can mm
m} Leamad nnunsel msu menu us to the pve»Mnme«i ms: M van Lee Yang
V R [195s| 22 MLJ «:14 when: we Cami nan: that an witnesses mm
nataemanls have been laken ihntfld be bvaugm In Caurl by me mewuw‘
excem muse whoa: Ivmeme mu may and omwy mm rm hgm an me
pass, and any wwmess ml sn brought CD Cmm m\n| be made avaname to ma
nucused should he dulrem can such Mines;
[211 Yhnappmlinlveflsfl heavfly on lhadacmun uHmsCaumn n owe: many
vFF[1E95jJCLJ < Mlereln Ihscuulse own judgment Edglv mean J1 nu
25
sm npwMu.4zm.asna.m
mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mn.u.y mm: mmn vu mum pans!
also wAh zppvlwil pessnfies rm». me Aumnan cue cl ammm V a mm
m cm Ha. wherein: m. nlex::evp|Ieads {:1 page 5; —
~ §IcDl\dVy,Il1IvI\xvuom for same dehale as In what .. mum :7, me npenmg
wum: an the sulemenl and n mum mu be mad as {nhwbmng me msaetmn
mm was pmsacmnr nus not m an \n the Cmwn can my eymmlness n he
wins m.unm.mmu.m.....mvw rwlcnmllfi hIm.=.s,lo1nx:mpLe,vmnr-
hr wnmwes man the wings: .s m : creams and trulhnd wxms m (ms mm
In: pmseculor wm arvsuva mnne .m.m .. grven ma oppanumly in 2:1! mg
wn1nau'[5Ie mm um Ymmg Sun Y mu: Prn1:culnr|19SA]2 sm 2571
[251 lumed amines! mm xubmnled out me cnnstquence at 1»:
vvveaounwvx fiawlura m mm mmme mm wntnlax-5 la the defence Vs a
mu mime aupeI\IM‘s ngmm . Immil and the ipyeflam had been dlpnvafl
an ovpnrlumly in wcseul Ms case m the run mnrmurn puuxble vmlh . mw
In aecunng an aaqunlal (See :2. Kwan Wan V PP[2W1| sou 53: Fe)‘
[B2] sememsnya a. muka macaw‘ 69: man 693
-ml Dug m mar Spec! me m amine! mm, mm pmsecumrs are under
mam weH-defined dune: mummy my duty vi msdosure (pea ; an at u.
cpc), 1u)dmymr.Il\ .ummmeanu rdavvwlwnnusas nm11M)dmylncunour.1
me me «my (See R v Eank:[I91e]2 xa an R V SugIlman(19E5)25 Cr
Ape R ms nu Mummm Kaaarm Anulhevv F'P[2D‘M]3S|.R1205)
(as; m mmw, :1 Is tamed Viw based an the aulhonlwuzwad In LA! by Veumed
mum Vanna lpveflinl \n W: Iuhrmslmu man he umsecunnn has dlvcvehnn
whether «a HH any plmcmlr wvlness‘ bu! such dlucvalmn u sumem to ma
hmlhbnns m my me dsuvaun musl be exerased mm dun ugam m
ccnsmetalwonx ulmmcxs and ma ram and my um wllnuniwho ma been
vmahqitnfl Ivy ma puke: um «um wnom me suhemants have men resumed
mus! ba mm nu ma neleme
sm »«=wM.=.4zm.msua.m
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
[451 n 15 mle law on. n u nu! ma dmy al ma ippsflanl w plvua ms mnnuenbe
av n can . pnmcmar Mines: Io iuppun nn aaoam (see Yun Foe Su V pp
[1967] 1 LNS17E,|1§s7]2 ML! 19 am Sandi: Margavel anm Prn577)1
ms 1 n 1197311 MLJ 721 The ‘aw mica: upcm me pvasecunonma bmdernu
pm gmll am. :ppeHin| beyand leasuname doublxnd nu| an ma nppeflanl
m pm ms mnnbence wauannannnaa .n gxmspludenne Is ma me man the
oanwchon mmlwveflinlmuslles|noIanl11ewa:kn:ssuHhe deiemnebmon
In: strength at me pvusecmwon ma an.-awe n the burner am av nu! annnnn
\:w'
[as] Mengenav nna. kelerangan Arnnm yang Kvflak mac a: scan balas
clan pmak Pandakwaan, saya msvuwk kepadn kes Kamalan Shtlk
Mohd v pp 12:21:14 cu m flan bersannu dengzn pandangan flan
kmian yang annwx men Ham mengenai kapantmgan seseamng saksi
unluk an soak Dams dengzn panun (compma) oleh pmamnnax dalam
sasuan. pmswdmg ,enayan Keadaan .n. menumukkan betapa penungnya
lngss Pendakwaan unluk memasukan kehadwan Amvul Oleh kerzna
kalerangan Amlvw not tested by wny av cross examfmarron, wanyi lelah
mempuanmuskan keduadul (enuduh kerana kelarangan Am\rul konswslen
dengan ketevangan sm am 505
[341 Dalam kas ml, says berpandzngan. say: maum bnleh menenmz
kelaangan A.-mun, wa\aup<m dnanaxan sehagaw sehahagian 1pamaY)
namun aengan aaanya kelerangan yang sama dari saksl lam, kelevangan
Annm: Ialap Ielevan den boleh dlmlaw seadanya.
[as] Sekzdar unmk mebngkapkan, saya mannux kepada kes
Thai/anamln En subramaniam v PP (1997; 3 cu 150 dzn memjuk
kepada pnnslp yang mpmnskan oleh Mahkzmah Persekuman sepem
dlbawah
17
am HPLuMcu4Ema1AsHaIuaA
“Nuns snn ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.ny mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
-n was :« ma aacuaaa In an. an mnaoem a>(p\an:nnn wmch me Conn
cnmmaveu male \|ke\yII1anm7l Dltnwlstme we unab:\anwnIpvnba|u\mu
ma mslapphed wn mu pmctedmgi PPV Vuvarap [1959] 2 Mu as Pc'
[as] Juga mermuk kepida kes Public Proucutor v Iskandar bin
Manamid Yu.:oI(ZWS] mu 559. lalah dlpuluskan behawa V
m 21 M ma aamsa M ma dshncl mp ma accused person nu. had Ifleged
man the bag wmch comamed ma drug: Wu awed by one Nzstan. a mum
wmu mu vnxanaa . nae Hum mm (ml mm TM: yam had manlqed In make
me ms uapa Gunny me aanvuuun, luvmg the managed person evenruafly
stunned Ind bemg hem Ieqpmmme lot I11: aaanaanaa mcnmmllmg Hem wxm
ma Auwwny m the muses pemun gwan under mun. ms awaanoa mu men!
saunas aansmananon lI| flan: 3| no sin: m ma Manna win he Impuached
The pzmnenl quesflon naawaa «a ma msarved thus was. was In pnssdfle man
the mystevwoux Nulanmfl praaaawexm, ann mu maqesnlncflml avananw
zlhmad In In mm as a pasxpan In escape in: charge’! AA mu slug: av me
aavanaa man. wax na man! demand that M m\mVn:1ulHy wove Nissan um
anal NI na naaaaa in an wu In mace», pevsuade ma pvummg wage of max
pmhibthly lmexucueeded mm en a aawanca avpnaaammy (hos: dmgl mum
we been Hassarfi. ma mexmalflyeycnelaung mn-
[371 saya belpendapal. din kesemmahan keuerangan yang
dwkemukzkan da\am pamnaxaan, any: man hevsllat panaman den
penuxnan «erxemuman le|apI lalu kemungkman mmnabmry)
Ksrrmngkman Im juga Ie\ah mmangkan kepada sakan pendakwaan lag:
[ea] Puhak Pendakwaan bamwah memhawz kepada pemauan saya
mengenaw knaannlm saksn pemhelaan yang mkaxakan aemcnva dan
bevkepannngan Says dzpah, fakva bahawa sus max dapnl
menqasahkan Halim pevgw karumah Yenudnh Kedua menam kerela apa
max meruzdikan sns bukzm szksw yang kradxhelalau seomng saksuyang
berkepenflngan ann beta! sabe\ah Pads: pendzpal saya wga‘ soe
(Ammnl) lmak membenkan kelelangan yang saracms axau menuruukkan
as
am HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
“Nana am.‘ n-nhnrwm n. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum am
swa: bvas alau mempunyaw aganda lelsendln hanya kerana memhenkan
kelersngan yang mammax kepada |enuduh-larluduh m. aflmah kerana
ksmungkman vevsx meveka lpembalaan) ad: benamya dan telah
memhuat saya hearing as In me correctness 0/ me cone/us»on (umuk
sabitan) — ruwk kes Salmln yang dxruiuk dv atas nntuk maksud
‘reamnsbls daubf.
Kulmpulnn
[39] Say: helpendapal hanawa kewuwdan 025 flan ueaerangan sum
sus :13" we memadwkzn ramauan kalemngan baung ks: Ierpums
kevana max duelaskan kebsrauaan harang kes dadah yang fluampzs
damn lempah masa (arsehm Pevcanggahan qkexemngan sm, sns aan
snay dangan xexerangan SP1 dan spz sens tanpz peruelasan oleh
msrska‘ memmkan «am: Aersebul sa|u landa tanya flan memadlkan
pmomny hzhawa dadah dqumpal dwmah Tenuduh Ksdua
senagamana ueeemngan semua saksmksx pembexaan ad:
ksmungkman benzrwalaupun hdakmyaklnl kabanarinnyi Says memguk
kepada kes Ganapathy Renwasamy V PP mm; 2 cu 1, yang
menyehul
«n ma. |o n. nmcmband Inn hnwevtr w-Ik . dflumu mly be. um
1-aw Iulng juduu L11 bo1nlazunfl\xw:nou\d mrljusl mm. mann-
dllencn an mu hash um um nmsucufleu wimnun m m be bellevvcd
um not an m...;.. Where In: law «zit: the aims :24 gmng an axbtananun
upon In accused pawn, and me explanihun Ixgwun mm 15 msmn: wan
vrvuacgnca‘ m. mun a duly hmmd m wnsldcr wlmhnr n mm
VI scmhly :1. cm, allhuunh nvl carmncm of It: Innh. On In: Issue at
am calm‘: dulym cansldurmn .1 mu, ms nu old dnlnlnn 1.. MIN PP
new 1 ms 52 [\9s3| Mu 2631: sill! good Llw is u wu «mu. mu
lufluvmd uy m. supmm Enutl m Momymzd Rnam hm mm V PP [1951]
1€L.IR¢p 211, (199113 cu am, mm: ML1 159'
—Penekanan dnambah
[so] Saya ulang, dlpenngkal pembexaan, hanya reasonable dnubl penu
mkemukakan Maksud rsaxurlab/s doubt (nuuk kes s-mun) udalah Sam
um: wmclv makes you hssviate as to me correctness, slteryou mm lu/Iy
Investigated ms swdsnce and compared :1 m all its part, you say 1.7
ynurselfl doubt n he .5 gum
Konumun
(911 Make, se(e\ah memmbang fakta kas Dambalaan dengin parsvekln
yang new snflzvas dengan kemrangan kes pendakwnan. saw no not
acwn! ar be/rave me accused‘: sxplamanon but nevertheless yr rursas In
my mm a reasoname doubts: m rm gull! (Mn v PF'I1953)15 MLJ m)
[92] men yang demvklan, unluk perluduhan panama‘ dlbawsh : 35(3),
kednauuz tenuduh hanaya mengskss anggapan pengedzran dlbawah s.
anua) afas Imhangan kebarzngkallan dan dengan nu banayl
mennmbwkan kevaguan yang munasabah Aarhadap kes penflakwaan
renummanuuun dengan ml uuepasxsn din dlhshaskan dan permduhzn
panama
[93] Manganav pammuhnn kedua‘ mwaupun szya hevnuas nan‘ darn
panzuacan Terluduh Panama malankan dvn din didah duumpan
dwbadannya, pembelaan gagal menaflkan sebahnguan e\emen kesalahzn
dwbawah 512(2) namun‘ oxen «um [emu mpumskan dwalas bahawa
rinman kaerangan nmng kes |eVah lerpuhts. maka Vanya man
mevwlqudkan kalnmpangan da\am Kai pendakwaan Walaupun fakva
|evsebu( hanya mhuknkan semasa kes pembelazn (lakla percanggahan
D25 dangan kanemngan sm dzn nasn penahhan kelerangan smsmy
Maka Tenuduh Panama mg: dllepiskan dan dlbebaskan dari pemmuhan
kzdua
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
[9] sm tumn dam kendevaan uperzsi flan marnnerkanaflxan am
sebagai anggma was Salah seorang dsrlpsda nga (ay saspek Velakx
Melayu mam mslunkan am ke alah mar ruman 51:1 belsama uga 43)
lagw inggora bemndak n.ange,ar le\zk| Iersebul dan mamben arahan
kepada SP2 dan um Laa An Shm agar herads dx nampac kejadmn unluk
manga».-ax dua 42) law saspek lemkl Mehyu yang lawn
[cu] SP1 lelah benaya mermngkap saspek Celsehux sanalan nyengqar
smauh nrak mo meter ke arah kamsan |aman pannainan kanakakanak
sm kenalkan mu kepada saspak aan haw pemenksaan lubuh naaannya
menjumpai salu 41) peKe( plasuk hnslrmr aiayam dadah syzbu (F123)
dalam poke: hadapan kanan seluav Imam (P143) yang mpeksv saspak
yang kemudlannya mcamkan sebagaw Muhamad Ran bin Rasflm mm;
Tenuduh Penama
[11] 5:21 kamnmannya mzmbawa Terlufluh Panama ke hadapan mmah
Na 94 aamula flan due (2) saspek Vain (elah d:kena\ paw ssbagsx
Muhammad Nanafi bin Mahd Aznes waxlu Terluduh Kedua flan saspek
keugz sehagai Annnn Aflan Fahrm hm msnarnmsmn (Am I)
[12] Pemeviksaan badan lemadap ran-mun Kedua dan Amwul max
manemuv aaa-apa harang sa\ah Namun, pemankaaan ke am Terluduh
Kedua nalan dwjumpaw sa|u kuncl elekhomk berlamhang Memedes(P15A)
dw paket naaapan sebalah kanan semar panpang kelabu mac; yang
dwpakaw alan man
(131 sm xexan mengarahkzn Tenuduh Kedua mengakmkan mm
Mevcedez Benz dengzn nombcr panaanaran wvmzs (P15) yang
mparkn wemn kuvang 5 kakl darlpafla mman review! 591 kemudlan
manmankan pamenksaan ke alas kenderaan terxebul din dw dalam banal
menjumpai 1 Deg karwas mm. mm (Pwxy yang an flnlamnya
4
an HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
"Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; me mn.u.y mm; dun-mm vu mum am
[941 Vsu vamawan kalemngan baring kes wm wga lelah memban Kesan
kepada pambukuan mewampam karaguan munasabah umuk peflumman
kelxga yang man; hdak begun amen nemanan men keduadua beflah
pnhak flzkam Ilujahan maswngmavlng Sungguhpun beglhl, saya
herpem1apa|. Ianya |elap Ierkesan. Mm, keduz—dua tefluduh ]uga
mlepasxan aan dwbebaskan aan permduhan kulvga ml
Banankh s Novembev 2023
|NOOR HAVAYI a
Pesummayz Ks knman
Mahkarnah Tmgg Mzkayz
Jnhorflshm
Ferwakllan »
Ezgl plhak Pendakwaan
Fuan Sm uamza mm Abdmlah
nmbaxsn Fenflzkwz Raya
Pejzba| srenasmat Undang—Undang Negev: Jnhar
Ares 2, Bzngunan Data‘ Jaalar Muhammad
Kola xskanaav, lskandar Pmsn
Jahm
Bag: pmak Tenuduh Penama
Puan Lymanu h|n|| Mansov
Lydlana Law Chambers
AA‘ Ja\an Lembah 1
Taman Desa Jaya
81100 Jnhor Bahm
Jahnr
31
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
Bag! pmak renumm Kedua
Encwk mm Fazaly Ah bm Mam Ghazzly
The Law Chambers ol Filmy
No 24AJa\an caman
Taman Perhng
mun Tampal
Johov
sw »pwMu.4zm.asuam
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
mengandungw enam (5; kemlan mampzf bemalm pIastiklutsmar|P11B)
disyakw ganja Semmsnya pemenksaan IanMSP1 mm: manwmpan salu
Wag: beg kenas herwami cuklal henuhs mm on m (mm
mengandungw ma kemran mampa| belbalul plasuk \usinaI(P12C) juga
msyam ganja
m1 Pemenksaan a. daiam karma mun meruumpzw sekapmg mu
(FHA) lenulls name Tarluduh Kedua ylng hersrrnpan dw buhagwan ‘am!
ms!‘ sebalah Km pernanau Pemenksaan m hadapan mmah pula,
bevdekalan kellgz-:—uga meveka (keduz—dua lenuduh den Annnm
berkumpm, SP1 meruumpaw due halal plasnk Vulsmal yang mangandungr
cecarr d\syak|ukelum(P13A can mam
[<51 Pemsnksaan satamsnyn dwbuat m man as Temmun Penamn m
damm rumah Na 94‘ yang melupakan mman kemarnan kelnavga
Terluduh Panama balsam: mu bans dan vslennyn, hdsk menemu: aDa~
apa baung man 591 an spz kemudlarmya bersama—sama kadua—dua
lenudnh darn Annmn bevgerak rnanam Mamsdez Benz memuu ks Wu San
Nam uh ulah kandaraan unerasv.
[we] on M) 5enA1am‘D€ny9d\ain dokumen nan penanaean barang kes
flnbual oleh sw dan dakumewdakumen berkailan mseraman kepada
Pegnwai Penyiasay lnsp Mend Hafiz bin Human (spa; paua keasnkan
hannya, 225 mu jam mam kmang 7 malam
my spa menghantiv baring xss xe Jabalan Kmui din haul anshsa
menaesahkan twang kes yang mmmpas adalah dadah berbahzya saw
(a) cannams bevy! bersm 3942 15 gram
m Mllragymne beral bevsm 1950 ml
m Memamphemmme halal bersm 24 34 gram
5
syn npwMu.4zm.asnam
mm smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dnpltnn mu keg Pendakwaan
[ta] D1 penngkavl akmv kes pendzkwaan, salu kes prlma facrs
sebagznmzna mperunlukkan dmam $13007 Karwn Talacsra Jenayah
(KN) perm uwmxan olah pmak pendakwaan flan kemrangan mm: mg
bo\eh dxpercaysn dan kredwbel yang mana uka hdzk disangkal akan
membalehkan saman dlhual (rwuks 150 («p KTJ flan ks; Abctullnn Ann
Iwn pp (mo) 9 cu 151)
[191 Ungkapzn “msngemukakan kelerangsn kukuh yang membukltkan
setup aazu Yak!orkesaIamin"da\am 5 mm) belmzksud hahawa plhak
permakwaan perm menmuknkan senip alemen kesalahan sama ada
dengan mengemukakan kelerangan yang mush mpamayau, membuzt
mieren Qemsdap ram alau menggunapakaw anggapan \mdang—undang
umm kes AbdulI.ahAmn dw muka suraI196)
[201 K95 puma Iacfe va\ah kes yang nuancukum un|nkIer1uduh4er(uduh
mpanggu unmk mamawab penuduhan kealas mereka dan ketevangan
yang wxemuxakan mencukupl melamkan wa d|szngka\ alau dnzkas malalm
ketelangan lam (hha| kes salaahandnn v PF [ms] 1 cu :5) Dalsm
kes Dug cmng Huang Mn PF mm) 4 cu ms, panflangan Vmcent
Mg. J |aIah mnnuk flan msahkan men Mahkamah Persekutuan da\am kas
Abdullah Ann mengenaw apa yang |erjum\ah sabagav satu kes pnma
fame sap-em benku|
< prim: lama wrflence 15 zvmsnce mu .5 §\M<:\em to eslibush a fact In ma
Absence at any evvwdetloe m the camrary nm a Hal <:an<:\u:lv: 1 wmld mum
mu mere shmnd he cn:¢m\e evwdenw on each and every mgvadvanl av ma
ellence Cv5d>b\e wmanca n cw/wdence wmch Ms been filtered and when nas
nan: mnmgn the pmcsss av zvaluannn Any ewdenoe which m not uh «n be
amsd upnn shank! be n.,aa».a-
[211 sew juga senagznnanz mpumskzn rfleh Mahkzmah Rayuan
dalam kes Loo! Kow char v. Public Pnmcuror 1200112 MLJ 55. yang
mengalakan sepem henkut
-u mererove «cum Irm mere ws onw one exams; ma| a was Imng mane
Lmdgv 5 wan aims are hush: umterulve alme muse anne umsecmmn use
He musl subleu me prosscufinn emdenoe to mzxlvvum wamanon and to ask
hlnvl-N Ins quesonn n : mm to can uwn (ha nwusau in enler ms defiance
and he e\u:Is ta mnan swarm am n pvepalad In cunmcl nnn an mu mm», at me
avmenne umm m we pmsecmlun mew w the answer .5 .n ma nwnlwz
than no puma line can has been made man and ma accused mum be enlmad
la an nequmm ‘
[221 Maka. daham menenmkan pembukuan kes prima /ame, salu
penllalan secava makzlma pm dxbual (erhadap kesahuuhan kaumngan
huklv yang mkanwkakan (armasuk menus: uraammu saksw-saksl am
manna! Inleren yang huleh dlbual dan keterangan mu kes pendakwaan
unmk memhuklwkan selian elemen kesalahan (nuuk kes PF V Mnhd
RldxIAbu smrlzaaal 1 CLJ 457)
KM Prim Facln
1231 Katavanqan wxn yang perm mkemukskan uncuk kesakahan
pengedavan flndah berbahayz dn umn 5 sea (1) (2; ADE zdalah
bahawa dadah yang dirampas adalah dadah berbahaya seperlv yang
dlsenarawkan aavam Jsdunl Panama ADE, In udalah dmam pemmkan
kedua-dun Ienuduh apabfla dmulnikan dadah zdalzh :1. bawah jzgaan,
kawalan dz-In pengeflalluan mereka uan setemsnya. meveka mengedar
dadzh l:rsuhu| Psngediran bo\eh omuknkan dengan kelerangan
langsung berdasarkan (alsvan pengedaran m bawzh seksyen ZADB alau
anggapan m nawan seksyen :7 (Ha)
syn npwMu.4zm.asnam
mm smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dsdah aaaran yangterssnaralA11./adus/Psnama man sepsmmsna
yang dkisfinastkan drbawah ADE
[24] Jems dan hava| dadzh lalah msaman dan d\'buk|vkan dan
kanarangan SP5 nan Laporan Kmua yam dwsedxskan‘ we sebauawmsna
dalam Denudnhnn Ianu Isms cannams aeran berslh 394216 gram,
Mllmgynme beral bevsm 1950 ml dan Melhamphetamme beral bevsih
2A.34 gram.
[251 Peguam kedua—dua |erIuduh bemulah nanawa vaMa\an xemnaan
harang Res lelah (emulus can wujud pevcanggahan xewangan sm
dengan Vapalarflzpcrzn polls yang dlkemukakan an Dzwza Paguam
mancadangkan bahawa pasnkan serbuan max (ems hergerik xe urn
Iatapl raven melakuxm use (3) semuan lam mlempm yang herasmgan
[251 Jug: mmuankan hanawa uaaa kelsrangan flan manadnana saksl
mengenm keberadzan dadah yang dlrampzs dan duamskan ianya da\am
kawaxan din ngaan sxapa pada mass serbuan ax Iakau lam auaxuxan,
[27] Oleh karana vsnandaan dan nmaangan masm bemm aubuan
semasa semusn amuan :1! ma Vokasl Lam mu, make mmalan kelerangan
barang kes man lerpmus Kegzgalan inn mewmudkan kelurnpangan
dalzm kas Fandakwaan dan mancalar kredvblw saksv pendskwaan
[23] Pzda penngk ' , m hadapall say: adalah kanamgan dan asks:
pandakwian yang mana max mauuukan Ida kemungkman mernpunyal
max yang Izaak havk alau mom unmk mengenakan mana—mana lenuduh
men an, saya menanma xeaevangan meveka sehagal hensr dsn
kcnsmen Cadangan Deguam fluengenaw kemungklnan lerpulusnya
ranman kelerangan harang kes semalamzla wmudnnya serbuan rain,
setakal ml mzsih Ixdak meflmaskan Dembukuan pad: |ah=p nrrma ram
sw »«=wM=a.4zm.«asuam
«ma am n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm vu .mm v-vrm
[221 Make selakat penllalan says hevdasarkan ke|erzngan szksi
pendakwaan. says dapzm selelah dadah dwampas aleh svu, (andaan
amuse dw pegabzu nalkulwk kemudlan dxserahkan kepada pegawai
penymsan, spa yang selarusnya menghamar hsrang kes unluk '
oleh arm kvma. svs,
ahia
[an] Barang kas yang same: man mswmpan a. star penywmpanan barang
us sahlngga dwkemukakan ke mahkamah pad: nan pemcman (nquk
kss Gunnlan Ramlchzndrln v PF (2004; 5 cm 551 — - the cham of
swdsnce IS mats rmponarvl for Ms penhd /mm ms hme afrecovety mm
me camprsoan nflhs analysis by the charms! ';
131} Make dengan nu, saya mandapan bahawa ranlalan kelerangan
barang kes max lerpulus dan pmax pendakwaan man heqaya
memhukukzn slemen jams dan beral dadzh sebagaimana ds\sm
psrluduhan (mmxan ma dmuzt menglkul kes smnnz-mmul Guam y.
FP[1u1l] 1 on N din Su Ah Ping 1/. pp [1579] 1 ms ma)
Permltkan tsmadap man
[321 Eerkail kepsrman memnuknxan rarmmn pemmkan, pmak
pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan ketevangan bahawa kedua-dua
Aemduh mempunyal kawa\an aiau .agaan sena psngelanuan (emang
dadah yang dwjumpav (hhal kss emu Fun Leon v. PP[1955] MLJ 231).
Mahkamah dalam kes Chan Pun Loan Augie man memuluskan bahawa
“ a person rs smd to be m possessrun :1! a (mug fl hs has the power an
den! wnn u as the owner :9 the axe/usmn ofell othel pursans -
[33] Maksud "cusmdy", "cnmrol" and “pos:essxon" Kelah mmncangkan
flalam kes Leaw Nghu Lrm v Red [1555] 1 mm, yang mane mpenx
swam benkul.
‘Custody means ha»/my car: ovguardwansmp‘ goods -n cuswdy an m m. cam
at me cusludmn and.|1y neressary <n\D‘Ica\\nu us xa new cars or mm on
hehill m wmnom aka Ya: mm um an m gums Imhsss ycm knmr were
they Ire and have me mans ovexatmima emu: war mm Cuflhw lhevefom
Imvhes knmdadgl um. .m...=. am wmvubmm -mus gmd: and pm-e<
nrcunlmr uvermam‘ nMamnun1m9 In Poisasnnn
comm muslbeprwedixa Vanaltdwlmuitavwsafirnmlhamhnun mmapaum
us me quads. Ineiflocnve er mm may am muluband
Fvabilflythe mos! mam demnmon any-uumn up
'Yhe|e1aIzcn at a peach he athmg mmmr. he nuyll N) p\Iuum axamue
nut‘)! mm: :5 me am my o! In: my «mus, nu ma axduslon at ulnev
verso... “
Ymxdafimnun dues n-1| expvess. Inn Man my mum meaning oflhewotfl
Include: sums .:.mm m knmdudga
A mm mun kmzw 9412‘: exwslence no . unmet ma have same men at us
vmereuboms were he can exams: my comm! mar m m mum wsxeqsmn
mmay. xmphu same knawtedwe hm nmnecessavfly mu orex:¢l><nu»Med9¢'
[:41 Mervsena. Dembukhan pengecanuan, Mahkamzh Pusekuluzn
dalam kes pm." bin Damn V Public Pruuculur (zoos) 1 cu 717
memuluskan bahawa e\amelI psngecanuan bow: «mm can mm Jan
kasimplflan vaxna Pallkan yang dwmjuk mm sapem benkm
-vmmmxmueagus very emu a mmmnnream The mmm ham wma»
llyl Waranna mkncw/ludge an be dniwn meumm use Incase Hwculfl us
suffirierfl for me alusanmon In wave lacks mm mu. m eumd Dmpeny be
mm lhzl mu anuned am he mamry krmw\ed9E'
[351 Rmgkasnya‘ man "pemwkan' menquk kepada keupayzan
pemlhknya unluk bemmsan dengan dadah dsngan mengecuallkan akses
m
sm »«=wM.=.4zm.usua.m
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
| 4,178 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-21NCvC-116-07/2021 | PLAINTIF R MEYYANATHAN A/L RETNASAMY DEFENDAN Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) | Costs of RM45,000 which this Court deems reasonable is to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Defendant could have avoided these legal proceedings if it had engaged with the Plaintiff prior to this suit. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2e69824e-8d85-494c-820b-5c2b2018d0e6&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 16:19:13
WA-21NCvC-116-07/2021 Kand. 66
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA—21NCvC—11S—07/2021 Kand. as
as/mznza 15:19-13
nu me man coun mun AI KUALA LIJMFLIR
cML use Mo- WA—2INCvC~1I6-fl7I2fl2I
BETWEEN
R MEYVANATHAN AIL REYNASAMV
INRII: M0,: s2n12s-1o.5a951 PLAINTIFF
AND
DEWAN EANDARAYA KUALA LUMPUR DEFENDANT
|mroducllm
[11 The maunxm a 71—yezrnLd owner zfllhe land Geran M62, mu Na
mm Mulum Pelalmg‘ Damn Kuala Lumpur. vwlaysh Persskuluan
Kua\a Lumpur that measured 11547 sq lee| mmaletl lms actmn agzlrst
Ihe De1endznHnr|r2spass and encmachmem There Is a monsoon dram
on ms Wand man the P\a\nuW had damned me Defendam oonslmcled
wulnoul ms psrmlssaon Io enlerand build ms land That had wanted ms
wean: ngms Ia enjoy ms land‘ as 4: is now smauer than what ne ma
pumhasefl n lav The Plamhfl had repeatedly requaslad Ina oamm.-mu
1
x“ ‘ sm n>1nLnwNYEmcc1wv\a;u5n
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
move me swmauna huwl| on ms wood The Davandanw nae fawwad wo resolve
wna Dmbwem The s|mw:mre ma: nad oncmacnod upon his land and
oonwwnuous wresnsss onto me Pwawmiwrs land «or wne nwawnwsnanoe and
nnpwvemenw works on me monsoon drawn nao resuwwoo wn loss and
damages vmwch the Pizwrwml nad suvwereo The Flawrmfl pwaadad maw me
Dewwendanw had laken pan ow wno w=wawnwnw-s wand war as purpose and use
wwmoul compensawwon wo wne Pwainaww which wanwamdunw wo illsgaw
dennvanon onne Plawnmrs wopeny.
[21 The Pwawnwwrw prayad for ma Courfs docwawawwon wnaw wna Defendam
had wrespasseo onoo rwws land ano wnaw (here naa oaen enooauwmonw unwo
nws wand wn Ihelarrnaflhe monsoon drawn The Plawrwwlflscugrww a mandatnry
wnwuncnon |o order ma Defendant wo remave ma stmcmre at wna monsoon
dam wrorn ms wand wwwnwn louneen days ow me one ow wnws courrs order
omanmae wna Pwawnwm snugm luv 01: com |D Dampew ma Dewandanw Io
pwncnose me pan ms land wakevw wor who sawo swnwcwure 0! mo monsoon
dwawn aw (he prevailing markel one no Pwawnou aka aowwgnw damages «or
savavance was: and wnwunaus awwacwwon on ms land. wnwcn lhws Court deems
naaaonaowo
[:1 The Dawandanw danwau wnaw w| nad Imspassad on wna PIIIn|wNs wand
and wnaw wna slruciure ow ma nuxwsoun drawn on ma land u now a wonn ow
encroachment on me wvwainmn wand ma Dlflndinl pweadeo rumficalicn
as ww zones on us Pwer wo nwawnwawn, wnanaae. buwld and urmrova monsoon
drawrws wn me Federaw Tomwory cl Kuala Lumpur. wrwdudmg wno P|awn|m‘s
wand
am YownlwmNw'EmccwwrwEwD5n
“None sanaw ...n.mwww a. U... a may w... nflflwnuwwly mwnwa dnunvwml VI arwuwwa v-mxw
canalnly nu| ms Pmnufl consmonno ms lac! (hm mo smuiovy dunes or
me Dehndanl mcmde ms mzmlenznca and Imvmvmp nldrams mcludmg
mess on me P\amm!‘s wand and bordenng nu‘ n wuuld be unaooemaols ta
auow them to convenuenuy ousovm/Moo lhe risnonsnbvlfly over we
[20] so‘ \/so on me abave facts. Ims Cowl finds that «no monsoon
on-n located In «no P\a|nM's wand us me Deaenoanrs. I: mamsnao nn|
whether nnao osnveo from s nalursl susam, me unshaken fact namamoo
|ha| ma‘ is now on me Pnammrs xsno Is a concrete manmade swzmure
wmon I: ma monsoon drawn under me purview and nmsmsmon o« me
bemoan: on a ba\am>e olnmbabmhes, this Coun mnnamnos |ha|mere
was encmachmenl on me Flamws Iano - to ms measuremem M24 14
3/9 fuel Aoomonauy. In have oorsumonso ms monsoon dram, Itespass by
me Dehndam unto ms wuamma Iano nao uocasmnsd
[251 ms com wall no| addmss ms saaosa ooonaary Ihal ansnns Ina
wammrs xano due no ms ma Winn buliusl ms pumon man ms monsoon
om. lock up av (ha P!aIn|M's Isno. In any evlnl. «ms was nox s weaud
newsnos ov ms nsvsnoanu ms Cowl «nos mm m was malevanl to ma
P\a\nml's claim against me Dsvsnoann. M maltered not Much mnsv uany
nao anecnao the F-Iaunners evuoymsnc av land. This case was to aflludicame
whether ms Defendanl had Indeed enomached upon me Pia-nms land
and ivso‘ me redress uequnso in restflve mo oroaon
oslanu oi Itstlflcatlan
[251 As me Vocal aullmnty of Kua\a Lumpur (s2 Local (‘xwemmenl Am
I976). «he Dsvsnoam nao Dretmsed all Its aclmns penammg to ms
monsoon dram on/nomenng me Puaunmrs Isno wnn memos Io ms
:1
sm rn1nLmNNvErncc1wnEm5n
«ms. s.nn lunhnrwm s. met! a mm s. snnnnn mum: dnuamnl VI mum om
soaxumry powers Imderme S|raeL Drainage and Emtdmg Am 1974 (son)
The specific prvwsmns are :53 and :54 that rasDac|rw\y prumde
‘Local amhoriryto nparlandalror andmiydlscamlnue surface
mu mu-m water amns, an
53(1) The locaraulhonfy snsllmamzam and keep in 799807 and‘
as It sees m, enlarge. 6/let‘ arch over or ulherwrse rmprwe a//
or any 0/ me sunace and slorm male! «trams Duh/ans, gutters
and walorcoursss under me canlml 9/ [ha /ncal authority and
may drsconlmue‘ was up or deslmysuclv olmsm as yr deems
useless or unnecessary:
Provided ms: the local aumamy mu mm snlsrmg any
myara prop-ny la: ms purpose olcanymg out ny work under
this aubsaclran, gn/s raaxonabls malice In mnng m that behalf,
-nu sn./I In currymn out sucn work: do I: mus dlmlgl as
mly be and mu mekl mu compansanan run any name
dang
Not to own nulunco
(2; The dtscanltnuance, c/osmg up or desmlmon of any of men.
snsn be done as nana (79312 a rlursanca
(2; I/by reason Ihereolor ofany such Bllevabcn as hevemnefore
mentioned any person IS deprived af the /awful use :2! any
surface and smm. water drams. culven, guns: or water
course. Ihe ma: authomy snau wun due umganca prawds
some ulnar as eileciual as the one av wmcn he rs so asp:/ved.
:1
sm rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wn\E;u5n
«mm. Snr1I\nauhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmnnu-y -mm: dnuamnl VI nF\uNa Wm!
ctunsrnq ma ompryrng smile: and slwm mm dnins -re
54m The local authority sna/r cause me survace and 510ml water
dram, culvirls, quflars and walmmwses under we control
0/ me local aumonry to be so constructed. maintained and
kept as not In be a nmsance or tnjunous to health and to be
proper/y mama cleansed and emptred and, /or me purpose
olfluslung, cleansing andemplymglhe same, nmayeonsrrucz
and New, emner above or undsrpmund, such rssenms,
slmcex and nine! works as are nscessary.
Pmvfdad mar me meal authority shall, balors snterrng any
prlvaleprapony for ma purpose ofcarrymg nu! any work under
znn smsecnan, gnva reasonable name In wvllmg In that am",
and man In cermng out man Wm do 55 um. damage .. may
a. ma mu mm mu ccmponsulforv Io: lny «am. don-
{2; The local lurhomy may, wvm me suncnan in we sure
Aumomy, came all ov any of such swfscs and storm
water draws, culverts. gutters and wavswoursas to
commumci1s with and be emphsd «nm the sea or olner
m p/aw, ar may cause me refuse from me sanna m be
canveyed by a proper chanrvsl to me most corvvsrvnnl
sne fa: rls aeposn, and may sell at ovnemse dispose or
me sammusa for any agricultural Name! gurpnses as
are deemed sxpedrent so me: 1: shall no: bemme a
nuisance.‘
u
sm rn1nLmNNrEnucc1wu\E;D5n
«mm. smuw nmhnrwm .. U... w may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
[271 we facls vn me me o: Azinh on him: Abidin A. on v uuo
aondar Kum Lumpur [1999] 5 MLJ ans whrch me Defendant had
referred In, are siarkly m comrasl wnn those here In ma case me
defendant had produced notice wnion had inlurmad me plainnfl
compnenenswely me Imposed nons mac wete earned om together walh
me Vaw. There were also meelmszs wnue me [oh cameo out by me
Defendant was exnlamed and embolaled pnor lo the execumn mereoi
Nouce (here were reasonably given There were none here
[231 We law max me Delendam rehed on — ssa spa requires me
uoaenaanno lssue reasonahle nonoe la me P\a|nIM wore me enuy nnln
his ‘and lor me pumosos cl any walk The Delendanl suhmmed ma| mo
encmonmenn cl me monsoon drain unla me Plainlxlfs land could orfly oe
cnnsmamd «reasons; :1 n wls an unnmmauu lnlrusmn The Dsfandam
Dramvxed mew army maul band on men statutory my and subvrulwd
max (he crann «or nmpm. mun can.
[29] Tm: coun agrass won me Plalnmfs subrmsswuns mat sue (or any
other lugmahon and rsauialucm lnr man menu) Carmel ovunoo me nghls
cl nne Plaumfl guaranteed by our Feaenax 0or$u|u\Ion In |ms Instant the
‘aw omvmos ma: reasonable nmice mus1 be gwen to Vandnwnals balms
mu execunon onns Devenoanrs flalutmy amass There was no ewaence
many nolme m relation to me Devenaanrs stahflery dunes over monsoon
dmm.
[so] nwz maimed he had vnsnsd ma monsoon dram on me Flamnm
land once a yen mm 2012 In 2017 much was sccardvng Io me suonoara
nperalmg pmcedur: (SDP) nllhe Deflenflam Helounfl man and found mm
u
so m.n.mnr:nocn.na.usn
«mm. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e med u may n. nnnnnn -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
all won. mnouomng we“ and in mm Thaw were also no oomplam|s m
namions memo. Thareefler. «nun zone on»-mos, mo Dr.v1andanI's sop
requneo rnonixonno onne monsoon drains wee yeam
[31] As to mavnlenanoe walk, DW2 tesnfied that «mm 2012 tn 2m7 no
did nu| oany run any on mo monsoon drain m ma Plannnrs wand The
axowananon gwsn was than me Defendant no no! csny om anm-an
mamlenanee work but only when Droblsms arose wnen mere were
ubslades la lhe walerflow or :1 me swdwmus 0! me orans mflapsed or
here were dwsmrbanues uv ob51ruz:nnns to me water flow and «no main
monsoon dram. However, DW2 wsufisd that mamlenance work on me
mam monsoon dram on the Plsxnmfs Iana nook Diane m zen
[:21 Parlanrwm mo en|ry mlo mo P\a|nuIl'5 land to the purposes oi
amyamancn‘ mm, mamoring and mimlennnca, nwz sxulamed Ina! no
nmme: were addrassad to Ina s-Iammv as the Datonuam nau non entered
arm: the Flainlflfs wand lnsiaad. no clannao to have vitflod o: oe-an wnn
mu omur nun who monsoon drain max was nu! Iacnlad on me Plalnmfs
Iano. DW2 oemoo man the Defendant had mnn ur oonsrnmao the
monsoon drain He was unsure wnumor any Dsvmissxon or -squosx was
Issued (0 me P\axnMf in relanon (0 any works oonauaeo nmwanom me
years
[331 It \s we Dsrwexmg mac mo Dezronoanc oonxenoao no mamlenanoe
sno suwollanoa was oonouaao on Ihe monsoon dram lhal had
enuoacneo mo F-naunwrs land men at aH malenal Imles they look me
pus on tha| may were empowered stalutonlylu mamtam mo dram am: all
drums in mo Fooorax Tsmlnry cl Kua\a Lumnur Incmdmg the monsoon
dram m me Halnlfls land <1 was Imwessed «no: me monsoon drum
1:
am ro1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;D5n
«wn. s.nn lunhnrwm .. med o my o. MWHIVVIY mum: flnuamnl VI mum vwm
Vacated m nno Plimhfll wane and bordmna ils plnmlltn were wuaal‘
smear and neoessnly (or pubhu mlevest Vs|, ma Delsndanl clumed mm n
ma rm camed out any summanaa or mamlenanoe on me paninn uflhe
rnansoon dram mm was located on ma mainmors and lo amnn us damal
man wt had enlaed lhe Plammrs wana.
[341 on a balance at nmbabi|mes_ Hus Conn 22 unable tn aouepl the
Defsndanfs eumennon. The Defendanfs lefler of 19 2 man that
responded (0 me Pwnbfl confirmed Ihal the mm: were married oul an the
Vumlwon ullhe morsonn dmm .
-Adam. tlrmak/umkan banawa musk Jabalsn rm memang Dons:
sadang melamnaxan kofja-K9!/5 penyetsnggoran Lonykafla Yen!
Ja/an yang sudta ads .1; Makes: yang mmuksudkan men prhak man
a. dnlum sum sapem‘ m an:
Kuql-knqa pinyifunggarlan yang dr/lksamakan ks aras Vongkang
some aua mcmmn karia Dlmbsikirv yum dun Piflyflenwarlan
am umuk memashkun Semen Air Ierubul beflungy ssbelknya aan
Iidsk manghfndar ssbaranq ks/arvcaran psrgerakarr air nu;an dari
kawasan fadahan di Voksxi barksnain. Tfmiakul mr ad:/an ss/avas
aengan (W95! -/sbatan uan prhak Dewan Bandarayn Kua/a Lumpw
yang yang drperunlukalv m dalam ma Jalan, PAM darn eangunan
1974 urmlk memsstfkan Salursn Arr .1; eras Rasab Langkang,
R9:-ah Kara/sen atau Tsnah Persendinan belungst sebatknya untuk
meflaelak senarang bencane Blau Kssuman penduuuk m Kawasan
tel/mat "
15
am rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;D5n
«mm. san-1 ...n.mn .. U... a may he nflmnlflly mum: flnunmnl VI mum Wm!
[:51 The Defendant nnus aoknawnoageo ono oonnnnou 1|-5 presence on
me Plannws nana For Ina mannnaoa nnnmno nnnoning monsoon dram
Iocarea on me FIiIrIM|’s Iano. men oennineny nnosn oa entry upon me
Pnannnnrs Iand Lnkewnse, for me Inspewun and sunvannnance and mosn
oennannIy mannnonanm and Impmvemenf work on me monsoon dram as In
was won Iocansa wimin Ina Pnannnnrrs Iano — n the mmsurEmenII112.411
sq teen Ins Plinmnl had non recsnved any noasonanne nonnoa and nao
oumplamed lhal he noa seen the I)e4enaann's canlraclorslagenls on ms
nand aflendlng no me monsoon dram In me ansence av reasonaone name
no me I=IannIn«. Ims Cmm finds man mo defence on nusnmnaauon could nut
be susnannea.
Ian] Thns Courl IS bound oy Ina dacnsmn al Ina Federal Cnurl In r-nag.
nIa.IonaI lcrhad v sun/I Lon-nn Dwtlapmont Sdn Bhd [zone] I
MLRA 255 Inmynauan prapeny rngnns undar Amcle Ia oI our raaaran
Con£mIu|IorI ware recognnxed and nnan no Iaw was no he conslmed no annow
any party lo enlera Demon's Iana wllhoul wnlanl In Hm can‘ son; was
onear and unammguous The requIrumerIl on ronsonnmo nonnoe IS
mandatory before army Into nne owners Iano IS made no carry out any
snanunary aunnas Olherwisa, In IS Iresvass
[371 Respeclfully, Ina exoerp| of me Federal courts deaslon at ozss Is
bormwed and svnhad none
‘Put symply. trespass onno land 75 Ina unIawnuI mm: and Immedrata
Inlaflelsllce mm me possessnon alland Much Is In the possesslon
ofsmmavnsrson, orwmch armllvsrpsrsants ermlledta possessmn
A Lann max/m Is rreauennly emnnma lo define the extent ouana
)7
sm rnInLmNNI'EmccnwnIEIu5n
“Nana s.n.n mnmrwnnn o. UIQG o my me nnnnnn-y -mm: dnuamnl VI .rIuNa v-man
cur us st! so/um, sfus ssrusque adcoelum 9! admfaIo.r'— he mo
owns the rano, owns 1: nu ma way In nsmn and to new This
mnums rs onen rsrenoa to In no abblwrated form as ad coelum
yrmctple In modem law, this prmcrple IS sull accepted In umnea
him. and nghls are drvidsd mm space ngms and subsuvfacs ngms
be/aw.“
[331 Due pnnuples of oarmnumg trespass and enuoacnrnenz are weu
{mated .n ma daemon of «no Federal coun m Bzyingan sspm. Sin
and v Johann Pong-mn Dun Sllirln mgon Solnngor L on (20221
2 nnwu rmpsss to Lana -s acuoname pet se and connnumg Irespass
wnn Vast as lung as me monsoon drain remams In me Fla|nnf1's\anfl and n
wn: omy arms ones we rmmsoun own 15 remm/ad
[:49] The Izw .n 550(1) sna arm/med mat man may request the Stale
Anmomy to aoqwv me Plsmmfs \and is me monsoon dvann ns nooam
(heuam u now be me women aflucted or (he on-one Ilnd am for reasons
only known |n mam. am not do so
moan:/mI_M.un.mu.$.!
[401 In addresznnglhe P\aIn(iVl‘s prayevfwanarderln remwe urre\aca(a
the monsoon dram swdenoe aoonoea at «nan ws consnoareu. Tm caun
heard me leslwmomes :2! all me wnnesses and oouno that me monsoon
drain became a main monsoon mam Amending «o the ewdence, 1|
mncnons as me mam maoe where water/mn mt water We ram pools
before bemg cnannsleo Ia rivers. It Is ms mam dram out or a network 21
dramages In ensue! anu cnonnex water no «he nvecs for Knma Lumvur.
sm m.nonnr:nccn.na.usn
«mm. s.nn ...n.mn .. med n my n. nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum Wm!
[41] ms Cour! acosols ma amlanalion by me Defendant‘: wllneses
lnal me oraunaae in Kuals Lumw awarded to ma prinsinle whale walav
flaws hum mgr: ground to low gruurld. From lne loooolapny map D14 H
can be sasn lnal walercollecls al nlgner land ln Tarllan Overseas unlon
Garden (Duel and llows in ma lowsrlano V7 Tamarl van mmugn a syslyn
oldram network The ma!!! monsoon dram on me Plalnnlrs lano IS ms pan
olme mam drains ll (uncllons as a oollsctov otwalsrsurlaos and mm M,‘
not nnly as a oclledur «om lne nouslno areas but also wiler lrom other
sourcss mat oool inlo me veservnlr to: me dmlnage nelwulk of outs and
Taman van The mam monsoon dram onannals ano ralwses lns waler
lnlo Klang Rivet lmougn olner msln monsoon oralns, wmlcn all lonn a
nalwork ol drains tor cue, Taman van and Kunla Lumpur so‘ me
purposes ullhe mam omn am lwc—Iuld, In cnannal and rslaass lna walar
lnlo Klang River, and llw In prevent new flood: The lalxer woulo resufl
ln soll aroslon
[421 As per mo maps or2oo4 1P15)ind 2013174)‘ nwz oonnnnao that
me lopugraplly nlltle land ls that me pan that lsoss Jalnn Awin San IS
llal wlnlsl lnal al on side o1Taman out; is nionsrlnan me rest onne
lano He claimed lnal lna murlsoorl drain lonnso lne maln ulaln mm ma
apomxnnala size of 2 metets In wlom ano 1 5 nlecers -n nalonl. The
monsoon dram was o1 moole oncnlng‘ slmclure made «mm gramle lo
prevern eroslan al lne me unhe dram as a result olsonslanl walev llow
DW2 confirmed lha| there was always wa|sv flow lnnmgn ll as n ls ms
mam waler flaw in channel the wale« and run on mm mm Tamar: Yarl
sno Taman cue.
:9
sm Ya-1nlwtWNYEmcC1wvlElD5i
«on. Sun! luvlhnrwm s. o... w mm s. oflmnullly mum: dnuavlml VI .nuna Wm!
[43] Basso on me Kowfiravhy map. (M poumon Mme main mansoan
drain on me Pralnhffs lane 15 were two oaner rna-n dvams meet and
converge. Thersfnre‘ n I: very critical Ya remove 0! reocane u would
dvswrb and msmpl me eflicvenl flaw afwaler 1n ma ansarros or any other
suggesnons or auanshves. [his court ms man it would not be m Ihe
puhhc inI2res1 m have n removed or reheated fvam -vs wnenx posmon
even mougn n nas encmached upon lhe Plammfs land, Even me Plamhfl
In crass-examinsnon had agreed that ma waler flaws Ihmugh that
monsoon oram tram me Ngher land no ms lower and and is connemed Io
anulhev mansmn main, and Ianer orsmargeo who «he nver. The Flaw!!!
had ounfirmed Ihal mare were no uasn news that oowned an ms land
since us had mrnsa n.
[441 Fvemnsad on ma avmanna aaaosaa at man. to ovder ms Dmendaru
(0 remova or relocate ma mam munsuon drain vs unuawnabla.
mmnvenIen|, Impmcflul and uruusl uwz confnrmld me necossny or me
smd mam munsoan dram an we PVAIMWE lind Hanaa, |ms Oeun wm na|
oroar «or lhe monsoon omns «xanad orno ms Plamflfs land and
hxmienng n In be removed or relocated. The bass is pun:-c rnxenasx.
Acourdingly, nnara mus| be other means M Iesohmon |o lms rnaner
Qnmam
(451 There were a law nIhe< Issues mlsed dunng argumens No
enoence was 19¢ an me issua at Ivnilahun Much was pleaded rn me
Defence. In any event. me anomacnmenc rs at permanent nature up In
now and me «respass is a cormnmno one.
am rn1nLmNNvErncc1wnE;D5n
«mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. met! a mm o. mmnuuly mum: m.n.n vn mum WM
[41 The Delnndanl dawned man ms monsoon dram 15 pan 0! ma
drainage and/nr me nature! slruim max ensxsu on ma land in 2004 or
even earher The monsoon dram on me PIam1M's lend .s mam In prcvsde
a bsller and/er mgmar flww of water and n formed pan 0! a more
sysremauc anu efliuenl mamaga system In mat area and m ganacax ma
Federal Ta-rim of Kuaui Lumpur The Deuenaanx comended max ms
dram ma| vsnneu the wa|erway cuulu my: be closed or aemoushea
ammanuy as u vmuld result in flash floods. sod erosxon ov cracks or
deposits in ms: area and us surrounding areas, Much would require
anamauves fur Ihe wauevway The nevamam pleaded man ms existence
at ma monsuon dram on me Pla\nl.IlV's land was necessary and For me
pubuc mares! us avoid nasn floods ana ms ulnar sand ssoasmgnss The
monsoon drain: ensured more syslemauc and eficlanlwalsrdrarnage an
me land, Rs surmundmg ma anu m ganevax «ne reusrax Temlnryoi Kufla
Lumpur. ms Defendant plaadad mac Ils aansns warn gushilsd by uw an
that pu c policy onsn u Immunily fvum nu lorlmus I bllmas .n ms
amcuhon at us dimes
[5] In in ustsnss. ms tzsranaam had weaned (hm ma Plamlm had nac
aflfluoud any plan: In develop ma land and mus than was no nooesmly
my me usaanaanz ca remcva nu monsoon arm n mum insosad dmum
ms dramzga system on the wane, Rs surmunaing me me ms Fadsul
Tamlavy av Kuzlz Lumuur
Lmmnnmmnm
[5] Yhe Flamnfl uwns me land s-nee 5 4.2005 He had Ihe Inlenlinn In
build a few bungalaws as me land measures 17 an sq feel Bul mere
sm rn1nLmNNvEmccwmE;u5n
«mm. snn lunhnrwm s. U... n mm s. nrW\n|U|y mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max
us] There was also lne Issue mm rnoneoan e ' being a prsexlsllng
nalrrral slreanr To lnrs Cuun‘5 consraereu mew! reaerulees M wlrelller
mal ls [me - me issue 15 lne marlmade slruaure lnal ls localea on me
Piainllffs land wmen 13 under me llmsdlcfion and purview pl lne
nelenaanl The plan allacnea Io lne nlle ma npl snow any skucluve when
lne Plalnllfl pumnasea ii The nleasurenrenl pl land ls deemed aecurala
but m 2013 me land survey relleaed lne cnanges and lne lrespess unlo
ll CorLserlImus1 beoblalrled «mm are Flalrmfl Mulch was npz—see namx
aandar Kuala Lumpur v Nulzlnldl uolrnm [2023] MLRHU was
[471 As lo me issue 01 me Delenaanrs elassrllcallon 01 me monsoon
dram as ‘nzab panl lnduk' ov lna mam msetvsd dram‘ DWI was
qussllanarl on lne nelenaanrs response rn seprernper zoos in ms
l>lalnlrll |hIl p-sea on 2 search 0! me masler plan al lne lnlreslnlcrure
Deparlmanl lnare in a lrne M dlxchns mal have been pallr fur a lmlg urns
lnsl am an mam dllch reserve nwl lerllrlea lnel llrere is a database »
‘Plngkilln Data Ukur Kadzslav asnllgll Ksbangsaalf wnrpn ls mm on
by me Lana once to lssul lne ameisl plans altachsd lp qrenls and lnle
deeds. The dalapase stores reservsd open spaces wnlen are reserm
land only arlhnse land lnal have not been granleu ovmalshlpmles wnan
lne plan shows numbers lhal means lne lpls/lands nad been granlea
lllle |u lne owners In respeel pl lne Plalnlm lam, DW1 confirmed lnal
lnere were no reserved npen spapes (be ll lpr me use olme uelenaenll.
ll ls me evlaenoe M DWI \ha|0leln1arrlIaIlorllM0e Delenaanrs sale leller
was no| lnre. nwl eonnnnea lnal me monsnon dram plnll was run an
easernenxprreservea open spans and admlllsd me srlcmacIlmen|cn me
Plarnmls land DW2 was unable to canllnn lne records lrorrl wmh me
Delenuanl had laken lne pps
lnaune morlsoun dmln was a reserved
zx
SIN Ya-1nlwtWNYEmcC1wrlElD5i
“Nana Sum Iuvlhnrwm a. U... a vsfly r... anrn.ll-r mlmn dnunvlnnl VI mum Wm!
mam dram Al me oopounar DW2 nasnmoo man more ware no moo-vs man
the monsoon dram on me Pnamnnrs nano was onassinoo as reserved mam
dram anmooon no nao mnfirmed me nooossny nfme said mam monsoon
dram on nna Pnmnnnrs land
[451 um me rannro Saniuv Assnsnant Engnnaerwnlh me uenanoann mo
was nrn cnaroe, amonosn onnors, on me drains on nne Pnarnnnnrs nano from
2m2 In 2017 was called no nesmy man mo monsoon ormn loca|ad on me
Pnamnnrs and was canegonzeo as nno reserved main orain ms evndence
ns nonm tandem wnn monesnrnony olDW1 Annrnan DW2 was nmablellanled
In pmuoa any avroanoe no show nnan me monsoon oram nocanea on me
Flaimflfs wand was nnoeeo ma rasarvao main dram
[49] ms coun concludes man me morscon drain, even when n cannot
be pmven man n ns reserved mann mnnsoon dram, 4! 51M ought non no he
removed or ronooaneo due |o pubhc nnoresn
[sun rna Plaunllfl nao oouonn me nana wnn Mn knovmadge on nns nooauon
of me momoon drum on ms land HI lunnfied man no nw nna rnonooon
oonn as well as a TNB oynon He nao lhnughl man mo monsoon ormn was
Iocaneo ounsroo nns Iona — ooroarao n run was non on on on nn HI dnd non
Dnzndud any onner duo uilngenot on whemer Mnat no onnonaseo was
nnoeeo the same square ieen as man snanso on ma sane and Durchase
agreemerll He nao nnnzunred wrnuher mam were any anournoranoos on
one no Munch no lournd more were none The one snowoo manhe land was
sm ronononNr:nooo..na.aso
«no. sanun luvnhnrwm rs. met! In my r... omnm mum: flnuavnml VI .nnno vtmxn
firs| reglslersd m 1992 - (here is no emenos an wnalne: ma monsoon
omn had exlsled slnoe man. What V5 certain is (flat when the Plalnwl
purchased me land WI 20175. me monsoon dram was already in place on
me land
[511 However‘ laklng pan cl ms Plalnms lancl wllnmll me Flzlntiffs
pennlsslon ls mt legally aooeplalale ms Conn omens manna uslamlanl
acqulle «mm the Plalnlw lne pumcn of land (2,411 sq lee!) VI had
encroached al the orevalllng market pnos ll mo Defendant requlres
ezssmam and WIN need lo walk on move pcrllon oflhe Plalnlllrs land,
(hen ll ls nrdsrud trial I\ aoqulles znsl pan loo. ms would resolve lunnal
lssues lnal am eorlcemmq lno munsoan drain (ram nerenrlaner. llwoula
also remedy the vlammrs pmdlcamanl as well as pvelsewlng puhllc
lnlsml in malnlslnlng ma mansaan dram (here
[52] rm. Court also Allows mu Fliln|W|': prayurfor darrugai a( ma {ale
01 RM2u0 psv day The l>ls.nw noa, vldl lts lellu «men 19 3.2001‘
ncllflad lm oelenosnl ol lns clalm at RM2an par osy Var as long as m-
lvesuass and enuoaonmanl were nol addressed The nslsnaanl had
lslleo |o address llns even a| lnal As such, lnls Coun ls minoeo lo award
me Plmnllfldamagas al lns rate of RMZDO per dzylrom 81.2008 unlil me
dale of ms loagn-am Var aanlaqss Thal would zmounl lo RM200
muluplied by 5.757 days Much amounts In RM1lI51JUO ms Calm is :11
me considered vlsw |hzI lne Sald rate IS reasonable. Interests ol 5% small
be lmoasea onllns ludgmem sum lmm lnday urml lne aals mull and anal
selllemenc
sm Ya-1nlwtWNTEmcclwllElll5i
“Nair Sum luvlhnrwm .. UIQG n my n. nflmnullly mum: flnuavlml VI mum Wm!
K53) cuss av RM45,uoo which this count neems reasoname vs to be and
by me Delendanltnme Hamufl The De!endantwu\d have avmdedlhase
Vega! pmceedwgs xfil had engagad with me Flairmflpnurin ms sun
nnsn 12 OCTOBER 2023
amm -
ROZ MAWAR ROZAKN
JUDICIAL COMMVSSVONER
men COURY or MALAVA
KUALA LUMFUR
For the P/mm Rquhrea up Supp1ah.AmuI Nu! Nadm Azmsr and rm
Kuan K5: Ya!
T/n Ralashres
Fm Dslbrldanl Muhammad Nakhars Ishak, Eman Amar and sm Nut
Amanda MrulAzman
'!/n J, Lee .9 Assocrsles
.g, ‘ sm na1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;u5n
«mm. SmI\nanhnrwH\I>euIedIx:vuflyhenflmnlfllyM1MIdnuamnlvnnF\uNfl W
was no evrdanse that me inuersnon he had was not me motion — n lac!
lhura wars no suomrssions 51 pruposaxs by me Flulnufllc oeveuov Ine vano
«or appnmu The plan at me land was nenuereo man cnnfirrned ma localmn
onrse munsoon drain which is Iocaled a| «no ooruer or lhe Plammfs wano
ano on one suds, imao enoroocneo emu me wsno -me oraaom onus «one
monsoon dram had (akeu uplhe Flsmmfs xano As per use wlamms leater
of a 1 ma, lhe s|mclure omse mcmsaun dram had taken up a\mns| zoom
sq lea L71 ma P\aim.iifs wand (atxxwrdlng to ma survey by PW3 me land
surveyor, n was 2m 1 so «eon ms Iener issued in me Defzndanl nao
slated max at me mananal unre more were me Deaenaanrs oornraaors on
ms \and that were carrying an upgmdmg onne monsoon dram
[11 me oevenosnn exnlamed In na lelmr ov 19 2.2003 max me work:
undenaken on me mcmoon mm on ma Pmmmfs ‘and were for genera!
Ienavs and snamnenansa «o anwra Ihal ma w-alav amnaoa wovked mum
and um (her: was no ninaranoe la ma alreammg oframwmnr «sons mo
nearby sosamorr The wonoann nso snsoe n clam Ymm me ou|saI |ha| n
was carrying out W5 mnouons unosn snsen oramaoa and Euildwnq m
1974 lo emure mu all wsoerwaysrararnaue inoquaina «nose Iacaled on
prIva|e Iano wens runcuomng plopeny Io provonc any calasvophes or
snoonuemanoa |u an innabnams m mo area AI man mint m me, me
Dalsndam mfalmed me masnnmnm mere am not seem to he any urgency
or neoesswy to remove or rewcale me sand monsoon am
(51 Themaitev on 9 7 mm annao wnn a land suvey oonouaeo on
9.11 me‘ me P mwroxa agasn xo me netenoanc on me enoroacnmem
oy the slmctum onna monsoon dram mac resunea In ms land beoommg
smaHev rne Plamlm suggested a resohmon wnereoy me Defendant
pvocumd nra whole and mum mm anne nvevamng market rale in ma sum
sru ro1nLs1wNvEmcc1ws\E;u5n
«ma s.nn lunhnrwm a. met! a may r... mmnuuly -mm: dnuamnl VI murm v-max
or RMc.2aa,2ao. Tne Der-noanr had no1 ruponaeo (0 ms so rn
December 2014 rne Plalnnlf wrme anorrrer leltev In lhe Defendant that
s1a1sd rne rssmt of a drsorssian wrlh an aficer or me Defendant on
2212 2u14. The Plarrrrm confirmed mar ne was rnronneo mar lhe
monsoon omrn could not be removed or relocated and as sum |he
De-rendanr ought tn buy me whole rand The F'\a|nlrfi vequesled fur
msoussrons to oommenoe Au resalvelhe nmmern soonesr.
[9] The Delendant oro nul respond to me Prarnwrs request The nex\
correspondence was on 11 7 am where rne Plamnfl lovwarded Iu me
Defendant (ha plcmres or no munsoon dram which had anooacnea ms
land. Yo mo reouesr man the rmnsocn drain be renmso. the Delendam
repfled on 752015 um the name: srrearn had worn; endslefl on me
Plalnlrfls property so. Ina oropossr la remnve/ra¥nca|e mu walarvmy and
drlinane was ro be xlumad and anurma by me Dalendam rner involvod
Rs censullnnt englneers and rnlamal oonrrnrrrm
ha] Tnen on 15 9 2015 tn. Dvfandam inrurrneo rne P\amlrNIha| e main
(0 me Pwarnmrs rano no a survey onne monsoon dmln were undertaken
u was fuund that the smAc1Im~: mime monsoon dram was nnl bum by me
Dtfendanl, il nao Vonq axmed and rs ‘nzab pen: induk‘ (reserved mam
monsoon omrni.
[111 Yhe rasr correspondence rrorn mo P\a|n r was on 4.2.2019, when
he oomorsrneo to me nerenoanr or Iresness onto ms land and lrller rn
connecuon Io me nronsoon drain. There was no response [mm me
Delendam and thus, Iellers or demand were Issued by me Plaintiffs
sollcflurs pnur In me cmnmencemenlallms action
srn rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wr\Eru5n
“None s.n.r nanhnrwm .. med o my r... mnn.r-r mm. mmn VI mum v-ms!
I121 Al the man‘ Ihs Planmw Iuslifiad and called Ihe Dewly Dvvaclcr
General M me Law was and me land survnyor he had appmnceo rne
oavanaama Wee witnesses onmpnseo 0! us Iwo engineers and lhe
Direckzr o4 oana Geusvalial at ma Canngraphy um-non from mo Head
Quarters a1De0arImenlo1Survey am: Mappmg Mahayana (JUFEM)
The assessment olthe a dung
Encroachment
[131 n can be oonchmed with grail oenaxniy mac me locauon of me
monsoon dram .s walmn me P\amM‘5 am. The Plalnlm we not comm no
(ms The De1endan|haMaHed|u adduce any evidence |u show otherwise
A! me opnomo, ms Dalendanl nao Iull knuwtadge ol Inis lad as per man
aaxnowraagmam nnhelocauon onno monsoon dram m mo Fl nmrs land
was us may cam 52 zoos Them was a\se no chaHanga as |n ma
amoumouano mam. monsoon dv naa ervcrouched onbo me Pl-ainmrs
mna won lms coon lites as 2.411wlIet
HA) The new Offiuarml max on Defendanl had taken up annal was me
cnnlermcn manney had not constructed the monsoon dmn and on three
wilnessas cause by me Defendant had contended that may had no
kmwlsdge nl wno had constructed it Howovon «ms goes againsn me
Agreed Facts med «or nus case wmcn amen mac “Terdapal sehuah pan!
(‘monsoon drain”) kepunyaan Defendan yang berada an ates ranan
lasebul (“slnlklur yang mencemboh’) The Defendant nao agreed and
admilted mac me monsoon dram lacaled on lhe Plammfs land bebnged
to wt. Al Inal, mnesses for me Deiendanl claimed that me monsoon drain
nao been In exislecuce long beaore Ihe F-Iamm nae vurohased me land.
There were auompns by mo nmonoanu mmugn ns wllnessss, In
5
am ro1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;u5n
«mm. s.nn ...n.mm .. U... a may n. MEVHIHIY -mm: m.n.n n. mum v-max
orsasaooraxe nsamronr nna aooounraarmy of hm/mg oonsrmorao ma dmm
ano dawmwg nwnership and rssponsi no am in so Ihe aboul—Ium |akan
an man was nu( only unfair ro the Plainhfl‘ but showed me unoenainly oi me
Defendanl s pusmon
[15] Fumrarrnona. ms Dslendanl ooulo not raoun mo Flarnmrs arnoanoa
adduced by me P\a\n(M's «run: wnnass (PW3]-the land surveyor. Ha nao
undeflakenla survey ins Psarnmrs wand m 2004 ano 201: and aooonw-my
produced me plans or both works — P15 and P4 respeclwely Bum mans
ano drawings show me rnunsoon dram Vncaked amra perimetevand rnsroa
the boundary 01 me Fla4n|:W's land However, m 2013 [here was an
afldmorm monsoon dram nmrung on me aounnem land onne penrnerer
which was no| Ihere In the 2004 plan more are slapes wmch had aaan
bmll at me was nuns mcnloon dram — an ul wmch nao encmaohed m|o
rna P\a\nlms Wm Pwa Ieshiled rnu nu had done a ground sun-ay nno
conmnnau mat nnara was no aoamanan monsoon drain wnan ha nrsr
oonouueo mu survey back In zoo: Pwaa ooncsusrun was a nsaun M a
pnysroax axarmnallon on me grouna as opposed in (he (opcgraphy or an
wnion was onnduclad by aen’a\ nhmogrzmrnaky where «no photos were
taken quira hmh an wnn old reonnoloay Y coun heard men more ooum
eas-Iy be differences ova few rnarars. This coun aooaors me wshmuny of
we and finds an a ba\anoe oi pwbabllmes me mas| awuaxe plan Is the
one auaoneo lo the We men was done by Depamnanl 0! Survey and
Mapnura Mnlaysra UUPEM) but it does rm snow ma Iooauon cl me
monsoon dam on me Plammfs Ianu — mar me nlan 0! me Lana mm me
exacl sq feet mat belonged to me Plamml $0. :1 canno| be determined
rrorn ma uovograpny DIA or the plan altached to ma land (me, whelner
mare were rnoeeo mcrsoon drains on ma Plaxnmfs wana ano how much
at me P\aIn|\H's Vane may nan enoroaohea.
7
an ro1nLmNNvEnrcc1wr\Eru5n
“None sum nmhnrwm .. met! a my r... uflmnauly mm. dnuamnl VI muno war
[151 on me onher nano, the plans man wwa nao undertaken - bolh in
mm [PI5)and 2013 (P4) show me Iocahon cum monsoon drams on me
Plainlms land at max pamanav pom! m «me rspecuvexy Annougn me
«ooognapny D14 showed than mere was a blue nna mdtnaling ‘sahran' but
:4 am not specify max n was - wnemer an eann dram Dr a Varge monsoon
drain 01 even a nature! sueam, and most wmponarmy mo no| aowralew
pmuL7in| meme: :1 was nocavea m me wamms land Theceiore, his cam
is ssnsneo en a balance 0! amaammes mat wvss maps mm 2004 (F15)
am 2013 (P4) var oamparison, shawed where we monsoon draws are
located on me Plammfs land and how much Ihey had enoroaonsa unto «
The maps were dune afler zxvnfluamg physics! gmuna wnspeclbon and
used scam rm greater accuracy
[vn Tm: ccun ameans nnan lhaafld||\ana\ mansmn dram man menaallar
enllcd an we seumm penmaw at me P\am||fl‘s land at snawn In ma
2m map1P4} was not (here v/nun ma wand survey wu: conducled m
2004 Mmeeven me monsoon dram was a mammaoe suuchne - rubble
pwclwuu than is mmanenn m name as cesmsd by DW21lha Detendanrs
remed semcr Assnswam Engmeery. The wenosm hid m zoos confirmed
mzl n was under me oonllm and management of me De{endan|‘s
Dapanmenx omramage and Rivet Management FW3 was me to mfarm
me com me sue ol the dram which measured 3 5 meters in mm This
addmuna\ monsoon dmm had encmached unco me Plsxnhlfs rand
apumximalely 2,411 sq feet The new slopes wmcn have been bum :4 me
edge enhe mcnsoon dram had alsa enuoamed Imlolhe wuaunmrs Iano
[15] rne Pnannun had cause me Ssnlot Deputy Dureclnr «om me Land
one (FW2) wnc had mlulmed Ims Courl max records Show manne land
sm rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wnEm5n
«ma s.nn lunhnrwm a. met! a may he MWHIVVIY mum: dnunmnl VI mum v-max
was firs! ennui-ea in 1906 bun avenmally became Saran 6462 that was
nsgnsnanea In ngez Tnan meann me nana was arspenny nnaasunea and me
nneaaunannsnn an the area was finalized The nana nnnna had no aasennann
ragnslarad on in. Nsilhsrdnd ms mla Dunlam any drains an in
[19] The onscmn nncarnognapnny and Geospahsl Dana OIJUPEM (awn)
lssnfied «on ma Densnaann la explann nne mpagmphy an D14 whnch was
done in 1992 man used nnnse annansnsnan phmas taken nnam ma an by
Phone grannnnsnry. Tna venflcannun was sompnsnsa in zoaa Ha naa
confirmed man he had non vnsnled orsnannaa nnne Flinnws name: and man ns
was nu| axksd by me Delsnnarnuo measure or mndud a physncel survey
clnhe Pnannnnnra land wmch ns ms sumacl mallar nrn queslnon He was also
nol Informed by me nensnaann wnen me said monsoan drlnnl were nannnn.
nwn nssnmaa nnan man. was na sumey cmdnmlad or plans nnaas lo
nllusmle nhe ssnanuon 0! me Pnannnnnra nanu In man
my Based urn nna nspogmpny of DH. own was unasns In sannnnn vmal
ms was nnna man nndnsanaa ‘ n’ asnuanny was He Iashfiad nnan ‘saIivan'
lealured s nnyarowpmcan enemann man sauna be a dnrd1,drinn,wanlrwayn
canal ans ma blue Inns man danmnea ‘sallran acuordnnn loDW1 could be
a nanunan slream ur mannnaas monsoon dram. nlwhnch ms lopogvaphy an
on cannon sssnsl In oomnng na a findnng n was nna evndenee of DW1 man
ma 'salIran‘ renx:Idednn1992, nna nanunan snnsann or wanenwny. sound snso
snange due no sninnana and gaasnanges we! a pennd snnnnna Thns Own
nnnas man in coma non he Dundudnzd man ma ‘sa n‘ was asnnnanny me
monsoon dram nocanea on me nrnannnnm land. Pa many so when mane
ns no onnen evnaense no back up me oensnuanns snannn nnan nne nnansaon
dram had lung exnsled pnar to me Pnannnnnrs aoqunsmun ul nna land rne
evidence man can In nsnnea on by nnns Ccurl ns me 201:: map P4 wnnsn
sm rnnnlnrmnvsnnccnwnnanufrni
«wan. ssnan luvnhnrwm s. med a may n... anmnannly mmna dnuavnml VI .nuna v-man
srwwed manna monsoon drain as nppose |o nuns m 2004 m2Ip|P15)
ms fact was amnn-o w DW1 ano DW2 as we“ The Defendant was wet
able In nmduceany dcoumwls orreeerds lhalshowsd me monsoon own
was mnslmmed prior to 2am (saulh otme P\avmf|‘s wand;
[21] Bunny lhe subrmssncns. (he Defendant‘: nouns! cixsd saa
Ewdemx: Acl vase requlnng «ms Coon |o presume mat me mopoorapny
ma made by JUPEM was accurate, Though n maybe so‘ me nopoonapny
(and sue me Defsndanfs wtlnesses) were unable In cunfinu man the
blue nne Venvesenl. norwhemer n was Iocanaa wumn ma Plainmfs land
[22] ms Conn concludss based on me ewdenoe mat on a balance cl
momma: ma Flamlm had Indeed omonasao ma land that maasmao
11.547 sq lael am ma| me maruoon dram an Illustrated in me 20!: may
(P4) wu nnl mam whun he am purchased It Be max A: n m. on a
bnraneo of Drobabllmes, mn Cuurl nu slhsfied wvln me amanea mat ma
monsoon dram .n ma P\ainmTs land had taken up 2.411 on list wwlmut
nia Dannlsilnn
[231 own‘ nne om: Engineer nu ma Delendsnrs Daoanmam o1
Inm-asouaum Plannmg, oanfirmed Ihal « was lhe Deienaann s
responshanlny lo ensure systemafic waterfluw ovme drains and waterways
Io Drevenlnoods‘ ovemow and olhercalaslranhss. DW3 stated max .1 was
ml aHya na|ural stream «nan became a mam dram wmcn nao wong emsled
on ma P\ainl\lTs and am aparl from swung so, mere was nommg else to
sansfy «ms Cowl that me dram was not me Defendant‘: m cvoss—
exa-mnauon the Mamlm hao aommea man annougn he nao m| seen me
De1endan|buHmnglhe dram. ne nao seen them mamlavmng u. There was
no svudenoe owmo had bmll mu; rubble onemng structure hu| n was mns|
no
am rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;D5n
«mm. sm-1 lunhnrwm .. met! a mm o. mn.u-y mm. flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
| 3,160 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-25-19-03/2022 | PEMOHON NOOR AZAM BIN SALLEH RESPONDEN 1. ) JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB 1, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI 4. ) KETUA PERKHIDMATAN JABATAN PENGURUSAN INSAN, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI | This is an application by the applicant, for judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 1) challenging the decision of the first respondent to dismiss the applicant from his employment and the decision of the second respondent which affirmed the decision of the first respondent and dismissed the applicant’s appeal - Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 | 09/11/2023 | YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4891621c-3ac6-41c0-9d29-e219b61b0a79&Inline=true |
1
BA-25-19-03/2022
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-19-03/2022
Dalam perkara mengenai surat bertarikh
14.7.2020 daripada Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia kepada Noor Azam
bin Salleh berkenaan Tindakan Tatatertib
Dengan Tujuan Buang Kerja Atau Turun
Pangkat;
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Keputusan
Tindakan Tatatertib oleh Jawatankuasa
Tatatertib 1, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri
Malaysia bertarikh 29.6.2021 dan
dinyatakan di dalam surat bertarikh
30.6.2021;
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Keputusan
Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia
bertarikh 15.12.2021 dan dinyatakan di
dalam surat bertarikh 21.12.2021;
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Peraturan-
Peraturan 7(2)(g), 28, 40 dan 45(g)
Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008;
09/11/2023 15:28:21
BA-25-19-03/2022 Kand. 44
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
BA-25-19-03/2022
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Perintah Am
14(a), 14A, 15 hingga 18, Bab C, Perintah-
Perintah Am;
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 53, Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012;
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 92 Kaedah 4,
Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.
ANTARA
NOOR AZAM BIN SALLEH
(No. K/P: 740404-10-5401) …PEMOHON
DAN
1. JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB 1,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA
2. JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA
3. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI
4. KETUA PERKHIDMATAN JABATAN PENGURUSAN INSAN,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI
…RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
BA-25-19-03/2022
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application by the applicant, Noor Azam bin Salleh for
judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012
(Enclosure 1) challenging the decision of the first respondent dated
29.6.2021 to dismiss the applicant from his employment and the
decision of the second respondent dated 15.12.2021 which affirmed
the decision of the first respondent and dismissed the applicant’s
appeal.
Reliefs Sought
[2] The reliefs sought by the applicant in the present case are as
follows:
“(a) satu perintah Certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan
Responden Pertama bertarikh 29.6.2021 yang dinyatakan
dalam surat daripada Responden Pertama kepada
Pemohon yang bertarikh 30.6.2021 dimana Pemohon
didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan ke atasnya dan
pekerjaan Pemohon selaku Penolong Eksekutif Hasil di
Jabatan Teknologi Maklumat di Menara Hasil, Cyberjaya
ditamatkan berkuatkuasa pada 1.7.2021 mengikut
Peraturan 45(g), Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008, yang dibuat secara
tidak adil, tidak munasabah dan/atau tidak setimpal;
(b) satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan keputusan
Responden Kedua bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang dinyatakan
dalam surat daripada Responden Kedua kepada
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
BA-25-19-03/2022
Pemohon yang bertarikh 21.12.2021, yang dimaklumkan
kepada Pemohon pada 28.12.2021, dimana Responden
Kedua telah menolak rayuan Pemohon terhadap
keputusan Responden Pertama Pemohon dan
mengesahkan keputusan Responden Pertama, secara
tidak adil dan/atau tidak munasabah;
(c) selanjutnya satu perintah Deklarasi dan/atau Mandamus
bahawa Pemohon dikembalikan semula ke jawatan
terakhirnya sebagai Penolong Eksekutif Hasil tanpa
kehilangan pangkat, kenaikan gaji, gaji, emolumen dan
lain-lain manfaat;
(d) Perintah-perintah sampingan dan berbangkit dari perintah
Certiorari/Deklarasi/Mandamus tersebut seperti berikut:-
(i) suatu siasatan untuk menentukan tunggakan gaji
termasuk tunggakan kenaikan gaji, emolumen,
elaunelaun dan faedahfaedah lain yang Pemohon
sepatutnya menerima dari tarikh Pemohon dibuang
kerja (1.7.2021) sehingga penyelesaian penuh;
(ii) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun terhadap jumlah
keseluruhan wang tertunggak dari tarikh Pemohon
dibuang kerja (1.7.2021) sehingga penyelesaian
penuh;
(e) Gantirugi pemecatan salah;
(f) Selanjutnya dan/atau secara alternatif, gantirugi am
dan/atau gantirugi teruk dan/atau gantirugi teladan
dan/atau gantirugi punitif kerana pihak Responden-
Responden serta ejen/kakitangan Responden Ketiga telah
bersikap sambal lewa serta 'mala fide' dalam memulakan
prosiding tatatertib dari awal dengan niat semata-mata
untuk membuang kerja Pemohon yang mana telah
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
BA-25-19-03/2022
mengakibatkan Pemohon mengalami tekanan emosi dan
psikologi yang begitu teruk apabila menghadapi keluarga,
rakan-rakan dan masyarakat serta terpaksa mengalami
kesedihan dan kedukacitaan (severe shock and mental
anguish) setiap hari sehingga kini di atas keputusan
pembuangan kerjanya;
(g) lain-lain relif dan/atau perintah yang Mahkamah Yang
Mulia ini fikirkan adil dan saksama.”
Grounds for Judicial Review
[3] The applicant set out the following grounds in support of this
application for judicial review:
(i) whether there are defects in the notes of proceedings of the
first respondent/disciplinary committee;
(ii) whether there is non-compliance and/or procedural
impropriety in dismissing the applicant;
(iii) whether the dismissal sentence on the applicant is irrational,
unreasonable, disproportionate to the offense committed and
has been contrary to the principle of natural justice;
(iv) whether there is forgiveness (“condonation”) and if so, the
disciplinary action of dismissal has been contrary to the
principle of “condonation”; and
(v) whether the applicant is eligible for the reliefs sought in this
judicial review.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
BA-25-19-03/2022
Factual Background
[4] The facts of this case are gleaned from the submissions and
affidavits filed by parties. On 25.11.2019, a Laporan Pelanggaran
Tatakelakuan-Menerima Gaji Bersih Di Bawah 40% Dan Tidak
Hadir Bertugas Tanpa Cuti Atau Tanpa Kebenaran Atau Tanpa
Sebab Munasabah was submitted to the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib
(Ibu Pejabat), Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia from the
Deputy Director of the Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan, Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia regarding the code of conduct of the
applicant. The applicant was found to have violated the code of
conduct as follows:
i. failure to submit a written response to the letter dated
21.8.2019 within the stipulated period even though a reminder
via email was issued to the applicant on 05.09.2019;
ii. absent from work for thirty-three (33) days during specific
dates in 2018 and 2019, without proper authorization or a valid
reason;
iii. a show cause memo concerning the aforementioned absence
was delivered to the applicant, and an email reminder
requesting a written response was sent as well which was not
furnished by a written reply within the specified timeframe; and
iv. under Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia
Disciplinary Regulations 2008 can be deemed as behaving
irresponsibly and disobeying the order, which is a violation of
the code of conduct under Regulation 7(2)(g) and 7(2)(i) of the
same Regulations.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
BA-25-19-03/2022
[5] On 30.01.2020, a submission was made, requesting the Chairman
of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib (lbu Pejabat) to assess and decide
whether the alleged disciplinary violation warrants either dismissal,
demotion, or a milder form of punishment as outlined in Regulation
38 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008.
[6] On 03.02.2020, the Chairman of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib lbu
Pejabat decided that the breach of discipline by the applicant, is of
the type that should be subject to dismissal work or demotion under
Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008. The actions of the applicant contravene the
Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008
can be considered as exhibiting dishonesty, lack of trustworthiness,
and irresponsibility, which infringe upon the code of conduct as
stipulated in Regulation 7(2)(f) and (g) of the Inland Revenue Board
of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008.
[7] On 13.07.2020, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2020 was convened and
the Chairman agreed that there is a prima facie case against the
applicant, as he did not show up for duty without leave or without
first obtaining permission or without reasonable cause for thirty-
three (33) days on certain dates in 2018 and 2019.
[8] On 14.07.2020, the first respondent sent a letter of charge sheet
with the purpose of dismissal or demotion to the applicant where a
report was received by the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 which states
that the applicant had violated the code of conduct which allows
disciplinary action to be taken against the applicant. The decision
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
BA-25-19-03/2022
was notified to the applicant. The applicant was given the
opportunity of being heard and to send a representation under
Regulation 37 Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008.
[9] On 24.07.2020, the applicant sent a representation against the
Surat Pertuduhan bagi Tindakan Tatatertib Dengan Tujuan Buang
Kerja Atau Turun Pangkat.
[10] On 27.10.2020, JPI’s Officer has submitted a “Surat Maklum Balas
Berhubung Surat Representasi Pemohon” to the Chairman of
Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1.
[11] On 29.06.2021, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2021 was held to decide
on the applicant’s case which found the applicant guilty and subject
to the disciplinary punishment of dismissal effective 01.07.2021.
[12] The applicant, on 14.7.2021 submitted a letter of appeal to the
Chairman of the Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia.
[13] On 15.12.2021, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2021 had
convened to consider the appeal of the applicant and decided to
confirm and uphold the dismissal sentence made by Jawatankuasa
Tatatertib.
[14] On 21.12.2021, the second respondent sent a decision letter of the
Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib LHDNM for the applicant’s appeal.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
BA-25-19-03/2022
[15] The applicant filed the judicial review application under Order 53 of
the Rule of Court 2012 on 15.03.2022 seeking for certiorari to quash
the first and second respondent’s decisions and order for
mandamus because according to the applicant, the first and second
respondent's decisions was illegal, void, unlawful and/or in excess
of authority, and had been irrational and/ or unreasonable.
Principles relating to Judicial Review
[16] The principles surrounding the application for judicial review are
trite. The court hearing an application for judicial review are allowed
to scrutinize not only the decision making process but also for
substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or
Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also
proportionality as per the case of R Rama Chandran v The Industrial
Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 as follows:
“In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp 410–
411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii)
irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is how he put it:
By 'illegality' as a ground for Judicial Review I mean that
the decision maker must understand directly the law that
regulates his decision making power and must give effect
to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable
question to be decided, in the event of a dispute, by those
persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the
state is exerciseable.
By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly
referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' (see
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
BA-25-19-03/2022
Corp [1948] 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so
outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral
standards that no sensible person who had applied his
mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.
Whether a decision falls within this category is a question
that judges by their training and experience should be well
equipped to answer, or else there would be something
badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the courts'
exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer
needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in
Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, of irrationality as a
ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to
an inferred though undefinable mistake of law by the
decision maker. 'Irrationality' by now can stand on its own
feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be
attacked by Judicial Review.
I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety'
rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice
or failing to act with procedural fairness towards the person
who will be affected by the decision. This is because
susceptibility to Judicial Review under this head covers
also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe
procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the
legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred,
even where such failure does not involve any denial of
natural justice.
Lord Diplock also mentioned 'proportionality' as a possible fourth
ground of review which called for development.”
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
BA-25-19-03/2022
[17] The Federal Court in Ranjit Kaur a/p S Gopal Singh v. Hotel
Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 6 MLJ 1 stated the following:
“[16] The Rama Chandran decision has been regarded or
interpreted as giving the reviewing court a license to review
without restrain decisions for substance even when the
said decision is based on finding of facts. However, post
Rama Chandran cases have applied some brakes to the
courts’ liberal approach in Rama Chandran. The Federal
Court in the case of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd
v. Zaid Noh [1997] 1 MLJ 789; [1997] 2 CLJ 11 after
affirming the Rama Chandran decision held that there may
be cases in which for reason of public policy, national
interest, public safety or national security the principle in
Rama Chandran may be wholly inappropriate.
[17] The Federal Court, in Petroliam National Bhd v. Nik Ramli
Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288; [2003] 4 CLJ 625, again
held that the reviewing court may scrutinise a decision on
its merits but only in the most appropriate of cases and not
every case is amenable to the Rama Chandran approach.
Further, it was held that a reviewing judge ought not to
disturb findings of the Industrial Court unless they were
grounded on illegality or plain irrationality, even where the
reviewing judge might not have come to the same
conclusion.”
[18] Founded on these principles, this court will now proceed to analyse
the grounds presented by the applicant in this application for judicial
review.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
BA-25-19-03/2022
Preliminary Objection
[19] The respondents raised preliminary objections. The preliminary
objections are that the application for judicial review is out of time.
According to the respondent the timeliness of adhering to the
specified rules is of paramount importance, as it directly affects the
court's jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application. Given
that the application was filed more than 90 days after the date of the
first respondent’s decision, the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to
consider the application for judicial review against the first
respondent. Consequently, the remedy sought by the applicant in
this application is legally inadequate and should be rejected by this
court. [See: Abdul Rahman bin Abdullah Munir & Ors v. Datuk
Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 704]
[20] The second objection by the respondent is that the decisions of the
third and fourth respondents are not the decisions disputed in this
application. The reliefs requested by the applicant in enclosure 1,
there is no relief requested that disputes or cancels the decision
made by fourth respondent. Further, the respondents argue that no
decision has been made by the third respondent in this case.
Therefore, it was argued by the respondent that all accusations
against the third and fourth respondents are not material for this
judicial review application.
[21] The respondent however, did not deny that the application for
judicial review was filed within three (3) months from the date of the
decision of the second respondent. Moreover, the respondent cited
the case of Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Alcatel Lucent
Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] 1 MLJ 563 which involves an
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
BA-25-19-03/2022
appeal on the assessment of tax. This case can be distinguished
from Alcatel (supra) as this case involves disciplinary proceedings.
[22] Pertaining to the objection that the third and fourth respondent are
not the decisions disputed in this application, this court finds the third
respondent is the employer of the applicant and the fourth
respondent is the applicant’s head of department. As the head of
department, the fourth respondent would have knowledge and
reported the applicant’s absenteeism. The third respondent, as the
employer of the applicant, would have to know about the
proceedings against the applicant.
[23] For the reasons stated, this court considered the preliminary
objections raised and dismissed the said objections.
Analysis and Findings
(i) Whether there is a defect in the charges and proceedings of
the first respondent/disciplinary committee 1
[24] According to the applicant, the charge of “tidak hadir tanpa cuti atau
terlebih dahulu mendapat kebenaran atau tanpa sebab yang
munasabah” against the applicant is not true and there is a defect
in the charge. This is because, according to the applicant, his
absence is not under the category which allow for a proceeding for
dismissal or demotion. It was further submitted that the Laporan
Pelanggaran Tatakelakuan dated 25.11.2019 is untrue and
misrepresented. The applicant argued that a prima facie case was
decided by the first respondent based on the report of the fourth
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
BA-25-19-03/2022
respondent which is not true and without material facts of the case
and without the applicant’s complete documents.
[25] In this regard, this court perused Regulation 28 of the Inland
Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008, which
reads:
“Disciplinary action for absence without leave
28. An employee’s absence from duty without leave or without
prior permission or without reasonable cause shall render him
liable to disciplinary action.”
[26] Whereas, regulation 45 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia
Disciplinary Regulations 2008 provides:
“Types of disciplinary punishments
45. If an employee is found guilty of a disciplinary offence, any
one or any combination of two or more of the following
punishments, depending upon the seriousness of the offence,
may be imposed on the employee:
(a) warning;
(b) fine;
(c) forfeiture of emoluments;
(d) deferment of salary movement;
(e) reduction of salary;
(f) reduction in rank; or
(g) dismissal.”
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
BA-25-19-03/2022
[27] Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 explicitly states that an employee’s unauthorized
absence from work makes them subject to disciplinary measures. If
an employee is subsequently found to have committed a disciplinary
offence, they may face disciplinary sanctions under Regulation 45
of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations
2008, which could include the penalty of dismissal.
[28] In the view of this court, the provisions of regulation 28 and 45 of the
Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 is
clear. The punishment for dismissal is not limited to cases of “absent
without leave and cannot be traced”. This is clearly not stated in the
said regulations and therefore this court is of the view this argument
by the applicant is without merit.
[29] Moreover, authorities have decided that the ordinary meaning of the
words in a statute should be given. The Federal Court in Fairise
Odyssey (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2019] 6 MLJ 281,
the court held:
“[58] It is trite that the duty of the court is limited to interpreting
the words used by the Legislature and it has no power to
fill the gaps disclosed. To do so would be to usurp the
function of the Legislature…”
[30] In Tebin bin Mustapa (as administrator of the estate of Hj Mostapa
bin Asan, deceased) v. Hulba-Danyal bin Balia & Anor (as joint
administrator of the estate of Balia bin Munir, deceased) [2020] 4
MLJ 721, the Federal Court held:
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
BA-25-19-03/2022
“[30] … Therefore in construing any statute, the court will look
at the words in the statute and apply the plain and ordinary
meaning of the words in the statute.”
[31] For this reason, this court is satisfied that the there is no defect in
the charges and proceedings of the first respondent. This court is
satisfied this ground is without merit.
(ii) Whether there is non-compliance and/or procedural
impropriety in dismissing the applicant
[32] The applicant submitted there was procedural non-compliance
and/or impropriety in dismissing the applicant. The applicant argued
that there was a Defective Show Cause Letter, the first respondent
and second respondent failed to consider the material facts in the
applicant’s Letter of Representation, the admission that there are
only 4 days without notification of leave, that the applicant’s reason
for refusing to sign the Performance Progress Plan and that the
reason that the applicant failed to apply for leave in the system was
never raised to the applicant in the Charge Sheet.
[33] The applicant’s complaint was that the applicant was deprived of a
reasonable right to be heard on account of the show cause
letter/charges making up the disciplinary offences being vague or
unclear.
[34] In order to consider this issue, this court perused the show cause
letter/charges against the applicant. For the sake of completeness,
the show cause memo dated 20.08.2019 is reproduced below:
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
BA-25-19-03/2022
“2. Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan
penyata cuti bagi Bulan Jun dan Julai 2019, mendapati
tuan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti dan tanpa
sebab yang munasabah selama sepuluh (10) hari bagi
tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk
memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti
diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari
tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk
mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan
tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[35] The show cause memo dated 25.09.2019 stated as follows:
“2. Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan
penyata cuti bagi Bulan Ogas 2019, mendapati tuan tidak
hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti selama tiga (3) hari
bagi tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk
memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti
diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari
tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk
mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan
tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
BA-25-19-03/2022
[36] The show cause memo dated 11.10.2019 states:
“2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata
cuti pada tahun 2018, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas
tanpa cuti atau tanpa terlebih dahulu mendapat kebenaran
atau tanpa sebab yang munasabah seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan
penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam
tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan.
Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan
menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[Emphasis added]
[37] The show cause memo dated 31.10.2019 is reproduced below:
“2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata
cuti bagi Bulan Oktober 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir
bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti selama empat (4) hari bagi
tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan
penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam
tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan.
Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan
menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[Emphasis added]
[38] The show cause memo dated 12.11.2019 states as follows:
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
BA-25-19-03/2022
“2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata
cuti bagi Bulan Mei 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas
tanpa kelayakan cuti selama satu (1) hari bagi tarikh seperti
berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan
penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam
tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan.
Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan
menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[Emphasis added]
[39] The Charge Sheet dated 14.07.2020 reads as follows:
“Pertuduhan
Bahawa tuan, Encik Noor Azam Bin Salleh, No. KIP: 740404-1 0-
5401, Penolong Eksekutif Hasil, semasa bertugas di Jabatan
Pengurusan lnsan, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia, telah
didapati tidak hadir bertugas tanpa cuti atau tanpa
kebenaran terlebih dahulu atau tanpa sebab yang
munasabah sebanyak 33 hari pada tarikh-tarikh tertentu
pada tahun 2018 dan 2019 seperti berikut…
Perbuatan tuan telah melanggar Peraturan 28, Peraturan-
Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia
2008 dan boleh diertikan sebagai tidak bertanggungjawab iaitu
melanggar tatakelakuan di bawah Peraturan 7(2)(g), Peraturan-
Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008
yang seperti berikut:
"7(2) Seseorang pekerja tidak boleh –
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
BA-25-19-03/2022
(g) tidak bertanggungjawab;
3. Jika tuan didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan tersebut, tuan
boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 45, Peraturan-Peraturan
Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008.
4. Mengikut Peraturan 40, Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008, tuan adalah diminta
untuk membuat satu representasi secara bertulis yang
mengandungi alasan-alasan yang hendak digunakan untuk
membebaskan diri tuan. Representasi tersebut hendaklah
dikemukakan kepada Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1
melalui Pengarah Jabatan Teknologi Maklumat, Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia dalam tempoh 21 hari dari tarikh tuan
menerima surat ini. Sekiranya tuan tidak membuat apa-apa
representasi dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan, tuan dianggap
sebagai tidak hendak membela diri dan perkara ini akan terus
diputuskan oleh Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, berdasarkan
keterangan-keterangan yang sedia ada sahaja.”
[Emphasis added]
[40] At no point did the applicant raise concerns with the disciplinary
board regarding the alleged vagueness or lack of clarity in the
disciplinary charges brought against them. The way these charges
were articulated leaves no room for doubt that the applicant
understood the case they were facing, and there is no other
plausible interpretation of their nature. In fact, the applicant’s written
responses aimed at clearing their name demonstrated a clear and
thorough understanding of the specific disciplinary offenses as they
were presented.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
BA-25-19-03/2022
[41] In this particular case, the chairman of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib
received a report detailing the disciplinary violations committed by
the applicant. In accordance with their responsibilities under
Regulation 38 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008, they assessed that the nature of the disciplinary
offense warranted either dismissal or a reduction in rank, as
specified in Regulation 45 of the same regulations. Subsequently,
the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib took over the disciplinary process,
reviewing the report and determining whether a prima facie case
could be established based on the documents contained in the
report.
[42] If a prima facie case is established, one or more charges are
formulated, outlining the factual details of the alleged disciplinary
offense committed by the officer, along with the reasons for the
proposed dismissal or rank reduction. These charges are then
transmitted to the officer in the form of a document called “Surat
Pertuduhan”. Within a specified timeframe, typically 21 days from
the receipt of the Surat Pertuduhan, the officer is notified that they
must submit a written representation outlining the grounds on which
they seek to clear their name. This process is in accordance with
Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 which, in the view of this court, accords the
applicant an opportunity to be heard. [See: Ghazi Mohd Sawi v.
Mohd Haniff Omar, Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & Anor [1994] 2
CLJ 333; Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar
Pulau Pinang & Anor v. Utra Badi K Perumal [2001] 2 CLJ 525;
Muhammad Farid bin Muntalib v. Tan Sri Dato' Sri Khalid bin Abu
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
BA-25-19-03/2022
Bakar, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit
Aman & Ors [2019] 1 MLJ 604]
[43] Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 explicitly outlines the disciplinary procedure
concerning dismissal and rank reduction, and this procedure is
already detailed in the Charge Sheet.
[44] In the view of this court, the show cause memos are clear and
unambiguous. The written documentation precisely lays out the
reasons and details comprising the disciplinary offense, ensuring
that the applicant is fully aware of the nature of the case against
them and is provided with a fair opportunity to present their defense.
[45] Exhibit A 14 in Enclosure 23 is the Minit Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa
Tatatertib 1 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Bil 1/2021. From this
Exhibit A 14 of Enclosure 23, it can been seen that the first
respondent has taken consideration of all the material facts in the
Applicant's Letter of Representation.
[46] This court is also of the view the second respondent had considered
all the material facts in the Applicant’s Appeal Letter. This can be
clearly seen in Enclosure 24, Exhibit A-17, page 297- 298, Minit
Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam
Negeri Bil 1/2021.
[47] Pertaining to the applicant’s absence from work, the respondents
did not contest the applicant's absence from work for four days
without providing prior notice of leave, nor did they question the
validity of the applicant’s medical records and sick leave certificates.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
BA-25-19-03/2022
[48] It is observed that the applicant’s absence from duty for 33 days was
not supported by any leave entitlement or a valid reason. According
to the applicant, he had given the fourth respondent notification of
leave. However, this does not mean the applicant is automatically
granted the right to take such leave. The facts before this court is
that the applicant had no leave entitlement during that period.
[49] Therefore, the applicant’s absence is, in actual fact, unauthorized.
Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 states that this is subject to disciplinary action.
This court therefore is satisfied this ground is baseless.
(iii) Whether the dismissal sentence on the applicant is irrational,
unreasonable, disproportionate to the offense committed and
has been contrary to the principle of natural justice
[50] With regard to the sentence imposed on the applicant, the applicant
contends that the punishment of dismissal imposed against him was
excessive. The Federal Court in Ng Hock Cheng v. Pengarah Am
Penjara & Ors [1 998] 1 CLJ 405 stated:
“It cannot be denied further that the disciplining of a public officer
by his department head is part of the function of the executive
branch of the government and any usurpation by a court will be
viewed with something very much more than disfavour even
though the Judiciary is the judicial branch of the government as
well as an institution which belongs to the people. To repeat; a
court intervenes only on the nature and manner of accusation
against a public officer as distinct from a consequential
punishment as explained above.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
BA-25-19-03/2022
Just like a professional body being the best tribunal to judge the
seriousness of misconduct of its members, in a similar vein, an
employer, including a government, is the best person to judge
similarly the seriousness of misconduct of an employee.”
[51] It is this court’s view that the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib is regarded
as the most suitable tribunal for evaluating the gravity of its
members' misconduct. However, it is not within the purview of this
court to determine whether the appropriate sanction should be a
dismissal or a milder penalty such as a reduction in rank. Given the
circumstances, the argument raised by the applicant lacks merit and
contradicts established legal precedent.
(iv) Whether there is forgiveness (“condonation”) and if so, the
disciplinary action of dismissal has been contrary to the
principle of “condonation”
[52] The applicant in his submission raised the issue of condonation.
However, this issue was raised by the applicant only in his
submission. This issue was not pleaded by the applicant in the
statement.
[53] In this regard, it is trite that the parties are bound by their pleadings.
The court is not entitled to decide a matter that is not pleaded.
[54] See: RHB Bank Bhd (substituting Kwong Yik Bank Bhd) v. Kwan
Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLJ 188; Aseambankers
Malaysia Bhd & Ors v. Shencourt Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 4 MLJ
619]
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
BA-25-19-03/2022
[55] Was there delay in the disciplinary proceedings which would amount
to condonation? The whole event starting from the point of the
disciplinary offence committed by the applicant to the disciplinary
and disciplinary appeal proceeding, concluded in 2 years and 4
months. At that time or during that period, the Covid-19 pandemic
hit globally and the Malaysian Movement Control Order in 2020 and
2021.
[56] In Public Services Commission Malaysia & Anor v. Vickneswary a/p
RM Santhivelu (substituting M Senthivelu a/l R Marimuthu,
deceased) [2008] 6 MLJ 1, the court stated:
“[40] Also again condonation was not pleaded. However,
although there was a delay between the time the police
completed their investigation and the time when the show
cause letter was issued, there was nothing to indicate that
the disciplinary authority intended to condone the wrongs
committed by the deceased. In any case, the delay was
because the police was investigating the case and the
disciplinary authority cannot be said to have condoned the
acts of the deceased.”
[57] Having considered the facts of this case particularly as the country
was engulfed in Covid-19 and restriction in movement, this court is
of the considered view there is no delay on the part of the
respondents. It follows therefore, there is no condonation as alleged
by the applicant.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
BA-25-19-03/2022
(v) Whether the applicant is eligible for the reliefs sought in this
judicial review
[58] The applicant further contended that all the applicant’s statements
in this judicial review to challenge the decision made by the first
respondent and the second respondent are not denied by the two
respondents because there is no affidavit in reply from the two
respondents.
[59] The respondents submit that all the applicant’s statements in this
judicial review to challenge the decision made by the first
respondent and the second respondent are actively challenged and
rebutted by the respondents’ deponents, Zahari Ali (the fourth
respondent himself) and Siti Zulaikha Badrul Hisam.
[60] Zahari Ali, the fourth respondent, is the duly appointed individual
authorized to validate the affidavit on behalf of all the respondents.
He holds the position of Director within the Department of Human
Resource Management, which is responsible for overseeing and
managing the employment and service records of all employees at
the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (“IRBM”). The facts
presented in the respondent's affidavit in reply are firmly within the
fourth respondent's awareness and are either derived from the
applicant's documents or are part of the records held by IRBM,
which the fourth respondent has complete access to.
[61] The fourth respondent also, being the secretary of the first
respondent, Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, has the full knowledge of
the disciplinary proceeding taken against the applicant. The fourth
respondent also is the Head of Department of officers from the
Jabatan Pengurusan Insan, in which his officers being part of the
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
BA-25-19-03/2022
committee in the Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Bil 1/2021, has full access to the
minute of the disciplinary appeal proceedings.
[62] Siti Zulaikha binti Badrul Hisam, being the Admin Care Officer
(ACO), is the direct supervisor of the applicant. This court is satisfied
that Siti Zulaikha and Zahari Ali had access to the information and
are persons who is best to aver the affidavits.
Conclusion
[63] For the abovementioned reasons, this court is satisfied there I no
illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness or
procedural impropriety which would warrant this court to allow this
application for judicial review. This court therefore dismisses this
application for judicial review with no order as to costs.
Date: 09 November 2023
(SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN)
Judge
High Court of Malaya,
Shah Alam
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
BA-25-19-03/2022
Counsel:
For The Applicant: Kartini Yusoff
Tetuan Jimmy M.P. Ng & Associates
Advocates & Solicitors
No. 30-2, Jalan Temenggung 17/9,
43200 Bandar Mahkota Cheras,
Selangor.
jimmycheras@gmail.com
+6 03 9080 4973
For the Respondent: Ahmad Isyak Mohd Hassan
Ibu Pejabat Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri
Malaysia,
Jabatan Rayuan Khas,
Menara Hasil, Aras 16,
Persiaran Rimba Permai, Cyber 8,
63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor.
+6 03 8886 8575
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 43,243 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-22NCvC-175-04/2022 | PLAINTIF EKAR LEGA SDN BHD DEFENDAN CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD | Summary Judgment – Construction of document – Whether suitable for determination without the full trial of the action – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A and Order 33 rule 2.Sale and purchase agreement – Vacant possession – Water reticulation system – Contracts Act 1950, ss.47 and 56(1) and (2). | 09/11/2023 | YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=51575cd5-9e64-4ed7-98cb-482c9b516f60&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: BA-22NCvC-175-04/2022
ANTARA
EKAR LEGA SDN BHD
[No. Syarikat: 201001010165 (894795-X)] … PLAINTIF
DAN
CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD
[No. Syarikat: 198901005831 (183136-D)] … DEFENDAN
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The case for the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has failed to deliver
vacant possession as agreed under the terms of a sale and purchase
agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and is
thus entitled to damages. The Defendant, unsurprisingly, contends
otherwise.
[2] What is significant is the contention by the Plaintiff that it is entitled
to the reliefs sought without a plenary trial of the action. Predictably, the
Defendant takes the opposing view and argues that the matters or issues
raised in this action can only be resolved after a full trial.
09/11/2023 08:12:42
BA-22NCvC-175-04/2022 Kand. 27
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
[3] The Plaintiff has couched its Notice of Application pursuant to Order
14A and/or Order 33 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Plaintiff seeks
a determination of the following issues and/or questions, namely:
(a) In view of the Plaintiff Purchaser’s email dated 28 August, 2021
and the Defendant Vendor’s response emails dated 4
September, 2021 and 18 February, 2022, as well as the
Defence affirming that the Defendant is still in the process to
deliver the water Reticulation System, has the Defendant failed
to deliver vacant possession of the said Lot 5, phase 3A in
accordance to clauses 10.1 and 13.1 of the Sale and Purchase
Agreement dated 19 September, 2013; and
(b) If the above question is answered in the affirmative, whether the
Plaintiff is entitled for the liquidated damages pursuant to clause
13.2 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 19 September,
2013, or in the alternative, directions be given by this
Honourable Court for damages to be assessed, as prayed in
the Statement of Claim.
The Prevailing Issues
[4] The principal issues in this case are thus:
(a) whether the Plaintiff is correct in invoking Order 33 rule 2 of the
Rules of Court 2012 at this stage of proceedings; and
(b) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment pursuant
to Order 14A of the Rules Court 2012.
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
The Invocation of Order 33 rule 2
[5] Order 33 rule 2 provides as follows:
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.
[6] It is evident that a court is permitted to order any question or issue
arising in a cause or matter to be tried before, at or after the trial of the
cause of matter.
[7] In the matter before this Court, what the Plaintiff is seeking from the
Court is for it to order that the questions raised be tried before the trial.
The plaintiff is amply entitled to seek such an order. In this regard, the
answer to the first issue is in the affirmative.
The Application of Order 14A
[8] The issue relating to the application of Order 14A of the Rules of
Court 2012 requires more in-depth scrutiny.
[9] The relevant provisions in Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012
read as follows:
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
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.
(3) The Court shall not determine any question under this
Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being
heard on the question.
[10] As for the mandate in Order 14A rule 1(3) of the Rules of Court 2012,
I have afforded the parties the right to be heard.
[11] It is clear from the provision in Order 14A rule 1(1) of the Rules of
Court 2012 that a Court may construe the provisions or terms in any
document arising in any cause of matter. In the present application, this
would include the sale and purchase agreement and the correspondences
between the parties.
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[12] However, it is imperative that the exercise of the above discretionary
power is subject to the following superseding riders, that is, (a) the
construction of the documents concerned “is suitable for determination
without the full trial of the action” and “such determination will finally
determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein”. Both
these provisos are to be read conjunctively.
[13] The consequential and crucial issue for determination in this matter
before this Court is whether this Court is able to construe the terms and
provisions of the documents before it and arrive at a decision without the
need to call for witnesses to testify at the trial.
The Salient Facts and the Decision of This Court
[14] The undisputed facts were that the Plaintiff in this action had entered
into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Defendant as vendor and
the Plaintiff as purchaser of a lot of land, whereby, according to the
Plaintiff, it was agreed that under Clause 10, on Basic Infrastructure, the
parties have agreed at Sub-Clause 10.1 that:
“The Vendor shall at its own cost and expenses, construct or cause
to be constructed the Basic Infrastructure more particularly specified
in the Fourth Schedule hereto in accordance with the requirements
and standards of the relevant authorities.”.
The scopes of works are as set out in the Fourth Schedule.
[15] Pursuant to Clause 13 on Delivery of Vacant Possession, it has
been provided in Sub-Clauses 13.1 and 13.2 that:
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
“The Vendor shall deliver vacant possession of the Lot to the
Purchaser upon completion of the Basic Infrastructure provided in
The Fourth Schedule herein. The vacant possession of the Lot shall
be delivered to the Purchaser within thirty-six (36) months from the
date of this Agreement.”; and
“If the Vendor fails to deliver vacant possession of the Lot with the
time stipulated in Clause 13.1 hereof, the Vendor shall be liable to
pay to the-Purchaser liquidated damages calculated from the day to
day at the rate of ten per centum (10%) per annum of the purchase
price from the expiry of the time of vacant possession as in Clause
13.1 until the date the Purchaser is deem to have taken vacant
possession of the Lot.”
[16] The Fourth Schedule which set out the Basic Infrastructure to be
Provided for the Lot includes “Water reticulation mains to the vicinity of
the Lot.”.
[17] According to the Plaintiff, pursuant to Clauses 10.1, 13.1 and 13.2
of the said Sale & Purchase Agreement, the delivery of vacant possession
to the Plaintiff was upon completion of the basic infrastructure as provided
in the Fourth Schedule under the said Sale & Purchase Agreement. The
Plaintiff further underscored the point that the manner of delivery of vacant
possession amongst others included in the basic infrastructure and the
completion of water reticulation mains forms part of this basic
infrastructure.
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
[18] Henceforth, according to the Plaintiff, upon a reading of Clause 13.1,
the date for delivery of vacant possession should be on or before 19
September, 2016.
[19] The Defendant, via its Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession
dated 28 April 2017, had informed the Plaintiff that the basic infrastructure
provided in the Fourth Schedule of the said Sale & Purchase Agreement
had been completed, and the vacant possession of the said Lot were
ready to be delivered to the Plaintiff.
[20] It is also pertinent to point out that on or around 21 May, 2017, the
Plaintiff had fully paid the Purchase Price to the Defendant.
[21] Following the Plaintiff’s email dated 28 August, 2021 to the
Defendant questioning the permanent water supply for Phase 3A that was
not ready, the Defendant had by email dated 04 September, 2021 had
amongst others, informed that the modification and rectification works as
approved by AIR Selangor had tentatively been targeted to be completed
by the end of October 2021.
[22] Upon additional enquiries by the Plaintiff on the incomplete work and
readiness of the permanent water supply to Phase 3A, the Defendant had
again confirmed by email dated 18 February, 2022 on the continuous
delay, in which the Defendant’s contractor was still in the final stage of the
rectification works.
[23] Based on the above, it was submitted by the Plaintiff that this was a
straightforward case whereby this is a proper case for this Court to invoke
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Order 14A of the RC 2012 and that judgment may be entered in favour of
the Plaintiff under Order 14A of the RC 2012.
[24] This Court notes that the Plaintiff also cited section 47 of the
Contracts Act 1950. This provision deals with the issue of time and place
for performance. It provides as follows:
47 Time for performance of promise where no application is to be
made and no time is specified.
Where, by the contract, a promisor is to perform his promise, and
no time for performance is specified, the engagement must be
performed within a reasonable time.
Explanation - The question "what is a reasonable time" is in each
particular case a question of fact".
[25] Reference was also made to section 56(1) and (2) of the Contracts
Act 1950.
[26] Last but not least, the Plaintiff highlighted the fact that at the time of
the filing of these actions, there is still no permanent water supply
available to the said Lot.
[27] However, the Defendant urged this Court to not overlook Clauses
10.2 and 10.3 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
[28] These relevant clauses provide as follows:
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
10.2
The parties hereto hereby agree that the Basic Infrastructure shall
be deemed to be completed upon the practical completion of the
same as certified by the Vendor’s consultants.
10.3
On completion of the construction of the Basic Infrastructure
hereinbefore mentioned, the Vendor shall do everything possible
within its powers to have the Basic Infrastructure taken over and
maintained by the relevant Appropriate Authorities.
[29] In addition to the above two clauses, the Defendant also drew this
Court’s attention to Clause 13.3, which the Plaintiff has also omitted to
mention. Clause 13.3 reads as follows:
13.3
It is hereby agreed that upon expiry of fourteen (14) days from the
date of the notice from the Vendor requesting the Purchaser to take
possession of the Lot, whether or not the Purchaser has actually
entered into possession or occupation of the Lot, the Purchaser
shall be deemed to have taken delivery of vacant possession of the
Lot.
[30] Based on the above three clauses, it was thus the Defendant’s
contention that the water reticulation system had indeed been completed
pursuant to Clause 10.2, as certified by their consultant, and that
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
“completion” does not include handing over of the system to the
Authorities.
[31] It is trite that Order 14A is suitable despite the Court having to
examine and construe documents or agreements involved in the matter.
However, as noted earlier, this is subject to the overriding rider that the
Court must be able to reach a decision without having to call witnesses to
determine the true meaning or intention of the clauses.
[32] A reading of the clauses cited by the Plaintiff suggests that this may
be a proper case where Order 14A ought to be invoked. However, when
these clause are construed together with the other clauses relied on by
the Defendant, these clauses as a whole put a different complexion on the
matter.
[33] This Court is of the considered view that while the clauses cited and
relied on by the Defendant do not determinatively resolve the dispute one
way or another, they have nevertheless, raised questions which can only
be answered at a trial.
[34] This Court agrees that witnesses will have to be called and extrinsic
evidence will have to be adduced to establish the veracity of the
“defences” raised by the Defendant.
[35] The application in Enclosure 9 is dismissed with costs. The Plaintiff
to pay the defendant costs of RM5,000, subject to allocator.
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
Postscript
[36] The scope of the summary judgment procedure has widened
considerably. In addition to the general summary judgment procedure laid
down in Order 14 and the disposal of a case on questions of law or
construction under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, summary
judgment for specific claims such as accounts and inquiries, actions for
specific performance etc and summary proceedings for possession of
land are provided for in Order 43, Order 81 and Order 89 respectively.
Hence, the proposition that “trial, as a rule, must precede judgment”
(Symons & Co v Palmer’s Stores (1903) Ltd [1912] 1 KB 259, 266) is no
longer the “rule”. Be that as it may, summary judgment is not granted as
a matter of cause when these Orders are invoked.
[37] With the amendment of section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act
1964, section 68(1)(d) now provides that “where a High Court dismissed
any application for a summary judgment”, no appeal shall be brought to
the Court of Appeal. When one examines this provision and those in
section 68(1)(e) and (f), the rationale becomes obvious. A dismissal of an
application for summary judgment does not mean that the applicant has
failed in the action. The matter proceeds to trial. Likewise, when an
application to strike out any writ or pleading is dismissed or an application
to set aside a judgment in default is allowed, the matter proceeds to trial.
In each of the above situations, section 68(1)(d), (e) and (f) now state that
no appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal.
[38] This Court has been made to understand that the Plaintiff in the
instant case is appealing against this Court’s decision in dismissing the
Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. As explicated in the
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
preceding paragraph, and in line with the provisions in section 68(1)(d) of
the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, no appeal shall be brought to the Court
of Appeal.
[39] This Court has also been made to understand that the Plaintiff
intends to argue that section 68(1)(d) only applies to dismissal of summary
judgment applications made under Order 14. As this application is made
pursuant to Order 14A, the Plaintiff will accordingly argue that the
provision in section 68(1)(d) does not apply.
[40] If the reasoning that section 68(1)(d) is only meant to apply to
applications made under Order 14, then dismissal of applications for
summary judgment under Order 14A, Order 43, Order 81 and Order 89
are all subject to appeal.
[41] This Court is of the view that if indeed the intention of the Rules
Committee is to limit the application of section 68(1)(d) to dismissals of
any application for a summary judgment under Order 14, this would or
should have been made clear in the said sub-section 68(1)(d). In view of
the absence of the phrase “under Order 14” in the said sub-section
68(1)(d), summary judgment ought to be understood as to include all
summary judgment applications under the various procedural rules of the
Rules of Court 2012.
[42] It is nevertheless granted that in certain circumstances, a
determination of questions of law or construction of provisions in a statute
or clauses in a contract or document pursuant to Order 14A of the Rules
of Court 2012 may bring a matter to an end. In such a case the losing
party ought not be prohibited from bringing an appeal to the Court of
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
Appeal. The adoption of such an approach will correspond with the
rationale behind the introduction of sub-section 68(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the
Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
[43] As for the present case, the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Notice of
Application for summary judgment under Order 14A does not result in the
dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action. The dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Notice of
Application for summary judgment under Order 14A does not result in
judgment entered in favour of the Defendant. This Court is therefore of the
view that the present case falls squarely within objective envisaged or
intended by the introduction of the new paragraph (d) in sub-section 68(1)
of the of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Henceforth, no appeal shall
be brought to the Court of Appeal. However, that is a decision to be made
by the Court of Appeal.
Dated: 1 November, 2023
sgd
[CHOONG YEOW CHOY]
Judicial Commissioner
High Court of Malaya
Shah Alam
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
Counsel:
Fong Lip Jeen for the Plaintiff
(Messrs. Wong & Ting)
Deborah Lau for the Defendant
(Messrs. Khairuddin Ngiam & Tan)
S/N 1VxXUWSe106Yy0gsm1FvYA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 19,734 | Tika 2.6.0 |
KB-45A-12-03/2021 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH SURESH A/L RANJAN | Kes jenayah - pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya - OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa dipanggil membela diri - pendakwaan gagal membuktikan elemen pemilikan dadah berbahaya tersebut. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c3637e37-05af-4420-8769-91cfa9722812&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 10:07:46
KB-45A-12-03/2021 Kand. 84
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N N35jw68FIESHaZHPqXIoEg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
ma-45A—12-03/2021 Kand. 84
:9/11/2023 10:57:45
DI DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SUNGAI PETANI
DI DALAM NEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN
PERE ARAAN 4EuAvAH NO K 45A 242312021
FENDAKWA RAVA
LAWAN
SURESH AIL RANJAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
(an mm ku pendakwazn)
Pengenalan
1. Tenuduh Smash all Ranian (mm [swan dmadapkan an Mahkamah
alas penuduhan —
“Bahawa kamu‘ pada 16 4 202U]am1ebm kurang 7 SD ma\am‘ L11
sebuah bengkel membaikx kenderaan bera\amat dw La! 14194,
Pengkawan Lebai Man, Kampung Rap, ammo Sungal Felam, u.
dalam daerah Kuala Muda, m dalam Negen Kedah Dam! Aman,
lelah maapau mengedardadah bevbahaya vallu melhamphalemme
seberal 2375 1 gram Oleh yang demwkwan‘ Kamu Ie\ah maflakukan
Sam kesabhan d1 bawah seksyen 39E(1)(a) Akta Dadah
Berbahaya 1952 dan boreh mhukum d1 bawah seksyen 39E(2)
Akta yang sama ' [Ekswbxt E]
IN N351v-6aF|£sHazHP~1x1nEv
'NnL¢ sum umber MU .. wed I» may I... mm.“-y MW; mm. VI muus NM!
Kn: penaakwun
Publcal n
2 Benkul ketevangan yang dikemukakan men saksivsaksi
pendakwaan Pada 1642020, Inspeklar <3/20555 Mohammad
Famz hm Nawl, pengadu (SP8) menenma mabdumal aklwm
pengedaran dadah meh lelakr mma dw sebuah bengkel memnam
kenderaan (BBVIQKBD hemamal di Lol 14154‘ Pengkalan Lebal
Man, Kampung Raga, oaaoo Sungax Pelam
3 Eellau |e\ah mengalur nperasl dengan pasukan serbuannya yang
terdin darlpada 5 anggela pohs dan bevgerak ke Eengke\ tersebul
Dw EengKe\ «ersebm, SP8 dan pasukannya mengambvl (empat
masmgmasmg dan membual pemamanan selama Iebm kurang 5
rmmt Twada sebaring pergarakan keluar masuk Bengkel nu
4 Bengke\ nu berpagar Konkrit Imggv dam hanya mempunyal salu
plmu akses m bahagwan hadapan Pmm Mu jams pinlu zmk dan
pada masa kqadlan. pmlu Nu mxunm dengan rantai besl dan
mangga
5 spa lelah mengarahkan anggolinya memctung ranlax unluk
masuk perkarangan Eengke\ terssbul dan Aerus mengnaxa ke
sebuah kunlena dx fepl sebelah Kanan (Kumeni) Apabua SP8
membuka pinlu Komena tersebm‘ beliau manna: senrang lelakx
India, yang kemumannya dlcam sebigal on, duduk di sebuah
kemsl berhampuran sehuah meji. OKT Kehhalan t2rke1uL
m N351»6aF|£sHazHFqx1nEv
Wane sum lhlhhfl Mu ». um In new m. mV§\nIH|Y Wm nnumanl VI muus wvm
Frlnslp kn prlma lacie
23.
24
Tugas Mahkamah 111 akmr kes pendakwaan ualah untuk me1akukan
pemIa1an maxsma Ke atas kesemrlman kelerangan pendakwaan
nan memuluskan sama ada pendakwaan Ie1ah benaya
membuktlkan suazu kes puma lacie lerhadap Tenuduh seperlr
dipelumukkan di bawah seksysn 19011) Kanun Acara Jenayah
Da1am kes PP v Muhd Radz1 bin Abu Bakav 2006 1 cu 457 m
467 2005 s Mu 393 111400 2004 2 MLRA 547 2on5 1 AMR
L1, Mahkamah Persekuluan msnyarankan Iangkamangxah yang
perm maml-211 oleh hakml blcara 111 akhlr kes pendakvmn
(MohamadRadI11h1nYaakugv.PF 1991 3ML.I169di171 1991
3 cu 2137:, PP v Dale‘ Sen Anwar bm Ibramm (No 3 1999 2
MLJ 1 a163, Lou: Kow Chai a. Annrv. PP [2009 1 cu 734 at 752
2003 2 AMR 59 290: 1 cu 734, Balachandran v Pubhc
Prosecutor 2005 2 MLJ 901 aI315 2095 1 AMR 321 2005 1
cm 95 .9 Magendvan Muhan v PP 2011 1CLJ B05 di 524 2011
6 MLJ 1)
Elemen-elomon pertuduhan
25
m N351»6aF|£s>1azHPqx1nEv
«.1. sum lhlhhfl M“ be um In new m. mV§\nIH|Y mm 1..."... VI muus wvm
Elemen-elemen Permduhan Iemadap on adalah —
(1) Jenls dan berat dadah yang memadn ha‘ perkara Penuduhan
aaa1an dadah merbahaya seperll dnakrii di bawah ADB dan
dlnyalakan dalam Perluduhan xersebut,
11
my OKT memihm dadah berbahaya flan mempunyal pengelahuan
mengenaw mmken nu, nan
(m) OKT mengedar dadah berbahaya nu
Penilaim dam dlpnlln Mnhkamah
Elemen [en]: dman din bent dadah
26 Keleringin SP7 bahawa barang kss dadah adarah dadah
berbahaya ‘ems methamphetamine seberat seberat 2373 1 gvam
tmak lercabar
27 Bevpandukan penghaklman Augusflne Paul HMR (kehka mu)
dakam kss Ealachandran v PP (supra) @. Mahkamah ini
mensnma Keterangan SP7 pada Max zahlmya sebagai kelerangan
yang baleh dlpercayal Munusamy vengaaasaxamv PP 1537 1
MLJ 492, PP v Lam Sin 1991 3 MLJ 426 .1. Khoo H1 Chlang v
PP 1994 ZCLJ 151)
23 Mahkamah telah menexm kelerangan saksl-saksx pendakwaan
berkenaan penemuan dun pergemkan barang kes dadah dan
mendanam kelerangan psndakwaan herkenaan penemuan dan
pergerakan barang K95 dadah dengan jelas Ianpa sebarang
penmggaxan
m N351»6aF|£sHazHPqx1nEv
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
29.
30
31
Mahkamah Im berpuis hali bahawa rangkaian kexemgan
berkenaan barang kes dadah max (srpums flan barang Kes yang
mkemukakan dw Mahkamah aaaxan harang kes yang dlrampas men
SP5 da\am Kunlena Iersebm dan barany kes dadah yang dlanahsa
oren SP7
Memampneaamme msenaraukan sebagan dadah berbahaya \1a\am
Jadual Panama ADE
Dengan W elsmen Janis den bsral fladah terbukll
E/emen penyedmn dadah
32.
33
34
D1 bawah seksyen 3‘/1da)(xvI) ADB, ssseorang nu dlanggap
mengedar dadah seklranya dudapatl dw dalam mmknya ada so gram
a|au lebm dadah jams methamphetamine
Kelerangan pendakwasn berkenaan beral dadah
melhamphetamme yang mrampas adalah 23731 gram dan ml
memmbulkan langgapan scanumn pengedaran m hawah seksyen
37(da) ADE
Dengan ml‘ e\emsn pengedaran dadah tsrbuktx.
43
m N351»6aF|£sHazHPqx1nEv
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
Elemen mirikan uan pengelahuan dldnh
:5. Unluk elemen mu, Mankaman um berpandukan amaean Thomson .|
dawn kes hen Pean L n v P 19 MLJ 237 di 239,
Penghakvman tersebut telah dinuuk dan dlendos men Mahkaman
Persekuluan dalam kes-kes PP v Abdm Runman bin AM 20m 5
Q, Swew Yoke Keong v PF [2013 3 ML.) 630, Gnaasm Hozoun
Hassan v PP 2019] s MLJ 2§1 5 Chgrl we: Loon v PP and
anal a al 021 MLJ 660
as Dalaun kea PPV Denlsh Madhavan zone 2 MLJ <94, Abdul Azlz
hm Muhamad HMP member! pencerahan berkenaan elemen
Demillkan sepeni benkul m 201 »
“xx x: Inapbropnate (0 weak Mvbssesswonoi an amnle In alumna! naw as
axcmsrve posmuon Dna u mm m Punessvon or nail wn vosussvon.
nflhauqh on: bank! be in paxsessmn pumywnn anvlhevurmhals Ta saythnt
lhe pmaeuman al a mug case fans because Ihem ms been no omov ov
sxcmswe possasmn Vs am to convey me wrunsl Imllressxm mac n is only m
cases whave puinwon as anma'Y wnn one uavwn. —|hal Vs - xdntwe‘ —
mm a norm mu Vs oomme When We bamad nnax ,uuge sand ‘Th: mum
soughl (n negnlive me omu: cl excluxwe paxsessmn -, we an n am no
mean! no mom man mac me vesaonaenn swgm «o show mac he was nm
m Poisesimn m the mug: beanie he had no knowledge M mew existence
Ind nm We dmgs with! have been phusd u. no bags by some mharptrwn
nrvevmns
The ma alexduswny Veamres m the meamna cl bussessran‘ m mmvnm Vnw
as one at the enomenas necessary Io consmme Dossesslon As ram: 4 aao
.n L.eowNghes Lrm I/F‘sg[I95€] mu 2:;
u a oneu mm mm 'po:s2ssmn mun be exchlsme‘ nu. a
ammguuua Pcssesswon need no: be excluswe nu ma accused Two ur
am N351w6aF|2sHazHFqxIuEv “
-nu. sum rumhnv Mu o. um a may he anuauu cum unanvmnl o. nrwuns Wu
:7
sm Nasmcarlasuaznwqxiozg
"none sum rumhnv Mu o. om o «My me nugvuuly mm; dnaumnl o. mums ow
move persons may be m ‘amt ouseemon ov mum, meme. innuum
or Dummband The exchlslve elemenl Mvosuxsmnmeans (MI me
passage! or poqsessms have me vowev lo exchme Mhev persons lmm
enmymenl oi lhe properly
cusmay mcewnse may be sole av mm and n has an same meme.“ n1
excmamg omen me mam dlsimmmn belwsen custady
em oomeeaome man a custodian has not me Wweraldwsnbsal The
xuremem than ‘possesswan must be exclusive‘ ws often due to summon
or Ihe lac! no he moved wllh me evidence ny mm m we to be plvved n
I: essermal to keep (N5 dnslmwon dtafly m mm eeoecouy when
applymg pmompme
Thamwn J m cm Pecan Lean v worm Prusscularlisfifll MLJ 237, sum mm
‘palsessmrf for me numnses M cumwnal law mvowespossemommen —
wmch some omnonues mm tuskudy or ‘conlwf — and knuwbdg: ovme
nalure M me lfung paisuwd As to wuessmn use» he urea me iallwwmg
dafinmon on Stephen‘: mgemsm say, at p 304), In wmch the excmslve
alemunl menlmned by Tayml J appears
A mmeahle mm \s sem tu he m we poiwsslon oi: pavwn when he :s
so smAa1ed wflh verve-:1 «o n man he haitha pvwarta aemmn imoww
to ma sxduuun 07 en olhev persons‘ and when we ommmances are
such am he my be presumed to mend to do so no use ov nos:
onceme euememe neeoeamonsumm ooesemm iYQ5i1Sb|\S'IBd‘lHC‘UdllV§
lhe enemencovexcuuswe power!-:dul.(Mn vmatliaslzbhshadiu oomeeaon,
um axduiwa possessiun so much co. emhlslve pussexsinn "
Kelerangan SP8 adalah yang harang Kes dadah duumpai alas
lama: Kanlena tersebm dalam jarak kurang flan 3 kakw dan Iempat
duduk OKT Pida masa kejaman‘ OKT bevada seurang dln dalam
Knnlenatersebm Twada orang lam dalam Bengkellersebut. Kunu
pinm depan Bengkel (ersebm ls\ah mrampae dan poke( sebelah
kanan semar on
15
as Pada mesa yang sama Kelerangan pendakwaan menunjukkan —
0) ramax arang mempunym akses kepada Komena levsebul lni
lermasuk SP5 yang memmkl Kontena tersebul, semua
pekeqanya, spa nan panama Sugumaran‘
(in) kunci Konlena Wu amuarkan alas sebuah meja dawn Bengke\
I|u den adakalanya Kontena Vlu (Idak dlkunu‘ dan
Hana van-pasan kuncl Kunlena dalam penyiasalan SP9
39 5:25 «max membenkan gamharan yang Iengkap berksnaan
susunamr dan keadaan dalam Kunlena felsebul spa memben
kelerangan bahawa bavang kes dadah duumpax m Iempal yang
dnandakan “Y" dalam Eksxbxf Pu sedangkan OKTduduk dx Iempat
yang dllandaksn “x' d\ Eksxbll FIK Dan kedua gambar ml,
Mahkamah mu max dapal mengesahkan keterangan sva
berkenaan kedudukan narang kes dan tempal duduk on
40 SP8 yuga memben keterangan bahawa kolak kanas berwama
cukelat [Eksuhn PE]t1an bungkusan beg plasllk mam [Ekslbil P22]
dalam keadaanlelhuka dan om Ixfleh melmal kandungannya dan
Iemnéll duduknya da\am Kcnlena tersebul.
41 Penelman gambar Ekslbwl PSJ yang auanda 'v' unluk
menunjukkan penempatan barang Kss menumukkan barang kes
(evselmdung an nawakang speaks! fiada seharang gambar yang
menunjukkan kedudukan speaker dengan meya dw mana OKT
sedang duduk aamaaa serbuan
m N351»6aF|£sHazHPqxInEv '5
W. sum rumba! wm ». um a my m. MVQVMHIY Wm anumanl VI muws wvm
A2
43
45
46.
Fenelman gambar—gamhar keadaan di damn Konzena (erssbut
[Emma PBH — L] menumukkin ada pelbagal barang dmam
Komena mu can kesemuanya dalam Keadaan len.e\eraK
Da\am keadaan seaemman, Mahkamah ndak boleh menenma
kelerangan swa bahawa barang kes dadah yang dalam keadaan
lerbuka Li! temps! dnandakan “Y' dalam Ekslbfl P3.) buleh dwllhat
olah cm‘ can lsmpat duduknya yang dwlandakan *x* a. Exsma
P3K
Mahkamah mendanau gambar-gambar [Eksmut P3A— N] dan rajah
kasar nampae ke;aman [Ekswbri P26] nuak membanlu memberikan
gamharan yang lengkap dan menyelumh berkenaan «empac m
mana harang kes dadah duumpaw an :11 mana on bsrada
semasa (angkapan
Mahkamah mendapau kelsvangan pendakwaan berkenaan akses
den ketladaan apa—apa kecerangan lam unluk mengman OKT
dengan barang kes dadah kecuau kehadlrannya dalam Konlsna
hevsebutdan iaraknya dengan zempax a: mans barang kes duumpax
memmbulkan keraguan munasabah sama ada e\emen pemlllkan
cemukn (erhadap on
Ketevangan pendakwaan unluk elemen inl lidak memadal unluk
menuniukkan OKT “was so snualed lhal he can deal mm the (mug
as I! u belonged ta hrm“ man ‘that he had the mention oldeahng
with wt as If wt bemngsd to turn should he see any occasxcn to da 3:‘
(Chan Pean Leon (514113))
17
m N351»6aF|£sHazHFqx1aEv
Wane sum runny Mu ». um In new m. mV§\nIH|Y Wm nnumanl VI arwuus wvm
47 Alas aflasan W, Mahkamah W menaapau elemen permhkan Iwdak
terbukll terhadap OKT
Pnrumlp
4a Mahkamah lelah membuat penflawan maksma ke atas kelerangan
pendakwaan nan krembum saksxrsaksx pendakwaan dan
mendapan Dendakwaan gagal membwmkan elemen pemmkan
Penuduhan lersebut.
49 Dengan mu Mahkamah mendapau pendakwaan Ie\ah gage]
membuknkan sualu kes puma vane ke alas OKT sebagawmana
dupsnmmkkan di bawah seksyen 150(1) Kanun Talacava Jenayah
Kenutusan
so on dflepiskan dan umebaskan dan Penuduhan Iersebui tanpa
mpanggn membela din
Bertankh 7 November
Narkunavalhy Sund esun
Fesurumaya Kehakxman
Mahkamah Tmggw Malaya an Sungaw Petam
Bag: plhak Pondakwnn
Puan Nahlla Huda mm. Muhammad Naxlm
Pe1aba| Penasman L|ndang—Undang Negen Kedah
m N35msaF|£sHazHP~1x1nEv 19
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm
Eagl plhlk Fombolnn
En Rarmlsmgh Sandhu
Texuan Ranm Smgh Sandhu 5 Cu
e7, Ja|an1slani,T:|man Islam‘ aoaoo Inch Perak.
m N35m6aF|£sHazHFqx1nEv
Wale sum rumhnv wm ». um In mm m. .m.u-y mm; unaumnl «. muns Wm
19
5 Nada apa-apa bavang salah duumpaw semasa pemenksaan fiZIka\
ke alas on. Walau baganmanapun‘ spa meruumpax sehamng
anak kunci [Eksxbxt PI 15] da\am pokel ssbelah kanan seluar on
7 SP6 (Blah membuat pernenksaan Ke alas Komena lersebut da\am
kehadlvan oxr dan meruumpax barang-bivang benkut alas Vania!
Konleni (eraebul —
up salu kolak berwima oakelal [Ekslhn P8] yang mengandungx 3
bungkusan plaslik bemms “Guanymwang“ [Eks\b\trEks|bn P19
- P21] yang masmgmasmg mengandungl salu bungkusin
plasllkMsmar[Eksibxl-Eks\b\(P19A — P21A] berisl serbuk dan
ke|u\an ‘emit! msyaki dadah syabu [Ekslbm-Ekswbn P190 —
F210],
(u) satu bungkusan beg masnk hnam [Eksuhil P22] yang
mengandungi 4 bungkusan p\asl|k Iusmar [Eksxbil P22A »
P22D] new serbuk dam kelman ,emm dwsyaki dadah syabu
[EksI n P22F].
(m) satu a\a| pembungkus pmsnk [Eksmu P121‘
cw) salu bungkusan pkasuk mengandungi pakal-paket p\as|Ik
Iutsmar kosang [Ekmbil P13]. clan
(V) satu a\a| pemmbang mgnal [Ekslbn P14]
m N351»6aF|£sHazHPqx1nEv
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
a swa member! kelerangan hahawa —
0) keduadua kotak berwama eokevac dan beg plasnk Mam
da\am keadaan Ierbuka:
(in) kesemua harang kes dalam keadasn Ierdedah dan mudah
mums: dam tempal duduk OKT‘ man
an) jarak barang kes kurang nan 3 kaki dari lempat duduk on
9 spa membuat tangkapan dan merampas kesemua barang kes
Eeliau Ievus mengeluarkan berang lmngkar [Eksmu P23] kepada
OKT Kemudlan, on man kesemua barang kes yang dlvampas
dibawa ke um Fqahat Fulis Daerah um; Kuala Muda Du IPD
Kuala Muda, SP8 |eVah membual Landaan pada kesemua barang
kes, kecuan ranlai besl yang dipumng, flan menimbang barang Kes
dadah dalam kehadvan ow
to Fade hen yang sama. jam 11 50 malam, ssa te\ah menyerahkan
om, Kesemua barang kes dan dokumen berkmfan kepada
lnspeklor G/24569 Surila bum Annual. peqawax penylasat (SP9)
Bmang sewh barang kes [Ekswblt P25] Ie\ah dllandalangam aleh
kedua pegawax berkenaan
11 SP9 member! ketersngan bahawa —
(it bellau Isiah msmhuat \andairv‘ menanaacangam dan
mmetakkan Iankh pada seliap barang Kes kecuah raman yang
dvpumng‘
m N351»6aF|£sHazHPqx1nEv
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
(H) pads 17.4 2020 ‘am 11 on pay! beliau telah mengarahkan
D/Kpl 149151 Yusn n Vusof jurugambar qspn msngambll
gamhar barang kes sebelum dan sslspas dusnng,
mu) Eksibn-Eksmn P19 - P22‘ P19/1 — P21A, P22 dan P22A -
P22D (elah mmasukkan dawn suafu kolak bertanda ES
[Exsmn P15] yang mseal dengan meleral PDRM 579 dan
duslmpan selaman
(xv) pada jam 5 no peeang han yang sami. behau Ielah psrgw ke
Bengkel cersan-A bersama SP1 dan SP8 unmk human
slasalan dan rakaman gambartempat ke]ad\an, dan
1v) pada we 4 2020 yam 11 13 pagx‘ bellau (elah serahkan Eksmu
P15 kepada Encwk Vatindra an Manmumu (SP7) :1: Janacan
Knma Malaysxa Cawangan Kedah yang celah mengemarkan
resil vasmi dengan nombor makmal 2D—FR—K-01793 [Eksibn
P17].
12 Hasll analnsa SP7 ke atas Exsvmz-Eksmix P19A - P21A nan P22A —
P22D dmyalakan dalam Iaporan kmua bellau benankh 23 7 2020
[Eksibit P131 aan menuruukkan Ianya mengandungx —
m N351»6aFI£sHazHPqx1nEv
Wale sum lhlhhfl Mu be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
Exsmm Bsral belsm Hasll anslisa
kandungan
P19A 959 5 gram 742 1 gram memampnenanune
PZOA 992 5 gram 745 3 gram memamfiexamina
P2TA 997 7 gran.T vne‘
P22A—D 939 1 gram 145 5 gram msmamphecamme
13 Low Char Eak (SP3) member? kmerangan bellau telah menyewa
tapak Eengkel Vlu kepida Supramanlam all Krflarldai (SP4) SP4
memberi kaemngan bshau berkongsl tapak Eengke\ nu dengan
Loganaman all Kumaraguru (suns) spa, yang meruaxankan ksna—
kena konlrak, menggunakan lapak Bengkm nu umuk menym-pan
;emera rouerdan Vormya sedangkan sps menjalankan pemiagaan
baiki Ion dan karela dx tapak yang sama
14 SP4 msngesahkan —
(1) Kancena (ersebu([Eks\bItF3G]at1alah nmoe SP5.
(up t1Ia,SF§ dan mungkm OKTmasmg-mismg msmegang kuncw
kepada mangga pmlu masuk bengkel‘
(M) SP5 msmpunyal 3 - 4 orang pekeqa‘
(M on membual kena-Keri: repau mesin dx lapak Bengkel.
(v) Farlmban an Nadsreuan (SP5) .uga menggunakan Iapik
Bengke\ nu Imluk mpaxr Inn.
m N351w6aF|£sHazHPqx1nEv
Wale sum rumhnv wm ». um law may m. .m.u-y mm unaumnl «. muus mm
15
15
17
m N351»6aF|£sHazHPqx1nEv
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
qw) dalam perkarangan Bengke\ nu berdekazan dengan Konlens
tevsehul ada sualu kuxl yang dmruskan u\eh spa Gan
panama Sugumaran: dan
(vu) SP5 «swan pasang CCTV av Eengkel Ietsebm
Pada malam xelaman, spa berada an Tamung Maltm Kerana
membam lnri roaak SP5 member: kelerangan bahawa kunci
Kontena Ru bnasanya dflehkkan d1 alas me]: dihlm Bengkel
Iersebul dan semua orang \ermasuk spa, pekerja-peksrjs sps,
Sugumavan darn OKT ada akses kspada kuncx Kantena lersebul
Ada ka\a Kanlsna Ilu Udak mkunc: Iangslmg
SP5 mengesahkan on wax menympan spa-spa peralatarmya
dalam Kunzena Iersebul dan ccw yang dlpasangnya an Bengkel
Iersebul lelah Lama rosak Dla leVah dflangkap pnlus untuk Iuwan
penyxasatan
spa memben kelerangan dva rakan kongsl SP5 (slap: lldak
memegang kunu Eengke\ tersebul Pads malsm xqaman, ma telah
mensnma panggnan telefon dan SP5 untuk pevgw ke Eengkel
karsebul Karena plnlu Eengkel tevbuka Semasa sps pergl ke
Bengkel, ma dapalr ada pmak polis dan msnaka mak
membenarkannvi masuk perkarsngan Eengkel mu Eeberapz nan
kemudlan, ma jugs lelah dllangkap pains untuk luwan penylasalan
Hujahan di akhir ke: ptndakwlan
Huiahan pnndakwnn
1a Pendakwaan mangnuyankan meveka Ie\ah beniya membukhkan
suam kes Dnma tame. Pendakwaan memyuk Mahkamah kepada
ketevangan SP7 yang le\ah menganalpasn bahawa EksAbI\-Eksibxl
PISA - F21A dan PZZA — PZZD mengandungi dadah bemahsya
yams melhamphetamme seven: 2, 373.1 gram
19. Pendakwaan berhuyah —
(.) ramawan keterangan bemubung barang kes dadah nan
menuuk Mahkamah kepada keierangan spa, spa dan SP7,
til) pida setxap masa yang malenak harang kes dadah Iersebul
da\am kawaxan, pemerhauan dan/alau slmpanan selamat
sakswsaksl mm: ""1
(m) keugamga saka: ml (elah mengenalpash barang kes dadah
bemasarkan Iarmaan maamgmuasung, dan
my uaan kemguan bahawa barang kes yang dxkemukakan ay
Mahkamah untuk msmbukllkan perluduhan Ierhadap oxr
adalah barang kes yang sama yang dirampas men spa dan
Kontena dalam bengke\ Iersebul uan yang dwanallsa meh sw
m N351v»6aFI£sHazHFqxInEv
way. sum tummy wm ». um In my m. augmuly Wm a.a.n... VI muws rmm
20 Unluk s\amen psmmkan dan kawalan Sena pengelahuan,
psndakwaan berganlurlg kepada kelerangan SP5 dan SP5 mu —
m cm dllangkap dakam Kanlena .1. maria barang kes dadah
dljumpal dan llada crang lam dalam Konlena mahupun
EengKe\ (ersebul,
tn) jarak di nmara DKT (lands “V“ pada Ekslbll F3K| dan barang
kes dadah (canua “x" pads Evsxbnt P3J) kulang dan 3 kakv:
( p kalak kenas berwama cokelil [Ekswbn a1, 3 bungkusan plas1|k
berlulis 'Guanyinwang' [Eksrb\|—Eks:bI| P19 — P21] din
bungkusan beg plasmx mam [Eismw P22] dmam keadaan
esmuka dan bmeh kandungannya ‘alas kehhalan, dan
(w) kunci mangga pmlu depan Bengkel tersebul uwmpa. dalam
puke! sebe\ah kanan seluar on
21 Pendakwaan nemujan mnggapan stalukari pengedaran dw bawah
seksyen 37(da) Ana Dadah Berbahaya (ADE) lelpakal dalam kes
W
Nujxhln on
22 on bemujah pendakwaan lelah gags! memhuktxkan sualu kes
pmna facle kerana —
(.) fangkapan SP5 dan svs menuruukkan marska berkan
dengan barang kes dadah yang duumpav Gan kelerangan
IN N351»6aFI£sHazHFqx1nEv 9
Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm
mereka hams anew secara lerpennci kevana ketersngan
msreka bemanggah dan mak msaxong oleh bukn Vain‘
(n) Ierdapal Dercanggahan dalam kelerangan pendakwaan sama
ada rantax beau an plnlu depan |e\ah dwpcloflg‘
(nu) cemapammau mang yang mempunyai aksss kepada Kantena
di mane narang kes dqumpax dan juga kuncv Knnlena tersebul
amnggarxan dx alas mega Bengkel lersebut
(IV) mama seharang vampasan unmk kunu Kanlsna;
(v) ads kesan umpllan paua pm kaca Konlena yang
mencadangkan spa telah menggunakan kekerasan nntuk
memasukkan Kamena tersebut dan W bercanggah dengan
keterangan bellau bahawi pinlu Kersebul (Idak mkuncl pada
mass semuam
(w) kehamran SP6 dl cempan kejaman selepas serbuan pom.
mencadangkan kemungkman barang kes dadah mmx SP5
alau SP6 dan perkira inl lidak mslasat nleh spa, dan
M) percakapan an antara sws dan Vuayan a/I Riman‘ adlk on
[ELGXDK VDDQEE] hdak dwsxasal o\eh SP9
m N351»6aF|£sHazHPqx1aEv 1“
Wale sum runny Mu a. um In new m. augmuly mm a.m... VI muus wvm
| 2,514 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-21NCvC-116-07/2021 | PLAINTIF R MEYYANATHAN A/L RETNASAMY DEFENDAN Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) | Costs of RM45,000 which this Court deems reasonable is to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Defendant could have avoided these legal proceedings if it had engaged with the Plaintiff prior to this suit. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2e69824e-8d85-494c-820b-5c2b2018d0e6&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 16:19:13
WA-21NCvC-116-07/2021 Kand. 66
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N ToJpLoWNTEmCC1wrIBjQ5g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA—21NCvC—11S—07/2021 Kand. as
as/mznza 15:19-13
nu me man coun mun AI KUALA LIJMFLIR
cML use Mo- WA—2INCvC~1I6-fl7I2fl2I
BETWEEN
R MEYVANATHAN AIL REYNASAMV
INRII: M0,: s2n12s-1o.5a951 PLAINTIFF
AND
DEWAN EANDARAYA KUALA LUMPUR DEFENDANT
|mroducllm
[11 The maunxm a 71—yezrnLd owner zfllhe land Geran M62, mu Na
mm Mulum Pelalmg‘ Damn Kuala Lumpur. vwlaysh Persskuluan
Kua\a Lumpur that measured 11547 sq lee| mmaletl lms actmn agzlrst
Ihe De1endznHnr|r2spass and encmachmem There Is a monsoon dram
on ms Wand man the P\a\nuW had damned me Defendam oonslmcled
wulnoul ms psrmlssaon Io enlerand build ms land That had wanted ms
wean: ngms Ia enjoy ms land‘ as 4: is now smauer than what ne ma
pumhasefl n lav The Plamhfl had repeatedly requaslad Ina oamm.-mu
1
x“ ‘ sm n>1nLnwNYEmcc1wv\a;u5n
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
move me swmauna huwl| on ms wood The Davandanw nae fawwad wo resolve
wna Dmbwem The s|mw:mre ma: nad oncmacnod upon his land and
oonwwnuous wresnsss onto me Pwawmiwrs land «or wne nwawnwsnanoe and
nnpwvemenw works on me monsoon drawn nao resuwwoo wn loss and
damages vmwch the Pizwrwml nad suvwereo The Flawrmfl pwaadad maw me
Dewwendanw had laken pan ow wno w=wawnwnw-s wand war as purpose and use
wwmoul compensawwon wo wne Pwainaww which wanwamdunw wo illsgaw
dennvanon onne Plawnmrs wopeny.
[21 The Pwawnwwrw prayad for ma Courfs docwawawwon wnaw wna Defendam
had wrespasseo onoo rwws land ano wnaw (here naa oaen enooauwmonw unwo
nws wand wn Ihelarrnaflhe monsoon drawn The Plawrwwlflscugrww a mandatnry
wnwuncnon |o order ma Defendant wo remave ma stmcmre at wna monsoon
dam wrorn ms wand wwwnwn louneen days ow me one ow wnws courrs order
omanmae wna Pwawnwm snugm luv 01: com |D Dampew ma Dewandanw Io
pwncnose me pan ms land wakevw wor who sawo swnwcwure 0! mo monsoon
dwawn aw (he prevailing markel one no Pwawnou aka aowwgnw damages «or
savavance was: and wnwunaus awwacwwon on ms land. wnwcn lhws Court deems
naaaonaowo
[:1 The Dawandanw danwau wnaw w| nad Imspassad on wna PIIIn|wNs wand
and wnaw wna slruciure ow ma nuxwsoun drawn on ma land u now a wonn ow
encroachment on me wvwainmn wand ma Dlflndinl pweadeo rumficalicn
as ww zones on us Pwer wo nwawnwawn, wnanaae. buwld and urmrova monsoon
drawrws wn me Federaw Tomwory cl Kuala Lumpur. wrwdudmg wno P|awn|m‘s
wand
am YownlwmNw'EmccwwrwEwD5n
“None sanaw ...n.mwww a. U... a may w... nflflwnuwwly mwnwa dnunvwml VI arwuwwa v-mxw
canalnly nu| ms Pmnufl consmonno ms lac! (hm mo smuiovy dunes or
me Dehndanl mcmde ms mzmlenznca and Imvmvmp nldrams mcludmg
mess on me P\amm!‘s wand and bordenng nu‘ n wuuld be unaooemaols ta
auow them to convenuenuy ousovm/Moo lhe risnonsnbvlfly over we
[20] so‘ \/so on me abave facts. Ims Cowl finds that «no monsoon
on-n located In «no P\a|nM's wand us me Deaenoanrs. I: mamsnao nn|
whether nnao osnveo from s nalursl susam, me unshaken fact namamoo
|ha| ma‘ is now on me Pnammrs xsno Is a concrete manmade swzmure
wmon I: ma monsoon drawn under me purview and nmsmsmon o« me
bemoan: on a ba\am>e olnmbabmhes, this Coun mnnamnos |ha|mere
was encmachmenl on me Flamws Iano - to ms measuremem M24 14
3/9 fuel Aoomonauy. In have oorsumonso ms monsoon dram, Itespass by
me Dehndam unto ms wuamma Iano nao uocasmnsd
[251 ms com wall no| addmss ms saaosa ooonaary Ihal ansnns Ina
wammrs xano due no ms ma Winn buliusl ms pumon man ms monsoon
om. lock up av (ha P!aIn|M's Isno. In any evlnl. «ms was nox s weaud
newsnos ov ms nsvsnoanu ms Cowl «nos mm m was malevanl to ma
P\a\nml's claim against me Dsvsnoann. M maltered not Much mnsv uany
nao anecnao the F-Iaunners evuoymsnc av land. This case was to aflludicame
whether ms Defendanl had Indeed enomached upon me Pia-nms land
and ivso‘ me redress uequnso in restflve mo oroaon
oslanu oi Itstlflcatlan
[251 As me Vocal aullmnty of Kua\a Lumpur (s2 Local (‘xwemmenl Am
I976). «he Dsvsnoam nao Dretmsed all Its aclmns penammg to ms
monsoon dram on/nomenng me Puaunmrs Isno wnn memos Io ms
:1
sm rn1nLmNNvErncc1wnEm5n
«ms. s.nn lunhnrwm s. met! a mm s. snnnnn mum: dnuamnl VI mum om
soaxumry powers Imderme S|raeL Drainage and Emtdmg Am 1974 (son)
The specific prvwsmns are :53 and :54 that rasDac|rw\y prumde
‘Local amhoriryto nparlandalror andmiydlscamlnue surface
mu mu-m water amns, an
53(1) The locaraulhonfy snsllmamzam and keep in 799807 and‘
as It sees m, enlarge. 6/let‘ arch over or ulherwrse rmprwe a//
or any 0/ me sunace and slorm male! «trams Duh/ans, gutters
and walorcoursss under me canlml 9/ [ha /ncal authority and
may drsconlmue‘ was up or deslmysuclv olmsm as yr deems
useless or unnecessary:
Provided ms: the local aumamy mu mm snlsrmg any
myara prop-ny la: ms purpose olcanymg out ny work under
this aubsaclran, gn/s raaxonabls malice In mnng m that behalf,
-nu sn./I In currymn out sucn work: do I: mus dlmlgl as
mly be and mu mekl mu compansanan run any name
dang
Not to own nulunco
(2; The dtscanltnuance, c/osmg up or desmlmon of any of men.
snsn be done as nana (79312 a rlursanca
(2; I/by reason Ihereolor ofany such Bllevabcn as hevemnefore
mentioned any person IS deprived af the /awful use :2! any
surface and smm. water drams. culven, guns: or water
course. Ihe ma: authomy snau wun due umganca prawds
some ulnar as eileciual as the one av wmcn he rs so asp:/ved.
:1
sm rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wn\E;u5n
«mm. Snr1I\nauhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmnnu-y -mm: dnuamnl VI nF\uNa Wm!
ctunsrnq ma ompryrng smile: and slwm mm dnins -re
54m The local authority sna/r cause me survace and 510ml water
dram, culvirls, quflars and walmmwses under we control
0/ me local aumonry to be so constructed. maintained and
kept as not In be a nmsance or tnjunous to health and to be
proper/y mama cleansed and emptred and, /or me purpose
olfluslung, cleansing andemplymglhe same, nmayeonsrrucz
and New, emner above or undsrpmund, such rssenms,
slmcex and nine! works as are nscessary.
Pmvfdad mar me meal authority shall, balors snterrng any
prlvaleprapony for ma purpose ofcarrymg nu! any work under
znn smsecnan, gnva reasonable name In wvllmg In that am",
and man In cermng out man Wm do 55 um. damage .. may
a. ma mu mm mu ccmponsulforv Io: lny «am. don-
{2; The local lurhomy may, wvm me suncnan in we sure
Aumomy, came all ov any of such swfscs and storm
water draws, culverts. gutters and wavswoursas to
commumci1s with and be emphsd «nm the sea or olner
m p/aw, ar may cause me refuse from me sanna m be
canveyed by a proper chanrvsl to me most corvvsrvnnl
sne fa: rls aeposn, and may sell at ovnemse dispose or
me sammusa for any agricultural Name! gurpnses as
are deemed sxpedrent so me: 1: shall no: bemme a
nuisance.‘
u
sm rn1nLmNNrEnucc1wu\E;D5n
«mm. smuw nmhnrwm .. U... w may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
[271 we facls vn me me o: Azinh on him: Abidin A. on v uuo
aondar Kum Lumpur [1999] 5 MLJ ans whrch me Defendant had
referred In, are siarkly m comrasl wnn those here In ma case me
defendant had produced notice wnion had inlurmad me plainnfl
compnenenswely me Imposed nons mac wete earned om together walh
me Vaw. There were also meelmszs wnue me [oh cameo out by me
Defendant was exnlamed and embolaled pnor lo the execumn mereoi
Nouce (here were reasonably given There were none here
[231 We law max me Delendam rehed on — ssa spa requires me
uoaenaanno lssue reasonahle nonoe la me P\a|nIM wore me enuy nnln
his ‘and lor me pumosos cl any walk The Delendanl suhmmed ma| mo
encmonmenn cl me monsoon drain unla me Plainlxlfs land could orfly oe
cnnsmamd «reasons; :1 n wls an unnmmauu lnlrusmn The Dsfandam
Dramvxed mew army maul band on men statutory my and subvrulwd
max (he crann «or nmpm. mun can.
[29] Tm: coun agrass won me Plalnmfs subrmsswuns mat sue (or any
other lugmahon and rsauialucm lnr man menu) Carmel ovunoo me nghls
cl nne Plaumfl guaranteed by our Feaenax 0or$u|u\Ion In |ms Instant the
‘aw omvmos ma: reasonable nmice mus1 be gwen to Vandnwnals balms
mu execunon onns Devenoanrs flalutmy amass There was no ewaence
many nolme m relation to me Devenaanrs stahflery dunes over monsoon
dmm.
[so] nwz maimed he had vnsnsd ma monsoon dram on me Flamnm
land once a yen mm 2012 In 2017 much was sccardvng Io me suonoara
nperalmg pmcedur: (SDP) nllhe Deflenflam Helounfl man and found mm
u
so m.n.mnr:nocn.na.usn
«mm. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e med u may n. nnnnnn -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
all won. mnouomng we“ and in mm Thaw were also no oomplam|s m
namions memo. Thareefler. «nun zone on»-mos, mo Dr.v1andanI's sop
requneo rnonixonno onne monsoon drains wee yeam
[31] As to mavnlenanoe walk, DW2 tesnfied that «mm 2012 tn 2m7 no
did nu| oany run any on mo monsoon drain m ma Plannnrs wand The
axowananon gwsn was than me Defendant no no! csny om anm-an
mamlenanee work but only when Droblsms arose wnen mere were
ubslades la lhe walerflow or :1 me swdwmus 0! me orans mflapsed or
here were dwsmrbanues uv ob51ruz:nnns to me water flow and «no main
monsoon dram. However, DW2 wsufisd that mamlenance work on me
mam monsoon dram on the Plsxnmfs Iana nook Diane m zen
[:21 Parlanrwm mo en|ry mlo mo P\a|nuIl'5 land to the purposes oi
amyamancn‘ mm, mamoring and mimlennnca, nwz sxulamed Ina! no
nmme: were addrassad to Ina s-Iammv as the Datonuam nau non entered
arm: the Flainlflfs wand lnsiaad. no clannao to have vitflod o: oe-an wnn
mu omur nun who monsoon drain max was nu! Iacnlad on me Plalnmfs
Iano. DW2 oemoo man the Defendant had mnn ur oonsrnmao the
monsoon drain He was unsure wnumor any Dsvmissxon or -squosx was
Issued (0 me P\axnMf in relanon (0 any works oonauaeo nmwanom me
years
[331 It \s we Dsrwexmg mac mo Dezronoanc oonxenoao no mamlenanoe
sno suwollanoa was oonouaao on Ihe monsoon dram lhal had
enuoacneo mo F-naunwrs land men at aH malenal Imles they look me
pus on tha| may were empowered stalutonlylu mamtam mo dram am: all
drums in mo Fooorax Tsmlnry cl Kua\a Lumnur Incmdmg the monsoon
dram m me Halnlfls land <1 was Imwessed «no: me monsoon drum
1:
am ro1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;D5n
«wn. s.nn lunhnrwm .. med o my o. MWHIVVIY mum: flnuamnl VI mum vwm
Vacated m nno Plimhfll wane and bordmna ils plnmlltn were wuaal‘
smear and neoessnly (or pubhu mlevest Vs|, ma Delsndanl clumed mm n
ma rm camed out any summanaa or mamlenanoe on me paninn uflhe
rnansoon dram mm was located on ma mainmors and lo amnn us damal
man wt had enlaed lhe Plammrs wana.
[341 on a balance at nmbabi|mes_ Hus Conn 22 unable tn aouepl the
Defsndanfs eumennon. The Defendanfs lefler of 19 2 man that
responded (0 me Pwnbfl confirmed Ihal the mm: were married oul an the
Vumlwon ullhe morsonn dmm .
-Adam. tlrmak/umkan banawa musk Jabalsn rm memang Dons:
sadang melamnaxan kofja-K9!/5 penyetsnggoran Lonykafla Yen!
Ja/an yang sudta ads .1; Makes: yang mmuksudkan men prhak man
a. dnlum sum sapem‘ m an:
Kuql-knqa pinyifunggarlan yang dr/lksamakan ks aras Vongkang
some aua mcmmn karia Dlmbsikirv yum dun Piflyflenwarlan
am umuk memashkun Semen Air Ierubul beflungy ssbelknya aan
Iidsk manghfndar ssbaranq ks/arvcaran psrgerakarr air nu;an dari
kawasan fadahan di Voksxi barksnain. Tfmiakul mr ad:/an ss/avas
aengan (W95! -/sbatan uan prhak Dewan Bandarayn Kua/a Lumpw
yang yang drperunlukalv m dalam ma Jalan, PAM darn eangunan
1974 urmlk memsstfkan Salursn Arr .1; eras Rasab Langkang,
R9:-ah Kara/sen atau Tsnah Persendinan belungst sebatknya untuk
meflaelak senarang bencane Blau Kssuman penduuuk m Kawasan
tel/mat "
15
am rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;D5n
«mm. san-1 ...n.mn .. U... a may he nflmnlflly mum: flnunmnl VI mum Wm!
[:51 The Defendant nnus aoknawnoageo ono oonnnnou 1|-5 presence on
me Plannws nana For Ina mannnaoa nnnmno nnnoning monsoon dram
Iocarea on me FIiIrIM|’s Iano. men oennineny nnosn oa entry upon me
Pnannnnrs Iand Lnkewnse, for me Inspewun and sunvannnance and mosn
oennannIy mannnonanm and Impmvemenf work on me monsoon dram as In
was won Iocansa wimin Ina Pnannnnrrs Iano — n the mmsurEmenII112.411
sq teen Ins Plinmnl had non recsnved any noasonanne nonnoa and nao
oumplamed lhal he noa seen the I)e4enaann's canlraclorslagenls on ms
nand aflendlng no me monsoon dram In me ansence av reasonaone name
no me I=IannIn«. Ims Cmm finds man mo defence on nusnmnaauon could nut
be susnannea.
Ian] Thns Courl IS bound oy Ina dacnsmn al Ina Federal Cnurl In r-nag.
nIa.IonaI lcrhad v sun/I Lon-nn Dwtlapmont Sdn Bhd [zone] I
MLRA 255 Inmynauan prapeny rngnns undar Amcle Ia oI our raaaran
Con£mIu|IorI ware recognnxed and nnan no Iaw was no he conslmed no annow
any party lo enlera Demon's Iana wllhoul wnlanl In Hm can‘ son; was
onear and unammguous The requIrumerIl on ronsonnmo nonnoe IS
mandatory before army Into nne owners Iano IS made no carry out any
snanunary aunnas Olherwisa, In IS Iresvass
[371 Respeclfully, Ina exoerp| of me Federal courts deaslon at ozss Is
bormwed and svnhad none
‘Put symply. trespass onno land 75 Ina unIawnuI mm: and Immedrata
Inlaflelsllce mm me possessnon alland Much Is In the possesslon
ofsmmavnsrson, orwmch armllvsrpsrsants ermlledta possessmn
A Lann max/m Is rreauennly emnnma lo define the extent ouana
)7
sm rnInLmNNI'EmccnwnIEIu5n
“Nana s.n.n mnmrwnnn o. UIQG o my me nnnnnn-y -mm: dnuamnl VI .rIuNa v-man
cur us st! so/um, sfus ssrusque adcoelum 9! admfaIo.r'— he mo
owns the rano, owns 1: nu ma way In nsmn and to new This
mnums rs onen rsrenoa to In no abblwrated form as ad coelum
yrmctple In modem law, this prmcrple IS sull accepted In umnea
him. and nghls are drvidsd mm space ngms and subsuvfacs ngms
be/aw.“
[331 Due pnnuples of oarmnumg trespass and enuoacnrnenz are weu
{mated .n ma daemon of «no Federal coun m Bzyingan sspm. Sin
and v Johann Pong-mn Dun Sllirln mgon Solnngor L on (20221
2 nnwu rmpsss to Lana -s acuoname pet se and connnumg Irespass
wnn Vast as lung as me monsoon drain remams In me Fla|nnf1's\anfl and n
wn: omy arms ones we rmmsoun own 15 remm/ad
[:49] The Izw .n 550(1) sna arm/med mat man may request the Stale
Anmomy to aoqwv me Plsmmfs \and is me monsoon dvann ns nooam
(heuam u now be me women aflucted or (he on-one Ilnd am for reasons
only known |n mam. am not do so
moan:/mI_M.un.mu.$.!
[401 In addresznnglhe P\aIn(iVl‘s prayevfwanarderln remwe urre\aca(a
the monsoon dram swdenoe aoonoea at «nan ws consnoareu. Tm caun
heard me leslwmomes :2! all me wnnesses and oouno that me monsoon
drain became a main monsoon mam Amending «o the ewdence, 1|
mncnons as me mam maoe where water/mn mt water We ram pools
before bemg cnannsleo Ia rivers. It Is ms mam dram out or a network 21
dramages In ensue! anu cnonnex water no «he nvecs for Knma Lumvur.
sm m.nonnr:nccn.na.usn
«mm. s.nn ...n.mn .. med n my n. nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum Wm!
[41] ms Cour! acosols ma amlanalion by me Defendant‘: wllneses
lnal me oraunaae in Kuals Lumw awarded to ma prinsinle whale walav
flaws hum mgr: ground to low gruurld. From lne loooolapny map D14 H
can be sasn lnal walercollecls al nlgner land ln Tarllan Overseas unlon
Garden (Duel and llows in ma lowsrlano V7 Tamarl van mmugn a syslyn
oldram network The ma!!! monsoon dram on me Plalnnlrs lano IS ms pan
olme mam drains ll (uncllons as a oollsctov otwalsrsurlaos and mm M,‘
not nnly as a oclledur «om lne nouslno areas but also wiler lrom other
sourcss mat oool inlo me veservnlr to: me dmlnage nelwulk of outs and
Taman van The mam monsoon dram onannals ano ralwses lns waler
lnlo Klang Rivet lmougn olner msln monsoon oralns, wmlcn all lonn a
nalwork ol drains tor cue, Taman van and Kunla Lumpur so‘ me
purposes ullhe mam omn am lwc—Iuld, In cnannal and rslaass lna walar
lnlo Klang River, and llw In prevent new flood: The lalxer woulo resufl
ln soll aroslon
[421 As per mo maps or2oo4 1P15)ind 2013174)‘ nwz oonnnnao that
me lopugraplly nlltle land ls that me pan that lsoss Jalnn Awin San IS
llal wlnlsl lnal al on side o1Taman out; is nionsrlnan me rest onne
lano He claimed lnal lna murlsoorl drain lonnso lne maln ulaln mm ma
apomxnnala size of 2 metets In wlom ano 1 5 nlecers -n nalonl. The
monsoon dram was o1 moole oncnlng‘ slmclure made «mm gramle lo
prevern eroslan al lne me unhe dram as a result olsonslanl walev llow
DW2 confirmed lha| there was always wa|sv flow lnnmgn ll as n ls ms
mam waler flaw in channel the wale« and run on mm mm Tamar: Yarl
sno Taman cue.
:9
sm Ya-1nlwtWNYEmcC1wvlElD5i
«on. Sun! luvlhnrwm s. o... w mm s. oflmnullly mum: dnuavlml VI .nuna Wm!
[43] Basso on me Kowfiravhy map. (M poumon Mme main mansoan
drain on me Pralnhffs lane 15 were two oaner rna-n dvams meet and
converge. Thersfnre‘ n I: very critical Ya remove 0! reocane u would
dvswrb and msmpl me eflicvenl flaw afwaler 1n ma ansarros or any other
suggesnons or auanshves. [his court ms man it would not be m Ihe
puhhc inI2res1 m have n removed or reheated fvam -vs wnenx posmon
even mougn n nas encmached upon lhe Plammfs land, Even me Plamhfl
In crass-examinsnon had agreed that ma waler flaws Ihmugh that
monsoon oram tram me Ngher land no ms lower and and is connemed Io
anulhev mansmn main, and Ianer orsmargeo who «he nver. The Flaw!!!
had ounfirmed Ihal mare were no uasn news that oowned an ms land
since us had mrnsa n.
[441 Fvemnsad on ma avmanna aaaosaa at man. to ovder ms Dmendaru
(0 remova or relocate ma mam munsuon drain vs unuawnabla.
mmnvenIen|, Impmcflul and uruusl uwz confnrmld me necossny or me
smd mam munsoan dram an we PVAIMWE lind Hanaa, |ms Oeun wm na|
oroar «or lhe monsoon omns «xanad orno ms Plamflfs land and
hxmienng n In be removed or relocated. The bass is pun:-c rnxenasx.
Acourdingly, nnara mus| be other means M Iesohmon |o lms rnaner
Qnmam
(451 There were a law nIhe< Issues mlsed dunng argumens No
enoence was 19¢ an me issua at Ivnilahun Much was pleaded rn me
Defence. In any event. me anomacnmenc rs at permanent nature up In
now and me «respass is a cormnmno one.
am rn1nLmNNvErncc1wnE;D5n
«mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. met! a mm o. mmnuuly mum: m.n.n vn mum WM
[41 The Delnndanl dawned man ms monsoon dram 15 pan 0! ma
drainage and/nr me nature! slruim max ensxsu on ma land in 2004 or
even earher The monsoon dram on me PIam1M's lend .s mam In prcvsde
a bsller and/er mgmar flww of water and n formed pan 0! a more
sysremauc anu efliuenl mamaga system In mat area and m ganacax ma
Federal Ta-rim of Kuaui Lumpur The Deuenaanx comended max ms
dram ma| vsnneu the wa|erway cuulu my: be closed or aemoushea
ammanuy as u vmuld result in flash floods. sod erosxon ov cracks or
deposits in ms: area and us surrounding areas, Much would require
anamauves fur Ihe wauevway The nevamam pleaded man ms existence
at ma monsuon dram on me Pla\nl.IlV's land was necessary and For me
pubuc mares! us avoid nasn floods ana ms ulnar sand ssoasmgnss The
monsoon drain: ensured more syslemauc and eficlanlwalsrdrarnage an
me land, Rs surmundmg ma anu m ganevax «ne reusrax Temlnryoi Kufla
Lumpur. ms Defendant plaadad mac Ils aansns warn gushilsd by uw an
that pu c policy onsn u Immunily fvum nu lorlmus I bllmas .n ms
amcuhon at us dimes
[5] In in ustsnss. ms tzsranaam had weaned (hm ma Plamlm had nac
aflfluoud any plan: In develop ma land and mus than was no nooesmly
my me usaanaanz ca remcva nu monsoon arm n mum insosad dmum
ms dramzga system on the wane, Rs surmunaing me me ms Fadsul
Tamlavy av Kuzlz Lumuur
Lmmnnmmnm
[5] Yhe Flamnfl uwns me land s-nee 5 4.2005 He had Ihe Inlenlinn In
build a few bungalaws as me land measures 17 an sq feel Bul mere
sm rn1nLmNNvEmccwmE;u5n
«mm. snn lunhnrwm s. U... n mm s. nrW\n|U|y mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max
us] There was also lne Issue mm rnoneoan e ' being a prsexlsllng
nalrrral slreanr To lnrs Cuun‘5 consraereu mew! reaerulees M wlrelller
mal ls [me - me issue 15 lne marlmade slruaure lnal ls localea on me
Piainllffs land wmen 13 under me llmsdlcfion and purview pl lne
nelenaanl The plan allacnea Io lne nlle ma npl snow any skucluve when
lne Plalnllfl pumnasea ii The nleasurenrenl pl land ls deemed aecurala
but m 2013 me land survey relleaed lne cnanges and lne lrespess unlo
ll CorLserlImus1 beoblalrled «mm are Flalrmfl Mulch was npz—see namx
aandar Kuala Lumpur v Nulzlnldl uolrnm [2023] MLRHU was
[471 As lo me issue 01 me Delenaanrs elassrllcallon 01 me monsoon
dram as ‘nzab panl lnduk' ov lna mam msetvsd dram‘ DWI was
qussllanarl on lne nelenaanrs response rn seprernper zoos in ms
l>lalnlrll |hIl p-sea on 2 search 0! me masler plan al lne lnlreslnlcrure
Deparlmanl lnare in a lrne M dlxchns mal have been pallr fur a lmlg urns
lnsl am an mam dllch reserve nwl lerllrlea lnel llrere is a database »
‘Plngkilln Data Ukur Kadzslav asnllgll Ksbangsaalf wnrpn ls mm on
by me Lana once to lssul lne ameisl plans altachsd lp qrenls and lnle
deeds. The dalapase stores reservsd open spaces wnlen are reserm
land only arlhnse land lnal have not been granleu ovmalshlpmles wnan
lne plan shows numbers lhal means lne lpls/lands nad been granlea
lllle |u lne owners In respeel pl lne Plalnlm lam, DW1 confirmed lnal
lnere were no reserved npen spapes (be ll lpr me use olme uelenaenll.
ll ls me evlaenoe M DWI \ha|0leln1arrlIaIlorllM0e Delenaanrs sale leller
was no| lnre. nwl eonnnnea lnal me monsnon dram plnll was run an
easernenxprreservea open spans and admlllsd me srlcmacIlmen|cn me
Plarnmls land DW2 was unable to canllnn lne records lrorrl wmh me
Delenuanl had laken lne pps
lnaune morlsoun dmln was a reserved
zx
SIN Ya-1nlwtWNYEmcC1wrlElD5i
“Nana Sum Iuvlhnrwm a. U... a vsfly r... anrn.ll-r mlmn dnunvlnnl VI mum Wm!
mam dram Al me oopounar DW2 nasnmoo man more ware no moo-vs man
the monsoon dram on me Pnamnnrs nano was onassinoo as reserved mam
dram anmooon no nao mnfirmed me nooossny nfme said mam monsoon
dram on nna Pnmnnnrs land
[451 um me rannro Saniuv Assnsnant Engnnaerwnlh me uenanoann mo
was nrn cnaroe, amonosn onnors, on me drains on nne Pnarnnnnrs nano from
2m2 In 2017 was called no nesmy man mo monsoon ormn loca|ad on me
Pnamnnrs and was canegonzeo as nno reserved main orain ms evndence
ns nonm tandem wnn monesnrnony olDW1 Annrnan DW2 was nmablellanled
In pmuoa any avroanoe no show nnan me monsoon oram nocanea on me
Flaimflfs wand was nnoeeo ma rasarvao main dram
[49] ms coun concludes man me morscon drain, even when n cannot
be pmven man n ns reserved mann mnnsoon dram, 4! 51M ought non no he
removed or ronooaneo due |o pubhc nnoresn
[sun rna Plaunllfl nao oouonn me nana wnn Mn knovmadge on nns nooauon
of me momoon drum on ms land HI lunnfied man no nw nna rnonooon
oonn as well as a TNB oynon He nao lhnughl man mo monsoon ormn was
Iocaneo ounsroo nns Iona — ooroarao n run was non on on on nn HI dnd non
Dnzndud any onner duo uilngenot on whemer Mnat no onnonaseo was
nnoeeo the same square ieen as man snanso on ma sane and Durchase
agreemerll He nao nnnzunred wrnuher mam were any anournoranoos on
one no Munch no lournd more were none The one snowoo manhe land was
sm ronononNr:nooo..na.aso
«no. sanun luvnhnrwm rs. met! In my r... omnm mum: flnuavnml VI .nnno vtmxn
firs| reglslersd m 1992 - (here is no emenos an wnalne: ma monsoon
omn had exlsled slnoe man. What V5 certain is (flat when the Plalnwl
purchased me land WI 20175. me monsoon dram was already in place on
me land
[511 However‘ laklng pan cl ms Plalnms lancl wllnmll me Flzlntiffs
pennlsslon ls mt legally aooeplalale ms Conn omens manna uslamlanl
acqulle «mm the Plalnlw lne pumcn of land (2,411 sq lee!) VI had
encroached al the orevalllng market pnos ll mo Defendant requlres
ezssmam and WIN need lo walk on move pcrllon oflhe Plalnlllrs land,
(hen ll ls nrdsrud trial I\ aoqulles znsl pan loo. ms would resolve lunnal
lssues lnal am eorlcemmq lno munsoan drain (ram nerenrlaner. llwoula
also remedy the vlammrs pmdlcamanl as well as pvelsewlng puhllc
lnlsml in malnlslnlng ma mansaan dram (here
[52] rm. Court also Allows mu Fliln|W|': prayurfor darrugai a( ma {ale
01 RM2u0 psv day The l>ls.nw noa, vldl lts lellu «men 19 3.2001‘
ncllflad lm oelenosnl ol lns clalm at RM2an par osy Var as long as m-
lvesuass and enuoaonmanl were nol addressed The nslsnaanl had
lslleo |o address llns even a| lnal As such, lnls Coun ls minoeo lo award
me Plmnllfldamagas al lns rate of RMZDO per dzylrom 81.2008 unlil me
dale of ms loagn-am Var aanlaqss Thal would zmounl lo RM200
muluplied by 5.757 days Much amounts In RM1lI51JUO ms Calm is :11
me considered vlsw |hzI lne Sald rate IS reasonable. Interests ol 5% small
be lmoasea onllns ludgmem sum lmm lnday urml lne aals mull and anal
selllemenc
sm Ya-1nlwtWNTEmcclwllElll5i
“Nair Sum luvlhnrwm .. UIQG n my n. nflmnullly mum: flnuavlml VI mum Wm!
K53) cuss av RM45,uoo which this count neems reasoname vs to be and
by me Delendanltnme Hamufl The De!endantwu\d have avmdedlhase
Vega! pmceedwgs xfil had engagad with me Flairmflpnurin ms sun
nnsn 12 OCTOBER 2023
amm -
ROZ MAWAR ROZAKN
JUDICIAL COMMVSSVONER
men COURY or MALAVA
KUALA LUMFUR
For the P/mm Rquhrea up Supp1ah.AmuI Nu! Nadm Azmsr and rm
Kuan K5: Ya!
T/n Ralashres
Fm Dslbrldanl Muhammad Nakhars Ishak, Eman Amar and sm Nut
Amanda MrulAzman
'!/n J, Lee .9 Assocrsles
.g, ‘ sm na1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;u5n
«mm. SmI\nanhnrwH\I>euIedIx:vuflyhenflmnlfllyM1MIdnuamnlvnnF\uNfl W
was no evrdanse that me inuersnon he had was not me motion — n lac!
lhura wars no suomrssions 51 pruposaxs by me Flulnufllc oeveuov Ine vano
«or appnmu The plan at me land was nenuereo man cnnfirrned ma localmn
onrse munsoon drain which is Iocaled a| «no ooruer or lhe Plammfs wano
ano on one suds, imao enoroocneo emu me wsno -me oraaom onus «one
monsoon dram had (akeu uplhe Flsmmfs xano As per use wlamms leater
of a 1 ma, lhe s|mclure omse mcmsaun dram had taken up a\mns| zoom
sq lea L71 ma P\aim.iifs wand (atxxwrdlng to ma survey by PW3 me land
surveyor, n was 2m 1 so «eon ms Iener issued in me Defzndanl nao
slated max at me mananal unre more were me Deaenaanrs oornraaors on
ms \and that were carrying an upgmdmg onne monsoon dram
[11 me oevenosnn exnlamed In na lelmr ov 19 2.2003 max me work:
undenaken on me mcmoon mm on ma Pmmmfs ‘and were for genera!
Ienavs and snamnenansa «o anwra Ihal ma w-alav amnaoa wovked mum
and um (her: was no ninaranoe la ma alreammg oframwmnr «sons mo
nearby sosamorr The wonoann nso snsoe n clam Ymm me ou|saI |ha| n
was carrying out W5 mnouons unosn snsen oramaoa and Euildwnq m
1974 lo emure mu all wsoerwaysrararnaue inoquaina «nose Iacaled on
prIva|e Iano wens runcuomng plopeny Io provonc any calasvophes or
snoonuemanoa |u an innabnams m mo area AI man mint m me, me
Dalsndam mfalmed me masnnmnm mere am not seem to he any urgency
or neoesswy to remove or rewcale me sand monsoon am
(51 Themaitev on 9 7 mm annao wnn a land suvey oonouaeo on
9.11 me‘ me P mwroxa agasn xo me netenoanc on me enoroacnmem
oy the slmctum onna monsoon dram mac resunea In ms land beoommg
smaHev rne Plamlm suggested a resohmon wnereoy me Defendant
pvocumd nra whole and mum mm anne nvevamng market rale in ma sum
sru ro1nLs1wNvEmcc1ws\E;u5n
«ma s.nn lunhnrwm a. met! a may r... mmnuuly -mm: dnuamnl VI murm v-max
or RMc.2aa,2ao. Tne Der-noanr had no1 ruponaeo (0 ms so rn
December 2014 rne Plalnnlf wrme anorrrer leltev In lhe Defendant that
s1a1sd rne rssmt of a drsorssian wrlh an aficer or me Defendant on
2212 2u14. The Plarrrrm confirmed mar ne was rnronneo mar lhe
monsoon omrn could not be removed or relocated and as sum |he
De-rendanr ought tn buy me whole rand The F'\a|nlrfi vequesled fur
msoussrons to oommenoe Au resalvelhe nmmern soonesr.
[9] The Delendant oro nul respond to me Prarnwrs request The nex\
correspondence was on 11 7 am where rne Plamnfl lovwarded Iu me
Defendant (ha plcmres or no munsoon dram which had anooacnea ms
land. Yo mo reouesr man the rmnsocn drain be renmso. the Delendam
repfled on 752015 um the name: srrearn had worn; endslefl on me
Plalnlrfls property so. Ina oropossr la remnve/ra¥nca|e mu walarvmy and
drlinane was ro be xlumad and anurma by me Dalendam rner involvod
Rs censullnnt englneers and rnlamal oonrrnrrrm
ha] Tnen on 15 9 2015 tn. Dvfandam inrurrneo rne P\amlrNIha| e main
(0 me Pwarnmrs rano no a survey onne monsoon dmln were undertaken
u was fuund that the smAc1Im~: mime monsoon dram was nnl bum by me
Dtfendanl, il nao Vonq axmed and rs ‘nzab pen: induk‘ (reserved mam
monsoon omrni.
[111 Yhe rasr correspondence rrorn mo P\a|n r was on 4.2.2019, when
he oomorsrneo to me nerenoanr or Iresness onto ms land and lrller rn
connecuon Io me nronsoon drain. There was no response [mm me
Delendam and thus, Iellers or demand were Issued by me Plaintiffs
sollcflurs pnur In me cmnmencemenlallms action
srn rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wr\Eru5n
“None s.n.r nanhnrwm .. med o my r... mnn.r-r mm. mmn VI mum v-ms!
I121 Al the man‘ Ihs Planmw Iuslifiad and called Ihe Dewly Dvvaclcr
General M me Law was and me land survnyor he had appmnceo rne
oavanaama Wee witnesses onmpnseo 0! us Iwo engineers and lhe
Direckzr o4 oana Geusvalial at ma Canngraphy um-non from mo Head
Quarters a1De0arImenlo1Survey am: Mappmg Mahayana (JUFEM)
The assessment olthe a dung
Encroachment
[131 n can be oonchmed with grail oenaxniy mac me locauon of me
monsoon dram .s walmn me P\amM‘5 am. The Plalnlm we not comm no
(ms The De1endan|haMaHed|u adduce any evidence |u show otherwise
A! me opnomo, ms Dalendanl nao Iull knuwtadge ol Inis lad as per man
aaxnowraagmam nnhelocauon onno monsoon dram m mo Fl nmrs land
was us may cam 52 zoos Them was a\se no chaHanga as |n ma
amoumouano mam. monsoon dv naa ervcrouched onbo me Pl-ainmrs
mna won lms coon lites as 2.411wlIet
HA) The new Offiuarml max on Defendanl had taken up annal was me
cnnlermcn manney had not constructed the monsoon dmn and on three
wilnessas cause by me Defendant had contended that may had no
kmwlsdge nl wno had constructed it Howovon «ms goes againsn me
Agreed Facts med «or nus case wmcn amen mac “Terdapal sehuah pan!
(‘monsoon drain”) kepunyaan Defendan yang berada an ates ranan
lasebul (“slnlklur yang mencemboh’) The Defendant nao agreed and
admilted mac me monsoon dram lacaled on lhe Plammfs land bebnged
to wt. Al Inal, mnesses for me Deiendanl claimed that me monsoon drain
nao been In exislecuce long beaore Ihe F-Iamm nae vurohased me land.
There were auompns by mo nmonoanu mmugn ns wllnessss, In
5
am ro1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;u5n
«mm. s.nn ...n.mm .. U... a may n. MEVHIHIY -mm: m.n.n n. mum v-max
orsasaooraxe nsamronr nna aooounraarmy of hm/mg oonsrmorao ma dmm
ano dawmwg nwnership and rssponsi no am in so Ihe aboul—Ium |akan
an man was nu( only unfair ro the Plainhfl‘ but showed me unoenainly oi me
Defendanl s pusmon
[15] Fumrarrnona. ms Dslendanl ooulo not raoun mo Flarnmrs arnoanoa
adduced by me P\a\n(M's «run: wnnass (PW3]-the land surveyor. Ha nao
undeflakenla survey ins Psarnmrs wand m 2004 ano 201: and aooonw-my
produced me plans or both works — P15 and P4 respeclwely Bum mans
ano drawings show me rnunsoon dram Vncaked amra perimetevand rnsroa
the boundary 01 me Fla4n|:W's land However, m 2013 [here was an
afldmorm monsoon dram nmrung on me aounnem land onne penrnerer
which was no| Ihere In the 2004 plan more are slapes wmch had aaan
bmll at me was nuns mcnloon dram — an ul wmch nao encmaohed m|o
rna P\a\nlms Wm Pwa Ieshiled rnu nu had done a ground sun-ay nno
conmnnau mat nnara was no aoamanan monsoon drain wnan ha nrsr
oonouueo mu survey back In zoo: Pwaa ooncsusrun was a nsaun M a
pnysroax axarmnallon on me grouna as opposed in (he (opcgraphy or an
wnion was onnduclad by aen’a\ nhmogrzmrnaky where «no photos were
taken quira hmh an wnn old reonnoloay Y coun heard men more ooum
eas-Iy be differences ova few rnarars. This coun aooaors me wshmuny of
we and finds an a ba\anoe oi pwbabllmes me mas| awuaxe plan Is the
one auaoneo lo the We men was done by Depamnanl 0! Survey and
Mapnura Mnlaysra UUPEM) but it does rm snow ma Iooauon cl me
monsoon dam on me Plammfs Ianu — mar me nlan 0! me Lana mm me
exacl sq feet mat belonged to me Plamml $0. :1 canno| be determined
rrorn ma uovograpny DIA or the plan altached to ma land (me, whelner
mare were rnoeeo mcrsoon drains on ma Plaxnmfs wana ano how much
at me P\aIn|\H's Vane may nan enoroaohea.
7
an ro1nLmNNvEnrcc1wr\Eru5n
“None sum nmhnrwm .. met! a my r... uflmnauly mm. dnuamnl VI muno war
[151 on me onher nano, the plans man wwa nao undertaken - bolh in
mm [PI5)and 2013 (P4) show me Iocahon cum monsoon drams on me
Plainlms land at max pamanav pom! m «me rspecuvexy Annougn me
«ooognapny D14 showed than mere was a blue nna mdtnaling ‘sahran' but
:4 am not specify max n was - wnemer an eann dram Dr a Varge monsoon
drain 01 even a nature! sueam, and most wmponarmy mo no| aowralew
pmuL7in| meme: :1 was nocavea m me wamms land Theceiore, his cam
is ssnsneo en a balance 0! amaammes mat wvss maps mm 2004 (F15)
am 2013 (P4) var oamparison, shawed where we monsoon draws are
located on me Plammfs land and how much Ihey had enoroaonsa unto «
The maps were dune afler zxvnfluamg physics! gmuna wnspeclbon and
used scam rm greater accuracy
[vn Tm: ccun ameans nnan lhaafld||\ana\ mansmn dram man menaallar
enllcd an we seumm penmaw at me P\am||fl‘s land at snawn In ma
2m map1P4} was not (here v/nun ma wand survey wu: conducled m
2004 Mmeeven me monsoon dram was a mammaoe suuchne - rubble
pwclwuu than is mmanenn m name as cesmsd by DW21lha Detendanrs
remed semcr Assnswam Engmeery. The wenosm hid m zoos confirmed
mzl n was under me oonllm and management of me De{endan|‘s
Dapanmenx omramage and Rivet Management FW3 was me to mfarm
me com me sue ol the dram which measured 3 5 meters in mm This
addmuna\ monsoon dmm had encmached unco me Plsxnhlfs rand
apumximalely 2,411 sq feet The new slopes wmcn have been bum :4 me
edge enhe mcnsoon dram had alsa enuoamed Imlolhe wuaunmrs Iano
[15] rne Pnannun had cause me Ssnlot Deputy Dureclnr «om me Land
one (FW2) wnc had mlulmed Ims Courl max records Show manne land
sm rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wnEm5n
«ma s.nn lunhnrwm a. met! a may he MWHIVVIY mum: dnunmnl VI mum v-max
was firs! ennui-ea in 1906 bun avenmally became Saran 6462 that was
nsgnsnanea In ngez Tnan meann me nana was arspenny nnaasunea and me
nneaaunannsnn an the area was finalized The nana nnnna had no aasennann
ragnslarad on in. Nsilhsrdnd ms mla Dunlam any drains an in
[19] The onscmn nncarnognapnny and Geospahsl Dana OIJUPEM (awn)
lssnfied «on ma Densnaann la explann nne mpagmphy an D14 whnch was
done in 1992 man used nnnse annansnsnan phmas taken nnam ma an by
Phone grannnnsnry. Tna venflcannun was sompnsnsa in zoaa Ha naa
confirmed man he had non vnsnled orsnannaa nnne Flinnws name: and man ns
was nu| axksd by me Delsnnarnuo measure or mndud a physncel survey
clnhe Pnannnnnra land wmch ns ms sumacl mallar nrn queslnon He was also
nol Informed by me nensnaann wnen me said monsoan drlnnl were nannnn.
nwn nssnmaa nnan man. was na sumey cmdnmlad or plans nnaas lo
nllusmle nhe ssnanuon 0! me Pnannnnnra nanu In man
my Based urn nna nspogmpny of DH. own was unasns In sannnnn vmal
ms was nnna man nndnsanaa ‘ n’ asnuanny was He Iashfiad nnan ‘saIivan'
lealured s nnyarowpmcan enemann man sauna be a dnrd1,drinn,wanlrwayn
canal ans ma blue Inns man danmnea ‘sallran acuordnnn loDW1 could be
a nanunan slream ur mannnaas monsoon dram. nlwhnch ms lopogvaphy an
on cannon sssnsl In oomnng na a findnng n was nna evndenee of DW1 man
ma 'salIran‘ renx:Idednn1992, nna nanunan snnsann or wanenwny. sound snso
snange due no sninnana and gaasnanges we! a pennd snnnnna Thns Own
nnnas man in coma non he Dundudnzd man ma ‘sa n‘ was asnnnanny me
monsoon dram nocanea on me nrnannnnm land. Pa many so when mane
ns no onnen evnaense no back up me oensnuanns snannn nnan nne nnansaon
dram had lung exnsled pnar to me Pnannnnnrs aoqunsmun ul nna land rne
evidence man can In nsnnea on by nnns Ccurl ns me 201:: map P4 wnnsn
sm rnnnlnrmnvsnnccnwnnanufrni
«wan. ssnan luvnhnrwm s. med a may n... anmnannly mmna dnuavnml VI .nuna v-man
srwwed manna monsoon drain as nppose |o nuns m 2004 m2Ip|P15)
ms fact was amnn-o w DW1 ano DW2 as we“ The Defendant was wet
able In nmduceany dcoumwls orreeerds lhalshowsd me monsoon own
was mnslmmed prior to 2am (saulh otme P\avmf|‘s wand;
[21] Bunny lhe subrmssncns. (he Defendant‘: nouns! cixsd saa
Ewdemx: Acl vase requlnng «ms Coon |o presume mat me mopoorapny
ma made by JUPEM was accurate, Though n maybe so‘ me nopoonapny
(and sue me Defsndanfs wtlnesses) were unable In cunfinu man the
blue nne Venvesenl. norwhemer n was Iocanaa wumn ma Plainmfs land
[22] ms Conn concludss based on me ewdenoe mat on a balance cl
momma: ma Flamlm had Indeed omonasao ma land that maasmao
11.547 sq lael am ma| me maruoon dram an Illustrated in me 20!: may
(P4) wu nnl mam whun he am purchased It Be max A: n m. on a
bnraneo of Drobabllmes, mn Cuurl nu slhsfied wvln me amanea mat ma
monsoon dram .n ma P\ainmTs land had taken up 2.411 on list wwlmut
nia Dannlsilnn
[231 own‘ nne om: Engineer nu ma Delendsnrs Daoanmam o1
Inm-asouaum Plannmg, oanfirmed Ihal « was lhe Deienaann s
responshanlny lo ensure systemafic waterfluw ovme drains and waterways
Io Drevenlnoods‘ ovemow and olhercalaslranhss. DW3 stated max .1 was
ml aHya na|ural stream «nan became a mam dram wmcn nao wong emsled
on ma P\ainl\lTs and am aparl from swung so, mere was nommg else to
sansfy «ms Cowl that me dram was not me Defendant‘: m cvoss—
exa-mnauon the Mamlm hao aommea man annougn he nao m| seen me
De1endan|buHmnglhe dram. ne nao seen them mamlavmng u. There was
no svudenoe owmo had bmll mu; rubble onemng structure hu| n was mns|
no
am rn1nLmNNvEmcc1wnE;D5n
«mm. sm-1 lunhnrwm .. met! a mm o. mn.u-y mm. flnuamnl VI mum Wm!
| 3,160 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-25-19-03/2022 | PEMOHON NOOR AZAM BIN SALLEH RESPONDEN 1. ) JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB 1, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI 4. ) KETUA PERKHIDMATAN JABATAN PENGURUSAN INSAN, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI | This is an application by the applicant, for judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 1) challenging the decision of the first respondent to dismiss the applicant from his employment and the decision of the second respondent which affirmed the decision of the first respondent and dismissed the applicant’s appeal - Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 | 09/11/2023 | YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4891621c-3ac6-41c0-9d29-e219b61b0a79&Inline=true |
1
BA-25-19-03/2022
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-19-03/2022
Dalam perkara mengenai surat bertarikh
14.7.2020 daripada Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia kepada Noor Azam
bin Salleh berkenaan Tindakan Tatatertib
Dengan Tujuan Buang Kerja Atau Turun
Pangkat;
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Keputusan
Tindakan Tatatertib oleh Jawatankuasa
Tatatertib 1, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri
Malaysia bertarikh 29.6.2021 dan
dinyatakan di dalam surat bertarikh
30.6.2021;
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Keputusan
Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia
bertarikh 15.12.2021 dan dinyatakan di
dalam surat bertarikh 21.12.2021;
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Peraturan-
Peraturan 7(2)(g), 28, 40 dan 45(g)
Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008;
09/11/2023 15:28:21
BA-25-19-03/2022 Kand. 44
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
BA-25-19-03/2022
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Perintah Am
14(a), 14A, 15 hingga 18, Bab C, Perintah-
Perintah Am;
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 53, Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012;
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 92 Kaedah 4,
Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.
ANTARA
NOOR AZAM BIN SALLEH
(No. K/P: 740404-10-5401) …PEMOHON
DAN
1. JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB 1,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA
2. JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA
3. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI
4. KETUA PERKHIDMATAN JABATAN PENGURUSAN INSAN,
LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI
…RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
BA-25-19-03/2022
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application by the applicant, Noor Azam bin Salleh for
judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012
(Enclosure 1) challenging the decision of the first respondent dated
29.6.2021 to dismiss the applicant from his employment and the
decision of the second respondent dated 15.12.2021 which affirmed
the decision of the first respondent and dismissed the applicant’s
appeal.
Reliefs Sought
[2] The reliefs sought by the applicant in the present case are as
follows:
“(a) satu perintah Certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan
Responden Pertama bertarikh 29.6.2021 yang dinyatakan
dalam surat daripada Responden Pertama kepada
Pemohon yang bertarikh 30.6.2021 dimana Pemohon
didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan ke atasnya dan
pekerjaan Pemohon selaku Penolong Eksekutif Hasil di
Jabatan Teknologi Maklumat di Menara Hasil, Cyberjaya
ditamatkan berkuatkuasa pada 1.7.2021 mengikut
Peraturan 45(g), Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008, yang dibuat secara
tidak adil, tidak munasabah dan/atau tidak setimpal;
(b) satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan keputusan
Responden Kedua bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang dinyatakan
dalam surat daripada Responden Kedua kepada
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
BA-25-19-03/2022
Pemohon yang bertarikh 21.12.2021, yang dimaklumkan
kepada Pemohon pada 28.12.2021, dimana Responden
Kedua telah menolak rayuan Pemohon terhadap
keputusan Responden Pertama Pemohon dan
mengesahkan keputusan Responden Pertama, secara
tidak adil dan/atau tidak munasabah;
(c) selanjutnya satu perintah Deklarasi dan/atau Mandamus
bahawa Pemohon dikembalikan semula ke jawatan
terakhirnya sebagai Penolong Eksekutif Hasil tanpa
kehilangan pangkat, kenaikan gaji, gaji, emolumen dan
lain-lain manfaat;
(d) Perintah-perintah sampingan dan berbangkit dari perintah
Certiorari/Deklarasi/Mandamus tersebut seperti berikut:-
(i) suatu siasatan untuk menentukan tunggakan gaji
termasuk tunggakan kenaikan gaji, emolumen,
elaunelaun dan faedahfaedah lain yang Pemohon
sepatutnya menerima dari tarikh Pemohon dibuang
kerja (1.7.2021) sehingga penyelesaian penuh;
(ii) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun terhadap jumlah
keseluruhan wang tertunggak dari tarikh Pemohon
dibuang kerja (1.7.2021) sehingga penyelesaian
penuh;
(e) Gantirugi pemecatan salah;
(f) Selanjutnya dan/atau secara alternatif, gantirugi am
dan/atau gantirugi teruk dan/atau gantirugi teladan
dan/atau gantirugi punitif kerana pihak Responden-
Responden serta ejen/kakitangan Responden Ketiga telah
bersikap sambal lewa serta 'mala fide' dalam memulakan
prosiding tatatertib dari awal dengan niat semata-mata
untuk membuang kerja Pemohon yang mana telah
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
BA-25-19-03/2022
mengakibatkan Pemohon mengalami tekanan emosi dan
psikologi yang begitu teruk apabila menghadapi keluarga,
rakan-rakan dan masyarakat serta terpaksa mengalami
kesedihan dan kedukacitaan (severe shock and mental
anguish) setiap hari sehingga kini di atas keputusan
pembuangan kerjanya;
(g) lain-lain relif dan/atau perintah yang Mahkamah Yang
Mulia ini fikirkan adil dan saksama.”
Grounds for Judicial Review
[3] The applicant set out the following grounds in support of this
application for judicial review:
(i) whether there are defects in the notes of proceedings of the
first respondent/disciplinary committee;
(ii) whether there is non-compliance and/or procedural
impropriety in dismissing the applicant;
(iii) whether the dismissal sentence on the applicant is irrational,
unreasonable, disproportionate to the offense committed and
has been contrary to the principle of natural justice;
(iv) whether there is forgiveness (“condonation”) and if so, the
disciplinary action of dismissal has been contrary to the
principle of “condonation”; and
(v) whether the applicant is eligible for the reliefs sought in this
judicial review.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
BA-25-19-03/2022
Factual Background
[4] The facts of this case are gleaned from the submissions and
affidavits filed by parties. On 25.11.2019, a Laporan Pelanggaran
Tatakelakuan-Menerima Gaji Bersih Di Bawah 40% Dan Tidak
Hadir Bertugas Tanpa Cuti Atau Tanpa Kebenaran Atau Tanpa
Sebab Munasabah was submitted to the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib
(Ibu Pejabat), Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia from the
Deputy Director of the Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan, Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia regarding the code of conduct of the
applicant. The applicant was found to have violated the code of
conduct as follows:
i. failure to submit a written response to the letter dated
21.8.2019 within the stipulated period even though a reminder
via email was issued to the applicant on 05.09.2019;
ii. absent from work for thirty-three (33) days during specific
dates in 2018 and 2019, without proper authorization or a valid
reason;
iii. a show cause memo concerning the aforementioned absence
was delivered to the applicant, and an email reminder
requesting a written response was sent as well which was not
furnished by a written reply within the specified timeframe; and
iv. under Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia
Disciplinary Regulations 2008 can be deemed as behaving
irresponsibly and disobeying the order, which is a violation of
the code of conduct under Regulation 7(2)(g) and 7(2)(i) of the
same Regulations.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
BA-25-19-03/2022
[5] On 30.01.2020, a submission was made, requesting the Chairman
of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib (lbu Pejabat) to assess and decide
whether the alleged disciplinary violation warrants either dismissal,
demotion, or a milder form of punishment as outlined in Regulation
38 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008.
[6] On 03.02.2020, the Chairman of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib lbu
Pejabat decided that the breach of discipline by the applicant, is of
the type that should be subject to dismissal work or demotion under
Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008. The actions of the applicant contravene the
Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008
can be considered as exhibiting dishonesty, lack of trustworthiness,
and irresponsibility, which infringe upon the code of conduct as
stipulated in Regulation 7(2)(f) and (g) of the Inland Revenue Board
of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008.
[7] On 13.07.2020, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2020 was convened and
the Chairman agreed that there is a prima facie case against the
applicant, as he did not show up for duty without leave or without
first obtaining permission or without reasonable cause for thirty-
three (33) days on certain dates in 2018 and 2019.
[8] On 14.07.2020, the first respondent sent a letter of charge sheet
with the purpose of dismissal or demotion to the applicant where a
report was received by the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 which states
that the applicant had violated the code of conduct which allows
disciplinary action to be taken against the applicant. The decision
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
BA-25-19-03/2022
was notified to the applicant. The applicant was given the
opportunity of being heard and to send a representation under
Regulation 37 Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008.
[9] On 24.07.2020, the applicant sent a representation against the
Surat Pertuduhan bagi Tindakan Tatatertib Dengan Tujuan Buang
Kerja Atau Turun Pangkat.
[10] On 27.10.2020, JPI’s Officer has submitted a “Surat Maklum Balas
Berhubung Surat Representasi Pemohon” to the Chairman of
Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1.
[11] On 29.06.2021, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 Lembaga
Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2021 was held to decide
on the applicant’s case which found the applicant guilty and subject
to the disciplinary punishment of dismissal effective 01.07.2021.
[12] The applicant, on 14.7.2021 submitted a letter of appeal to the
Chairman of the Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia.
[13] On 15.12.2021, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2021 had
convened to consider the appeal of the applicant and decided to
confirm and uphold the dismissal sentence made by Jawatankuasa
Tatatertib.
[14] On 21.12.2021, the second respondent sent a decision letter of the
Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib LHDNM for the applicant’s appeal.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
BA-25-19-03/2022
[15] The applicant filed the judicial review application under Order 53 of
the Rule of Court 2012 on 15.03.2022 seeking for certiorari to quash
the first and second respondent’s decisions and order for
mandamus because according to the applicant, the first and second
respondent's decisions was illegal, void, unlawful and/or in excess
of authority, and had been irrational and/ or unreasonable.
Principles relating to Judicial Review
[16] The principles surrounding the application for judicial review are
trite. The court hearing an application for judicial review are allowed
to scrutinize not only the decision making process but also for
substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or
Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also
proportionality as per the case of R Rama Chandran v The Industrial
Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 as follows:
“In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp 410–
411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii)
irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is how he put it:
By 'illegality' as a ground for Judicial Review I mean that
the decision maker must understand directly the law that
regulates his decision making power and must give effect
to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable
question to be decided, in the event of a dispute, by those
persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the
state is exerciseable.
By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly
referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' (see
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
BA-25-19-03/2022
Corp [1948] 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so
outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral
standards that no sensible person who had applied his
mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.
Whether a decision falls within this category is a question
that judges by their training and experience should be well
equipped to answer, or else there would be something
badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the courts'
exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer
needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in
Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, of irrationality as a
ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to
an inferred though undefinable mistake of law by the
decision maker. 'Irrationality' by now can stand on its own
feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be
attacked by Judicial Review.
I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety'
rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice
or failing to act with procedural fairness towards the person
who will be affected by the decision. This is because
susceptibility to Judicial Review under this head covers
also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe
procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the
legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred,
even where such failure does not involve any denial of
natural justice.
Lord Diplock also mentioned 'proportionality' as a possible fourth
ground of review which called for development.”
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
BA-25-19-03/2022
[17] The Federal Court in Ranjit Kaur a/p S Gopal Singh v. Hotel
Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 6 MLJ 1 stated the following:
“[16] The Rama Chandran decision has been regarded or
interpreted as giving the reviewing court a license to review
without restrain decisions for substance even when the
said decision is based on finding of facts. However, post
Rama Chandran cases have applied some brakes to the
courts’ liberal approach in Rama Chandran. The Federal
Court in the case of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd
v. Zaid Noh [1997] 1 MLJ 789; [1997] 2 CLJ 11 after
affirming the Rama Chandran decision held that there may
be cases in which for reason of public policy, national
interest, public safety or national security the principle in
Rama Chandran may be wholly inappropriate.
[17] The Federal Court, in Petroliam National Bhd v. Nik Ramli
Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288; [2003] 4 CLJ 625, again
held that the reviewing court may scrutinise a decision on
its merits but only in the most appropriate of cases and not
every case is amenable to the Rama Chandran approach.
Further, it was held that a reviewing judge ought not to
disturb findings of the Industrial Court unless they were
grounded on illegality or plain irrationality, even where the
reviewing judge might not have come to the same
conclusion.”
[18] Founded on these principles, this court will now proceed to analyse
the grounds presented by the applicant in this application for judicial
review.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
BA-25-19-03/2022
Preliminary Objection
[19] The respondents raised preliminary objections. The preliminary
objections are that the application for judicial review is out of time.
According to the respondent the timeliness of adhering to the
specified rules is of paramount importance, as it directly affects the
court's jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application. Given
that the application was filed more than 90 days after the date of the
first respondent’s decision, the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to
consider the application for judicial review against the first
respondent. Consequently, the remedy sought by the applicant in
this application is legally inadequate and should be rejected by this
court. [See: Abdul Rahman bin Abdullah Munir & Ors v. Datuk
Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 704]
[20] The second objection by the respondent is that the decisions of the
third and fourth respondents are not the decisions disputed in this
application. The reliefs requested by the applicant in enclosure 1,
there is no relief requested that disputes or cancels the decision
made by fourth respondent. Further, the respondents argue that no
decision has been made by the third respondent in this case.
Therefore, it was argued by the respondent that all accusations
against the third and fourth respondents are not material for this
judicial review application.
[21] The respondent however, did not deny that the application for
judicial review was filed within three (3) months from the date of the
decision of the second respondent. Moreover, the respondent cited
the case of Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Alcatel Lucent
Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] 1 MLJ 563 which involves an
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
BA-25-19-03/2022
appeal on the assessment of tax. This case can be distinguished
from Alcatel (supra) as this case involves disciplinary proceedings.
[22] Pertaining to the objection that the third and fourth respondent are
not the decisions disputed in this application, this court finds the third
respondent is the employer of the applicant and the fourth
respondent is the applicant’s head of department. As the head of
department, the fourth respondent would have knowledge and
reported the applicant’s absenteeism. The third respondent, as the
employer of the applicant, would have to know about the
proceedings against the applicant.
[23] For the reasons stated, this court considered the preliminary
objections raised and dismissed the said objections.
Analysis and Findings
(i) Whether there is a defect in the charges and proceedings of
the first respondent/disciplinary committee 1
[24] According to the applicant, the charge of “tidak hadir tanpa cuti atau
terlebih dahulu mendapat kebenaran atau tanpa sebab yang
munasabah” against the applicant is not true and there is a defect
in the charge. This is because, according to the applicant, his
absence is not under the category which allow for a proceeding for
dismissal or demotion. It was further submitted that the Laporan
Pelanggaran Tatakelakuan dated 25.11.2019 is untrue and
misrepresented. The applicant argued that a prima facie case was
decided by the first respondent based on the report of the fourth
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
BA-25-19-03/2022
respondent which is not true and without material facts of the case
and without the applicant’s complete documents.
[25] In this regard, this court perused Regulation 28 of the Inland
Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008, which
reads:
“Disciplinary action for absence without leave
28. An employee’s absence from duty without leave or without
prior permission or without reasonable cause shall render him
liable to disciplinary action.”
[26] Whereas, regulation 45 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia
Disciplinary Regulations 2008 provides:
“Types of disciplinary punishments
45. If an employee is found guilty of a disciplinary offence, any
one or any combination of two or more of the following
punishments, depending upon the seriousness of the offence,
may be imposed on the employee:
(a) warning;
(b) fine;
(c) forfeiture of emoluments;
(d) deferment of salary movement;
(e) reduction of salary;
(f) reduction in rank; or
(g) dismissal.”
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
BA-25-19-03/2022
[27] Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 explicitly states that an employee’s unauthorized
absence from work makes them subject to disciplinary measures. If
an employee is subsequently found to have committed a disciplinary
offence, they may face disciplinary sanctions under Regulation 45
of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations
2008, which could include the penalty of dismissal.
[28] In the view of this court, the provisions of regulation 28 and 45 of the
Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 is
clear. The punishment for dismissal is not limited to cases of “absent
without leave and cannot be traced”. This is clearly not stated in the
said regulations and therefore this court is of the view this argument
by the applicant is without merit.
[29] Moreover, authorities have decided that the ordinary meaning of the
words in a statute should be given. The Federal Court in Fairise
Odyssey (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2019] 6 MLJ 281,
the court held:
“[58] It is trite that the duty of the court is limited to interpreting
the words used by the Legislature and it has no power to
fill the gaps disclosed. To do so would be to usurp the
function of the Legislature…”
[30] In Tebin bin Mustapa (as administrator of the estate of Hj Mostapa
bin Asan, deceased) v. Hulba-Danyal bin Balia & Anor (as joint
administrator of the estate of Balia bin Munir, deceased) [2020] 4
MLJ 721, the Federal Court held:
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
BA-25-19-03/2022
“[30] … Therefore in construing any statute, the court will look
at the words in the statute and apply the plain and ordinary
meaning of the words in the statute.”
[31] For this reason, this court is satisfied that the there is no defect in
the charges and proceedings of the first respondent. This court is
satisfied this ground is without merit.
(ii) Whether there is non-compliance and/or procedural
impropriety in dismissing the applicant
[32] The applicant submitted there was procedural non-compliance
and/or impropriety in dismissing the applicant. The applicant argued
that there was a Defective Show Cause Letter, the first respondent
and second respondent failed to consider the material facts in the
applicant’s Letter of Representation, the admission that there are
only 4 days without notification of leave, that the applicant’s reason
for refusing to sign the Performance Progress Plan and that the
reason that the applicant failed to apply for leave in the system was
never raised to the applicant in the Charge Sheet.
[33] The applicant’s complaint was that the applicant was deprived of a
reasonable right to be heard on account of the show cause
letter/charges making up the disciplinary offences being vague or
unclear.
[34] In order to consider this issue, this court perused the show cause
letter/charges against the applicant. For the sake of completeness,
the show cause memo dated 20.08.2019 is reproduced below:
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
BA-25-19-03/2022
“2. Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan
penyata cuti bagi Bulan Jun dan Julai 2019, mendapati
tuan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti dan tanpa
sebab yang munasabah selama sepuluh (10) hari bagi
tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk
memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti
diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari
tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk
mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan
tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[35] The show cause memo dated 25.09.2019 stated as follows:
“2. Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan
penyata cuti bagi Bulan Ogas 2019, mendapati tuan tidak
hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti selama tiga (3) hari
bagi tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk
memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti
diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari
tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk
mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan
tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
BA-25-19-03/2022
[36] The show cause memo dated 11.10.2019 states:
“2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata
cuti pada tahun 2018, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas
tanpa cuti atau tanpa terlebih dahulu mendapat kebenaran
atau tanpa sebab yang munasabah seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan
penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam
tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan.
Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan
menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[Emphasis added]
[37] The show cause memo dated 31.10.2019 is reproduced below:
“2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata
cuti bagi Bulan Oktober 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir
bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti selama empat (4) hari bagi
tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan
penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam
tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan.
Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan
menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[Emphasis added]
[38] The show cause memo dated 12.11.2019 states as follows:
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
BA-25-19-03/2022
“2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran,
Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata
cuti bagi Bulan Mei 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas
tanpa kelayakan cuti selama satu (1) hari bagi tarikh seperti
berikut…
3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan
penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam
tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan.
Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan
menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.”
[Emphasis added]
[39] The Charge Sheet dated 14.07.2020 reads as follows:
“Pertuduhan
Bahawa tuan, Encik Noor Azam Bin Salleh, No. KIP: 740404-1 0-
5401, Penolong Eksekutif Hasil, semasa bertugas di Jabatan
Pengurusan lnsan, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia, telah
didapati tidak hadir bertugas tanpa cuti atau tanpa
kebenaran terlebih dahulu atau tanpa sebab yang
munasabah sebanyak 33 hari pada tarikh-tarikh tertentu
pada tahun 2018 dan 2019 seperti berikut…
Perbuatan tuan telah melanggar Peraturan 28, Peraturan-
Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia
2008 dan boleh diertikan sebagai tidak bertanggungjawab iaitu
melanggar tatakelakuan di bawah Peraturan 7(2)(g), Peraturan-
Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008
yang seperti berikut:
"7(2) Seseorang pekerja tidak boleh –
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
BA-25-19-03/2022
(g) tidak bertanggungjawab;
3. Jika tuan didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan tersebut, tuan
boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 45, Peraturan-Peraturan
Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008.
4. Mengikut Peraturan 40, Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008, tuan adalah diminta
untuk membuat satu representasi secara bertulis yang
mengandungi alasan-alasan yang hendak digunakan untuk
membebaskan diri tuan. Representasi tersebut hendaklah
dikemukakan kepada Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1
melalui Pengarah Jabatan Teknologi Maklumat, Lembaga Hasil
Dalam Negeri Malaysia dalam tempoh 21 hari dari tarikh tuan
menerima surat ini. Sekiranya tuan tidak membuat apa-apa
representasi dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan, tuan dianggap
sebagai tidak hendak membela diri dan perkara ini akan terus
diputuskan oleh Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, berdasarkan
keterangan-keterangan yang sedia ada sahaja.”
[Emphasis added]
[40] At no point did the applicant raise concerns with the disciplinary
board regarding the alleged vagueness or lack of clarity in the
disciplinary charges brought against them. The way these charges
were articulated leaves no room for doubt that the applicant
understood the case they were facing, and there is no other
plausible interpretation of their nature. In fact, the applicant’s written
responses aimed at clearing their name demonstrated a clear and
thorough understanding of the specific disciplinary offenses as they
were presented.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
BA-25-19-03/2022
[41] In this particular case, the chairman of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib
received a report detailing the disciplinary violations committed by
the applicant. In accordance with their responsibilities under
Regulation 38 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008, they assessed that the nature of the disciplinary
offense warranted either dismissal or a reduction in rank, as
specified in Regulation 45 of the same regulations. Subsequently,
the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib took over the disciplinary process,
reviewing the report and determining whether a prima facie case
could be established based on the documents contained in the
report.
[42] If a prima facie case is established, one or more charges are
formulated, outlining the factual details of the alleged disciplinary
offense committed by the officer, along with the reasons for the
proposed dismissal or rank reduction. These charges are then
transmitted to the officer in the form of a document called “Surat
Pertuduhan”. Within a specified timeframe, typically 21 days from
the receipt of the Surat Pertuduhan, the officer is notified that they
must submit a written representation outlining the grounds on which
they seek to clear their name. This process is in accordance with
Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 which, in the view of this court, accords the
applicant an opportunity to be heard. [See: Ghazi Mohd Sawi v.
Mohd Haniff Omar, Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & Anor [1994] 2
CLJ 333; Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar
Pulau Pinang & Anor v. Utra Badi K Perumal [2001] 2 CLJ 525;
Muhammad Farid bin Muntalib v. Tan Sri Dato' Sri Khalid bin Abu
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
BA-25-19-03/2022
Bakar, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit
Aman & Ors [2019] 1 MLJ 604]
[43] Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 explicitly outlines the disciplinary procedure
concerning dismissal and rank reduction, and this procedure is
already detailed in the Charge Sheet.
[44] In the view of this court, the show cause memos are clear and
unambiguous. The written documentation precisely lays out the
reasons and details comprising the disciplinary offense, ensuring
that the applicant is fully aware of the nature of the case against
them and is provided with a fair opportunity to present their defense.
[45] Exhibit A 14 in Enclosure 23 is the Minit Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa
Tatatertib 1 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Bil 1/2021. From this
Exhibit A 14 of Enclosure 23, it can been seen that the first
respondent has taken consideration of all the material facts in the
Applicant's Letter of Representation.
[46] This court is also of the view the second respondent had considered
all the material facts in the Applicant’s Appeal Letter. This can be
clearly seen in Enclosure 24, Exhibit A-17, page 297- 298, Minit
Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam
Negeri Bil 1/2021.
[47] Pertaining to the applicant’s absence from work, the respondents
did not contest the applicant's absence from work for four days
without providing prior notice of leave, nor did they question the
validity of the applicant’s medical records and sick leave certificates.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
BA-25-19-03/2022
[48] It is observed that the applicant’s absence from duty for 33 days was
not supported by any leave entitlement or a valid reason. According
to the applicant, he had given the fourth respondent notification of
leave. However, this does not mean the applicant is automatically
granted the right to take such leave. The facts before this court is
that the applicant had no leave entitlement during that period.
[49] Therefore, the applicant’s absence is, in actual fact, unauthorized.
Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary
Regulations 2008 states that this is subject to disciplinary action.
This court therefore is satisfied this ground is baseless.
(iii) Whether the dismissal sentence on the applicant is irrational,
unreasonable, disproportionate to the offense committed and
has been contrary to the principle of natural justice
[50] With regard to the sentence imposed on the applicant, the applicant
contends that the punishment of dismissal imposed against him was
excessive. The Federal Court in Ng Hock Cheng v. Pengarah Am
Penjara & Ors [1 998] 1 CLJ 405 stated:
“It cannot be denied further that the disciplining of a public officer
by his department head is part of the function of the executive
branch of the government and any usurpation by a court will be
viewed with something very much more than disfavour even
though the Judiciary is the judicial branch of the government as
well as an institution which belongs to the people. To repeat; a
court intervenes only on the nature and manner of accusation
against a public officer as distinct from a consequential
punishment as explained above.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
BA-25-19-03/2022
Just like a professional body being the best tribunal to judge the
seriousness of misconduct of its members, in a similar vein, an
employer, including a government, is the best person to judge
similarly the seriousness of misconduct of an employee.”
[51] It is this court’s view that the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib is regarded
as the most suitable tribunal for evaluating the gravity of its
members' misconduct. However, it is not within the purview of this
court to determine whether the appropriate sanction should be a
dismissal or a milder penalty such as a reduction in rank. Given the
circumstances, the argument raised by the applicant lacks merit and
contradicts established legal precedent.
(iv) Whether there is forgiveness (“condonation”) and if so, the
disciplinary action of dismissal has been contrary to the
principle of “condonation”
[52] The applicant in his submission raised the issue of condonation.
However, this issue was raised by the applicant only in his
submission. This issue was not pleaded by the applicant in the
statement.
[53] In this regard, it is trite that the parties are bound by their pleadings.
The court is not entitled to decide a matter that is not pleaded.
[54] See: RHB Bank Bhd (substituting Kwong Yik Bank Bhd) v. Kwan
Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLJ 188; Aseambankers
Malaysia Bhd & Ors v. Shencourt Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 4 MLJ
619]
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
BA-25-19-03/2022
[55] Was there delay in the disciplinary proceedings which would amount
to condonation? The whole event starting from the point of the
disciplinary offence committed by the applicant to the disciplinary
and disciplinary appeal proceeding, concluded in 2 years and 4
months. At that time or during that period, the Covid-19 pandemic
hit globally and the Malaysian Movement Control Order in 2020 and
2021.
[56] In Public Services Commission Malaysia & Anor v. Vickneswary a/p
RM Santhivelu (substituting M Senthivelu a/l R Marimuthu,
deceased) [2008] 6 MLJ 1, the court stated:
“[40] Also again condonation was not pleaded. However,
although there was a delay between the time the police
completed their investigation and the time when the show
cause letter was issued, there was nothing to indicate that
the disciplinary authority intended to condone the wrongs
committed by the deceased. In any case, the delay was
because the police was investigating the case and the
disciplinary authority cannot be said to have condoned the
acts of the deceased.”
[57] Having considered the facts of this case particularly as the country
was engulfed in Covid-19 and restriction in movement, this court is
of the considered view there is no delay on the part of the
respondents. It follows therefore, there is no condonation as alleged
by the applicant.
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
BA-25-19-03/2022
(v) Whether the applicant is eligible for the reliefs sought in this
judicial review
[58] The applicant further contended that all the applicant’s statements
in this judicial review to challenge the decision made by the first
respondent and the second respondent are not denied by the two
respondents because there is no affidavit in reply from the two
respondents.
[59] The respondents submit that all the applicant’s statements in this
judicial review to challenge the decision made by the first
respondent and the second respondent are actively challenged and
rebutted by the respondents’ deponents, Zahari Ali (the fourth
respondent himself) and Siti Zulaikha Badrul Hisam.
[60] Zahari Ali, the fourth respondent, is the duly appointed individual
authorized to validate the affidavit on behalf of all the respondents.
He holds the position of Director within the Department of Human
Resource Management, which is responsible for overseeing and
managing the employment and service records of all employees at
the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (“IRBM”). The facts
presented in the respondent's affidavit in reply are firmly within the
fourth respondent's awareness and are either derived from the
applicant's documents or are part of the records held by IRBM,
which the fourth respondent has complete access to.
[61] The fourth respondent also, being the secretary of the first
respondent, Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, has the full knowledge of
the disciplinary proceeding taken against the applicant. The fourth
respondent also is the Head of Department of officers from the
Jabatan Pengurusan Insan, in which his officers being part of the
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
BA-25-19-03/2022
committee in the Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Bil 1/2021, has full access to the
minute of the disciplinary appeal proceedings.
[62] Siti Zulaikha binti Badrul Hisam, being the Admin Care Officer
(ACO), is the direct supervisor of the applicant. This court is satisfied
that Siti Zulaikha and Zahari Ali had access to the information and
are persons who is best to aver the affidavits.
Conclusion
[63] For the abovementioned reasons, this court is satisfied there I no
illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness or
procedural impropriety which would warrant this court to allow this
application for judicial review. This court therefore dismisses this
application for judicial review with no order as to costs.
Date: 09 November 2023
(SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN)
Judge
High Court of Malaya,
Shah Alam
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
BA-25-19-03/2022
Counsel:
For The Applicant: Kartini Yusoff
Tetuan Jimmy M.P. Ng & Associates
Advocates & Solicitors
No. 30-2, Jalan Temenggung 17/9,
43200 Bandar Mahkota Cheras,
Selangor.
jimmycheras@gmail.com
+6 03 9080 4973
For the Respondent: Ahmad Isyak Mohd Hassan
Ibu Pejabat Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri
Malaysia,
Jabatan Rayuan Khas,
Menara Hasil, Aras 16,
Persiaran Rimba Permai, Cyber 8,
63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor.
+6 03 8886 8575
S/N HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 43,243 | Tika 2.6.0 |
JA-45A-38-12/2020 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMAD RAFI BIN ROSDIN | Perbicaraan jenayah terhadap 2 tertuduh- terdapat tiga pertuduhan- S.39B91)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta Racun 1952 dibaca bersama S34 Kanun Keseksaan-tempat kejadian di sebuah rumah beralamat di Jalan Sekuntum, Taman Bukit Dahlia,Pasir Gudang, Johor Bahru-OKT1 melarikan diri dan berjaya diberkas-dadah di badan dijumpai- pemeriksaan di dalam bonet Kereta Mercedes Benz menjumpai 1 bag kanvas biru IKEA dan bag kertas "Just Do It"-mengandungi 6 ketulan mampt dipercayai ganja- pendakwaan gagal buktikan kes prima facia atas semua pertuduhan-dilepas dan dibebaskan untuk semua pertuduhan. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7bf1aaa7-8001-4b00-ad0f-afa303cc6c4d&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 14:04:58
JA-45A-38-12/2020 Kand. 16
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N p6rxewGAAEutD6jA8xsTQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
.m—¢5A—3a—12/2020 Kand. as
zeumnzs Hvzu 33
DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JONDW amnu
DALAM NEGERI JOHDR DARUL uxzmu
PEREICARAAN JENAYAH NO: JA-45A-(35-la)-11I2o1I1
FENDAKWA mu
uwnu
MUHAMAD RAFI am ROSDIN
MUHAMMAD HANAFI am MOHD AZNEE
ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN
Panglnllln
[<1 Keduz<1ua|enuduh\s\ah dfluduh dengan mat beuama mengedar
dadah an bawah s a9s<1)<a) Akla Dadah Eevbahaya v952 (Anny can 5
9(1)Ak|a Racun I952 mbaca hevsama s 34 Kamm Keseksazn
[21 Tevdapfl nga (3) Defluduhan |emadap meveka, sepem henkm
F-mmuvun Panama
1JAr45A—a$1Mo2a — Tan-mun Panama dun Temmun Kzmm 4/uudun
nm.nmama)
IN pl!rxnwGAAEmD£:Aa.uYD
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
'Eahawa kamu barsamzruma pad: 215 mm, pm Izhm kn-inn n an mllnm
m nnflannn mmah No 9:‘ Jilan Sdmmum <4. Yaman auxm mam rm
Gudang‘ m dahm dnauh Juhut Blhm m dullm mum John! Dam ‘(aknm
Iehah menuedlr dadah wmaya pm: bmm um: gum lulu c......a..
om Mu kamu «aim mnhxukuu sun kesiluhm m mm Seksyen as: may
Am Eladah E-erbaluya «:52 flan mm dmnkum m buwan Seksyen ass (2;
Anayang xnmndmmhncanasnmadvlzawnh Se«sy:n34 Kanun Keseksaan‘
P-mmun-n mu
(JA45A—a7—1z/2020 — nu-mun Paflaml um;
‘Bahawa kamu pada 2152:1211, .m mam kuung 11 4a mum u. hldnpan
mmnh No at man Sekumum u, Taman Bum nam Pam smug. a
mm mm. Jmur Elihu‘ m mm. Negen Jahor mm Vukzlm man mmxm
am.» aemanm beral bemh 24.34 gum mm Imlamphuuminl om. nu
klmu mun memunn mu xmnnan dv hawah Seksyarv I212)AkIa Dzdah
Bemuhaya I952 dun mm «mm. um um). Seiuyen mm Ann ynrw
Plrluduhan Kaila:
musaauzaazo . Tmuaulv Panama flan Yam.-tun Kedua duuduh
basnma-sums)
-Baum Iumu bersamtxama pad: 2: a ma, pm mam kunnn 1: 40 mnlnm
a. amp... rumah Na ea. man Sakunwm <4, Tamar: Euiul mam pm
Gudang, a. dzlam mm. Jnhar mm m dnrnm Nesyen Jana! Diml Yakzlm
lnllnmdnpnndalammnhkankamulawnyang!.ersanava\da\amJ:du:lPnn,:mI
din Jamal mg. (Bmxn Pukmvamk) Am mm 125: mu Milruaynlnn
s.u..w.x Issamllllll-vain flu-ganlru kamu wan msiakukan um kauhmn
u. bawm Stxsyen am An; Raw 1952 my w-n «mum m bawah
semen 3242; Kali ‘/ing um: dzn mm. mum. Slksyun 34 Knmm
Kzuksurv
sm p£ruwGAAEmDfl1ABxsYD
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
arang Vain Gan mampunya. pengelahusn (enmng dzman yang
evsaalkan
[36] Dahm kes vm. mhsk pendakwaan Isiah mengemukakan Iaklz darn
mrem benkut unluk membukukan pamillkzn lamadau dadah
1.
xeuua-ans Ierludun nan Amnm dnlmat sedang bevkumpul an
naaapnn mman bardakalan dengan kereva Mercedes yang
mnakn dmadapan mman yang mana dadah da\am penuduhan
panama duumpax dl da\am bonel newakang keveta dan oecanr
kelum dalzrn pemmnnan kehga dljumpax hemumplmn mereka
berkumpm
Dadah anvnm pemmunan keduz duumpai daiam seVua( yang
mam: nleh Tammnn Panama
Tenuduh Panama dvlangkap seiemh cubs melankan am dan
alan umuax uneven aanawa bellau ada pengelahuan mengenau
fladah mg dqumpaw
Panamuan kad nama keduzrdua lerluduh dw dalam arm mt
keruta memhuknkan meleka msmpunyzw zksus |emadID xerexa
flan jarak keve|a yang pamn aawam jarsk deksl an naunpan
mman Tenuduh Penams wga memhenkan
uengelahuan
Keoemngan Anna: Anaka Nov Aznn, SP6 warm lunang kepada
Termduh Kaduz menyatakan calah membenkan Harem Iersebul
unluk kegunaan Tenuduh Kedua sepzruang kehadaan spa an
John! aanm sejak hmzn Januan, 2u2o. Hanya «maps: 1 kunm
unluk kevela Ievsehln dan |elah flvsevahkan kepada Tenuduh
Kedua darn spa mangesankan hahawa kerela |eIsebutadz\zh dw
bawah jagaan Temmuh Kedua pads nan k€|advan
mlenans
syn p«mwGAAEmD£‘Aautn
"Nuns am.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m van; me angwnauuy mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
[37]
s Kunm keIe(a dljumpaw pada Temmuh Kedua. maka barang kes
yang mjwnpa. sdalah dmawah kawalan Tenuduh Keduz
sspsnuhnya dan dmam pengelahuannya
7 Mflrugymne yang dwampzs mg: berada an dapan kedua-flu:
tenudu ' |u p/am srghlkelrka anenun alen sm
Fada penngkal my pihak pembexaan mengaiakan sepem berikm
1 Terpulusnya rzmaall keterangan kes aan Keragunn kepada
krednbililx SP1 uan spz. Pemaaxaan hwahkan kelerzngan
bahawa selepas serbuan di mman Terluduh Panama. barang
kes tevus amawa ke lbu Pe;iba| Polls Daemh Sen Alan: W lndak
banar kerina pembelaan |elah mervgemukakan Iapmamaporan
pulls n24, D25, nzs yang mamkzuklikan sm max xems pulang
ke mu sen mam
2 Teldapal pevcsnggahan dalam kemrangan sm flan spa dan
hada peruelasan dlhual man mana-mana saw
3 Pada panngkat wm pembenaan menegaskan bahawz uada
keterangan danpada sm akan smpakah yang rnempunyai
kawalan darn jagaan pzda bzrang kes dan dua beg mu semasa
serhuan dilakukan dv fig: xampac yang benaman
4 Pmak Pendakwaan eenan gagm unmk memanggn Amwul Aflan
hm Hshammuddm szksw maaan pmak
Pendakvraxan mengaiakzn Annmv max ho\eh member:
kaevangan aeas laklur kealhalan man maakang aleh dukumen
Fahmn sebagzw
peruhakan man ad: sebarang mm. manunjnkkan Armml ‘unfit
Io give evraemre“
5 Pmak Pandakwaan wga gagax unmk mengemukakan keputusan
anahs: mnna DNA walaupun mkanakan caman man mamb-
aw aau...c~mna.aamn
«-ma s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m van; ..a nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
pzngzlal-man Umukmemenulmmsurl
IerIuduh—|enuduh berida bsrhamplran dengan dadah dan meveka been
5 Keaunua (emmuh max mempunyal kawakan aksmsxf pad:
kenderaan wvn 129 kerana nzda saksx yang nampak swap:
yang membawa keraka lersehm ke Iempal kejadwin Jugs ma
saks: yang nampak sama ads meleka ada hevumszn dengan
bamng kes dan Mada kelsrangan sukongan sepsm DNA
mzhupun can ‘an yang menuruukkan having kes pemah
dmvuskan a\ah kedua-dua lenuduh
7 Pmak pendakwaan wga gzgal membuklwkan mat hersama dx
hzwah 5 34 Kanun Keseksaan (emadap keaemua oxnemaaap
peauuum ca. 3155 Pemuexaan menghupahkan hanawa nada
kelerangan memmgukkan mu.-mua terluduh mampurvyaw "prs—
arrange p/an” Imluk mengedar dadah aan kehadvan mareka
hanyalah semahrmata ‘mere plswnce"
5 Tmflnkan Terluduh Panama melankan um Im hanya se\alI
dengan dadah yang duumpaw m da\am kuceknys an bawah
S1212)/39A ADE Peruuatan Terluduh Kedua dan Arrwul
kehl-waLan "emu max menyumbang kepada pemnukuan
wujudnyz pengelahuan tenlallg adanya dadah yang dnrampas
om. SP1 kerana M3 mar mereka lahu‘ pasll meteka Inga akan
melankan am
[an] Undang-undang aflalah mmap bahawz dengan hanya mempunyal
jagaan aluu kzwalan ke a\as dadah lersebm lwdak mancukuw unmk
memhukukan pemmkan (hhal Inrnhlm Mnllnrnad v. PF (101 114 cu 1)
[39] Adalah ma berdassvkan nas keskes dmuan banawa dua esemen
yang dvpevlukan LIMHK memhukhkan pemilxkan man kawalan fizxkal dan
Lia mes\u1mm;ukxan bahawa
mengendahkannya seowarmnan Ia zdalah mum mereka Bag! unsurmerflal
.3
sw pm...c~mm.Aamn
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
axan msns rea puua Derlu fllbukhkan bahawa Cerludulrlevluduh Dermal
axan hemasral unmk bemrusan dengan dadah Iersebul (mlsndsd In deal
mm ma drugs) (vuiuk kes FF v Abdul Ranman Ah!/[2007] 5 ML! 237
(F0), Chan Pun Lana v PF [1955] 22 ML] 217 Inc); nalam em ksia
lam‘ kapeduan unsur fifikal dun menus! tersebul perm wuwd nan
dlhukbkan sehemm pem kzn dapzl dihukukan.
[AD] D. am has pendakwzan saya mendapzu bahawa keduadua
Ierluduh mempnnyai kawa\an dan ;agaan aana pengellhuan mengenm
dadah yang auumna. maka Ianya aaaxan dalam mmkan meleka semzsa
anangkap
[.41] vaaa penngkal nn szya menevima keterznqan sm bahawa
Tenuduh Kedua Ie\ah dutahan samasa mluar rumah berssma Amnul flan
kuncl karma Memfles yang dljumpaw flan semar Tennmm Kedna
mamaawa kepada penemuan barzng kes dadah Cannabis darn banal
helakang karara Tarluduh Panama pnva lelah bemndak malaflkan dm
dan dadah dljumpaw d:\:m selunr yang mpakaw auahm Fada peungkat
W, saya berparmangan naaa sebab urnuk merzg elerzngan sm dan
spz (mwk PP V. MnPI.lmIdAIi[19£2]18ML.I 257 um Shah Vrwm Ton
v. ;=P{2o13) 1 ms 377)
[421 Olah yang uennxnan, saya memmuskan aanawa aamaaaman
kapada Ke(erarI§an mg dlkemukakan‘ shaman permhkan dadah lelsehul
lelah flmukhkan seczva afivmam
Keduadua Temlduh man mengedardadah
[431 Bagi alaman psngedaran Imlnk pammnhan panama‘
memandangkan elemen pammxan Devan beqaya amnman maka saya
membual dapalan bahawa sa|u kes prfma ram pangedzvan umnknkan
bawah seks‘/En 130(4) Kn aenaan pemskauan angaspan bawah
u
N D|!ruwGAAEmD£:ABuYD
Nuns s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm In: nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm a. .num Wm
sakswn 37(da) ADE (mmk kes Abdullah Man) berdasarkan berm dadah
Cannabis yang melamm wax rmmma znu gram (5 37(da)(vi))
[44] Cfleh yang aenukuan, kedua-dun lenuduh (emu mpanggu unmk
membela din dan mereka memllm uruuk mamben kstsvangan secara
hmumpan
xaa P-mbolun
[451 Kedua-due lenuduh |eIah membankan
hersumpah den memanggwl Ilma (5) bring Saks! awam yang melupakan
zhh keluarga mereka dan Amlm
kenerangan secara
[46] Pada malam 21 52020, keduadua lerluduh dan Amm-I sedan;
herkumpm din lepak dv nadapan rumah Na 94, mm Tenuduh Panama
Supasukan anggala polvs man membual serhuan pzda anggaran jam
11 an mz\zm aan semass han keiaman. negzva maivh dalam oempan
Parmlah Kawaxan Pergevakan Eevsyaval
[47] Semssa samuany Tenuduh Panama man me\ankan am can
beqsya mlangkap dan mbawa ke hadapan mmah lersahut. Pemanksaan
badan acaa kedua-dun ienuduh flan Armml max msmumpaw barang salsh
(slaw kemuduan merwmpaw dadah dahm poxecseluar Tsfluduh Fensma
[451 Pemenksann pana kenderzan WYR 125 yang berafla herdekman
dengan mereka juga tidzk menemul apa-spa harang sa\ah
[491 Pemenksaan a. da\am bmk Tenuduh Penama ax aauam vumahnya
‘ugz hdak manamui ape-apa barring salah sanammya SP1 membawa
kedua-dua |enuduh flan Amwul ke rumah Tanuaun Kedua ax Na 32, Jalzn
Sekunlum s, Tamzn amt Dahha Pnsv Gudang‘ (myuk Vzpman Pulvr 7025)
yang mana serhuan ml mam aleh spa sun Mohd Aznee bin AN Malek
(hapa Tenuduh Keauay dan sos, sm Nur Az\e\a mm. Mona Aznee (mm
.5
am aau...c~mna.aama
«-ma Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
Tarluduh Katina) mml berada m da\am rumah Terluduh Kedua pada
masa sevhuan kevana mavaka (Inggal :1: sum
[50] Femenksaan Dada wk Tenuduh Kedua lelah menemm 1 bag mm
beflulrsan KKEA flan 1 beg kenas hertuhsan Nike yang mana an dzlamnya
duumpal sejumlnh dadah msyakkl gznya salapas pemenman dawn
nmk Termduh Keaua, menglkul sm nan sns‘ sw amnax kaluar dari umu
nu memegang 1 bag mm henullsan IKEA man 1 beg kenas herlullszn
Nike
[51] sns .uga mengalakan bahawa nag hum berluhian IKEA dan beg
kenas berlullszn Nwke tersebut gmawa oleh rnkun Temmuh Kedua
hernama Hahm yang paga masa nu ads dalang ks lumah unmk naqumpa
Tarluduh Kedua Dlsebahkan sos makmmkan yang Tenuduh Kadua
naaa m rumah‘ Hallm man memmca um umuk masuk ke hmk Tenuduh
Kedua un|uk maletakkan dahum harang kelengkapan pevmaman
compu(erc1IbII\kTenuduh Kedua dan zkan kambah samma Dada mamm
nanh sns nampak Hahm bawa beg mm benuhs IKEA flan beg kenas
bsrlulis Nike masuk xe bmk Tenuduh Kedua sebalum memmla mri unmk
pmang lanpa mernegang heg—beg |eIsehut lagi
[52] Hanna Ideflah mkan Tsrluduh Kedua yang salam amnau datang ke
rumah hersama Amlrm untuk hermamin E-Spoil yang dlarwrkan hampw
aamap ma\am sn5 wga mngavaxan banawa Tenumm Kedua se\a!u
mangaruurkan pelmaman E-Sporl a|as lahan sevem Dma den PUBG aan
sememangnya kamasaannya Halvm akan aaxang ke Nmsh mereka
nenemh dahuhl unluk mewezaxkan perkakasan permainan darn makanzn
aaaemm memmakan pevmaman
[531 Talah jug: dlhlqahknn hahawa mjuan ymak pnlis mambual Iarhuan
ke mman Teduduh Kedua adalah kerana barang kes hdak pemeh
15
am am...c~.z..ma.aamn
«-ma am n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
ayumpa. dalam kevela wvn <29 sehagawmana kelerangan saksx
pendakwaan
Analin dan Dapalan cfllkhlr kes Pembelaan
[54] Eevdavarkan kepada seksyen 182A KTJ, uka pendakwaan banaya
membukhksn kesnya melampaui saharang keraguan yang munasahah,
kedIIa—dua |enuduh nenaaman umapau bslsalah din msabnkan Namun
uka sananknya, Mahkamah hendmdah mmepas dzn membehaskan
cenumm uzuyuk kes Balzchandnn y. PP {zoos} 1 cu :5 aan
Monnmad Radhl um Yizcob y. PF (1991) 1 cu Rap 311)
[551 Mengenal anggapzn pengadarin dnhawah sama), beban akan
harpindah kepada kedua-dua lenuduh mm menyangkau anggapan
I/arsebul axas Imhangan kehavangkzhan yang mana bebarmya ada¥=h
new heva| dari memmbulkzn keraguan yang munasabah (Muk kes pp y.
vuyara/{ms} 1 ms 116)
[as] Mengwkul kes Liam Hung Boon y. up [2012] 1 LIVE 1455,
Mahksmah Rayuan memuluxskan
‘So me Ippeflanl had in renal m. npevlllve Dresumvfiun .71 Immcxmw uvdev a
many Mme am nu ma mam av pwbabtlwex mm xaya ui rebulm maaaa
a mghev emdarmary burden an ma anpe\lnn|'
[571 Dengan pemzkawzn anggapan dv bawan 5371637 Im jugs, e\emen
pengedaran Ievah dlanggap maka kaduama lanuduh mkanaxan
msngedar fladah (ersebm semnggz umukukan sebahknys (mm: the
canfraryls flmved) Tenuaun-canuauh flengan W peflu mengemukaksn
kelerangan yang mencukupv umuk mengakas anggzpan laysebut acaa
wubangan keharangkalmn (nquk Ny cnar Km y PP (1594; 2 cm 591
darn Manamad Radhi y PF(1992)1 so» 445;.
n
N Dl!ruwGAAEmD£|ABuYD
ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrimnnflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
[59] Ds\am Dembalaan mereka. Iertuduh-(enuduh mengemukakan Iakla
mbawah szbagzw mm. sangganan (rabumz/evidence)
1 raaa dadah awnpaz semasa serbuzn dlbuat amaaapan rumah
Na 94
2 Dadah Cirmabss hanya auumusx ax ds\am mum Tertuduh Keduay
dmlmahnya d\ No 32, Jalan Sekunlum a
3. sakn panmaxaan sm dan sns mengeszhkan sm memegang
beg lkaa |urun uan mllk Terluduh Kadua.
4 Saks: sos ma mengalaksn meVma| Ham membawa Deg
ban-maan Ikea |erse|>u(na1k ks Tenuduh Kenna
5 sns (Am\ru¥) menaalaksn Dada ma\am xaaman, ma man
dxhanlar olsh nakmn ke mman renuaun Panama nan mereka
hevmain game Manna Legsnddmadapan mrnzhnya Amnrm [ugz
mengalakan saarang yang meraka pinggll sebagax -um datang
menghamar kereua Memedes yang dlgunakan oleh Temmuh
Kedua. pakw berdekatan dengzn mnan, menguncv kerata dan
malelakkan kuncw alas Iembok pager n-man Tenuduh Panama
flan beflam pelgw menallu kendevaan Vain (Araham puun)
Semasa pnhs dztang membua| serhuan‘ Terluduh Penama
melankan dm sus nampix Pohs ambvl kuncl dan atas lambvk
uan memenksa keuava Mercedes Seae\sh dflahan xeuga-uga
meveka caran dnhawa ke mmah Tenudun Kenna dan selelah
memenksaan dI|7ua| dw bllxk Tammun Kedua, sue mangarakan
mehha| pohs meluumpaw neg hewarna bvu benullsan Vkea flan
Sam beg kenas bellulisan Nike yang mana cam. dwlurqukkan men
pafis mengandungw gama
6. Usm Demenkssan uxama namau-p Amm mhax Panaakwaan
memahun (ankh lam unluk memenksa naxaa dan menyemak
beberapa an yang dmmbulkzn Manangnya Amwul hdak Vagi
in
am NmwGAAEmD£:Aaum
«-ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ma nrW\nnU|:I mm: flan-mm VII nF\uNG Wm!
am: mkesan Meh pihak Pendakwaan pada |ankh henkumya
wz\aupun sapma telih mkemarkan Kegagalan serahan sapma
dlkalakan kerana Amm cam. pmang xe Keflamzn dan hdzk lagw
flnpal Maka kemevangan spa lerhenh salakat
pemenksazn mama tinpa dlwal bales olen pmax Pendskwsan
mkaaan
[591 Saya meneml dan mempemmbsngkan kesemmhan pamuaxaan
keduadua Ierluduh dan saks>-salts: pemaexaan dan bevpemiapal,
larmduh-lermduh (elah mengemukakan versl yang berbeza uangan kas
pendnkwaan levapl selan darn dvsokong o\eh Kewrangan sm, sns dan
5D6(Am\rul)
[ea] Memuk kepada xeaemngan sud flan 505‘ darn pengamalan saya
dan sag! demanaur aan konsxslsnsl marangan, saya barpendapal
mereka max mermruukkzn ada herkemungknnan msmhenkan xexarangan
Immk kapenhngan Terludun Kedua aamanamaca zlau telgalung dengan
nelas saksw yang berkepenhngan (nnamazaa; alau yang max man
mpevnayal (urltmstwmilvyj seam. jug! dengan xexerangan sue
[61] Paaa pelingkal Inn, pemnexaan hanya peflu menyangkal mum
pengedaran alas xmhangan kebznangkalmn dan selemsnyanya
mammbulkan keraguan yang rmmasabah Ierhadzp ks: Pendakwaan
Kedusmua Ierluduh lidak sekadar manafikan (slap: memhenkan sam
versl kajaman yang bmeh dllenms nemvama lakls bahawa memang
|erdapa| beherapa semuan wam auaxukan pada nan yang sama
bersangkul dengan panangkipan maveka
[521 Manxamar. Rayuan daham supwvmnu-nra/L-nus -rrdsmvays
Kuchinq Division v Muhamnd Rambll KIWI [zau] 1 ms m ada
mew/abut mengenaw lahap pembu
n‘ szya petlk sehagaw panduan
15
am aau...c~mna.aamn
«-ma saw ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
[53]
‘- Thu aavaaaa ul nmmbmes may he vwsuaflsed is a scale mm ma pmnm
plncmg ms zwdenue on nu: ma and ma aeterudam wamaa on ma am ma
cm waluavu ma wmanu aa In ma wugm .: clmes ov mun: mnvumbls
uvwaenbe names no wewhl nemana mmut ewdenw «a puxmy ma damn!
uxamaa can curvy nuwelwm am hence ma ram ‘bale aemar
Saya ‘uga mengamhll pandusn makwd -xenaguaa mIm:sahah‘dan
pehkln dalam kes PP v sauntn (1911 1 LNS 1 15 sepeni amawan.
[54]
-u \s ml maa possible «am, because everymmg mmmg tn human awaaa aaa
dlpandmq upvm mum aamam .a even to same posmbi: er vuauIna'Y flwbl
n V: IMI stale am-a case wmch ans! ma am. aamaamaa Ind aaaaamaaaa
at an mama was ma mmds av Mars In men conduun In a men! cenamly
M the am av me change
in ya. aaam am aam Hut -amaaaaua mum’ is me mm which mam
ywu n-silall as to ma comma. M m. cnncllulnn mun. yaa much. :4
unanr your aim: Ind upon your cnvuclenuu mar you um Vully
lnvueynnd ma wldcncv and complnd n m an n. aana, you a aa
ymnsifl n mm Mlle is gulhy, men 1: V: a maaaam. man u h a mum:
wman umu u. ynur judgmum am am: a rlslmy pnaaa mm or a
somehmzs smd Imus! b: aaam so mama am aaaazannax 2x to pmducem
ma mmdx «:1 ma |umrs aama uucanmnly us to ma man lo he given A
reasanalfle daum must be a aouhl ansmg Hum ma ewderme uv want av
nmdsrmq and c:mu7| be in wmawury duuhl or oanpeclwv unvedabw w
ev\denue'
-Penakanan mlambah
sexelah menflaw kembalx krsdxbllm SP1 din SP2 dan amammgkaa
dennan ketevangan pambexaan, saya aapan vets: pemaaxaan ada
kamungkvnan (probable) benar saya menquk kepzda pnnsm asaa da\am
kes Ma: v PP (1su)1 ms 32 yang mana pka lakla yang dlkemukakan
uleh pamxaaxaan In: men drpercays: maka keduadua (emmuh perm
anepaauan Jtkapun (am: yang
amukakan alall marvka mak
an
am a«u...caazam.aauvu
ma. am n-nhnrwm a. a... a van; .. nrighvnflly MIMI dun-mm VII nF\uNG perm
[31 D\ am kes pendakwaan, saya memumskan hahawa pmak
pendakwaan benzya mamhukukan Xe: pnma Yams alas pemmuhan
kezlas mereka nan (anuduh-(enuduh mpanggu unluk memnaxa dun
[4]
saksx awam pembalaan yang Vzinlelah mpanggll D. akmrkas pemhelaany
saya menaapan xenuuumemaun bsrjaya mengakas anggavan an bawah
s 37 (Ga) den salemsnys benaya memmhulkan keraguan yang
Mereka lelah memmh member: katemngan bersumpah dan1imz(5)
mlmasabih tamadap kes penflakwaan Maka mpumakan bzhawa
pendakwaan Isiah gagal memnukmkan ks: mmampam keraguan
mlmasahzh
[5] owan yang darmkvany kedua-dua lenuduh |e\ah flflepaskan dzn
dibehatkan nan sauap penuduhan ks alas mevska.
[6] Pmak Pendakwaan |e\ah merayu ke Mahkamall Rayuan alas
kepumsan (ersebul, maka benkut adalah imam says
Nlrill kn Plndakwnn
[71 Bemndak a«as mzklumal keglatan daflah, pada 21 Jun 2:120‘ yam
lebm kurang 11 zu malam. lnsp Mahd Aflzwm Fairuz bin Ramlv (sum
hersama bebsrapa anggmanyz lelah bevgsrak ks Vokasn m No. 94‘ man
Sekunmm 14‘ Tzmzn sum Dahlm Fun Gudangy Juhov (mmnh Na. :4)
[31 Kerela apevasl mpamra. hadapan rumah Na 94 nan sm melmal
lerdapal M93 13) nrang max. Memyu seflang bemln den herkumpm dn
hadapan vumah (ersehut Persekn:-nan Vukasl kanka nu muarangi cahaya
lampu ]alan dzn pagar rumah dalam xeaaaan lerbuka Fads: masa yang
sama, sa\ah saarang anggom semuan‘ Sjn Mahd Fawzal bin Ra1aI|(SP2)
mehlwafi iebuah Kereva jams Mercedes Eenz parklr aw nauapan rumah
(elsebul
sw am...c~.z..1m.Aamn
"Nuns Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; .. gummy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
mpamayai sekalipum saya max bcleh mensahllkan mereka memnkan
ada absan bahawa xlnya gagan memmhulkan keraguan yang munasabah
am Manama mum Yaacab I/PP (1921) 2 cu 2011)
[65] Says telah mermaw dengan |elm kes pembelaan aan man msmbual
dnpmnn sa<a:as dengan 5152A KTJ Sayapxga mermux xevaaa Dinduan
Radni m da\am kes Mahmud mam Yukon sapem berikut
-n m . wafl uuhluhed rmnm|2\e an Mnmysmn amnmax law max me genera!
mean ac pram hes Imroughuul ma Ina! on ma Dvusecmmn in mm bsynnd
rl snnihle duum me gum ar Ihe mum ran ma Lmervoe mn vmum na ..
durged were 1: no swmlzv human mined on me nursed m pnwe ms
mnuuarwee Ne up/esumad nnaaam unm woven gumy
Yo eam an aoqmflak ma cue, .; nmary in 12.“: relsunlme duuhl m Ihe
pvusacumm case \n ma mwse a~ me proeecuonn saw, me pmxecmmn may
clown: My on mnama Ihmlmy mmumphuns In Draw: aue armare M In
aaaamm Ingredients at In charge wnan «na« occurs «n. pamcmar um... ac
pron! as append In ma ganam burden shm m ma fleverwe to ram sum
presumpbans an we balance m pnanannmaa Much Imm ma amends Dam! av
vnew u haavmltun una burden ulcaslma araaaenaua mm, hunllwicuwnw
hyhnec man he bumon anna mammmn m wave beynnd reawrlnlzle mm
[66] Keslmpmannya‘ szya bsrpandaual hahawa xexevangnn bukv kes
pemhelazn ada kemungklnan Dena: Sehubungan dengan nu, walzupun
udak yak: saya jugs berpendapat keselmuhzn kas namnexaan man
benaya memmbmkan kavaguan yang munasabah (emadap kes
pendakwaan dan salerusnya memslahksn anggapan amawan s 37(fla)
a|as wrlbangan keharingkallan
Punilaian kumangan Pombalaan
[57] Dadah (perluduhan panama) ada ksmungkmzn lelah mjumpa. an
rumah Tenuduh Keduz we 1:) many saksx manganaxan xanyi «mam
11
am pl!ruwGAAEmD£:Aautn
«ma am.‘ n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm van mum am
mum oxen spa, (mime: uleh sm, sns dan sue) sa|u beg mm benuhsan
IKEA dan salu beg kenas hanullsan NIKE sns mangalakan bag nu
dxbawa nleh Halvm sebemm Tenuduh Kmua dwangkap Fakla ml yuga
mum web sue (Amlvw)
[ea] vem buhawn kenumgkman dadah sebenamya hdak duumpzw
damn kerela kerana pmak pulvs lelah membua| serbuzn m we (3) Inkasx
Iain, txfleh dilevima
[as] Padz han kqadian, Tenuduh Kadua pavw Nmah Tertuduh Penama
sslalah amanm alsh sD7 Fakla mi disoknng dengan kelevangan so:
(ayah Terluduh Perlama) yang nampak Terluduh Kedua datang (Idak
menawkl kendaraan Mengvkut sum semasa mum-mula sampm kerela
Mercedes (yang dlkalakan ads dadah flldmamnya) mad: :1! lempal parkvr
mluu mmah Yermduh Panama Vni menyokung kumungkman kere|a
Mercedes Ievsebul sebsnamya mm d\ (empal psklrpafls mas: Tenudun
Ksdua mma-mws sampaw m mmah Telluduh Pellama
[701 Kewujudan panama Hzhm‘ msem dalam kes pendakwaan Iagw
Dlsahkan uleh sps bahawa Tenuduh Kedua man sswakan karma
kepada Hahm pada harl kuaman ram ml mengxkat pmak Pendakwaan
kerana Ia dmmbulksn flan kelerangan saksl meveka — mink kes 1» v Ha
ha Kun (mu) 3 cm 71, on Mzka ada kemungkman walak Hllxm
bukan vekaan (finflousj
[71] Peguam te\ah hevhmah bahavwa ke|erangin SD4 uan sns nampak
SP1 membawa keluar dadah max dlpenksa ba\as aleh plhak
Penflakwaan Twdalquga amankan hahawa mhak pohs ads pelgw ks lumah
Tenudun Kedua kerana Pandakwlan hdak menamkan xewumaan Iaper.-n
Wlvs ms
22
sw pm...c~mm.Aamn
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
1721 Saw dapali pmak Pendakwaan ada mencadangkan kepuda
Terluduh Panama, sm can 505 bahawa «am sw dmhal menjumpan
harsng kes an mnan Tenuduh Kenna tam vekaan kanana mengikut ms‘
naaa barang salah man duumpal semasa pemzviksazn mwat can
meveka udzk berxemjn Selelah menyemak nn|a kemangan‘ waapau
nmak Pendakwaan ndak meny:1a\ |7a\as tau ml kepsda Tenuduh Kedua
Mengenal sue pula‘ pihak Pendikwun ndak helpeluang untuk menyoal
was saksw .n. acaa kegagalan unmk mengesannya
[13] Sungguhpun began‘ suya nanaanaapau, huuan D25 dxkamukakan
oxen pmak Pemnexaan adakah uniuk menyanggah xenemngan sw yang
mengueaxan pasukan sevbuan Ie\ah (ems bavgevak balnk he IF-‘D sen Mam
pads malam |arssbu| sedsngkan ada semuan lam amuan
[74] Selerusnya, ram bahawn sm, sns dan sue secsra knnsislen
mengaiakin aaa mehha|SP1 mambawa aam navang mg menyerupaw
beg yang fllrampas, memadxkan kreammu ss-1 semkil aaraawankanna sm
Vangsung lvdak menyanmh laK(a benzwa bahau dan pasuksn aaa pergl ke
mmah Tertufluh Kedua Navatil mi penlmg kerana susulan dan nu,
persoalan flflg hmbm adzlall mengenal ramalan kelzvangan baranq Keys
[75] ma pmak Pendzkwaan hdak manankan sevbnan lawn ada must‘
semeslmya penjelasan mengenaw keberadaan baring xea yang helum
dnandakan unnaxvurnxan kapadz Mahkamah Tanya mak\uma| mengena.
kawa\an barang Res sebemm SP1 sampaw ke nan‘ saya (idak man
menulup sebelah maca axau memhual mlevan Ianya dalam .agaan SF1
[151 ms man dmux kepada spa dan beliau wga tebh mengesahkan
kawu,-mannya Percanggahan kmevangan sac. swz flengnn D25 perm
duelasksn Saya menquk kepada s 91 Ana Kelemgan dan ken Ah M. v
syn am...a~.z..1m.namn
"Nuns saw n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mums dun-mm VII mum pans!
PP[1.v51)1 Mu 22:1, Namun begun, dalam kes ml. hada penmaian man
mbuax o\eh svc
rm wamaun sna (Amwrul) gagal maawa a\eh pmik Pendakwaan
semasa kes Pendakwaan, namun behau lelah benaya msapma \m|uk kes
pembelzan waxauaagamnapun, usal pemanksaan mama, kanamran
Amvm lehh gagal an umskan aleh plhzk Pendakwaan dan kmemngannya
Malt dapal dlperiksa balas men plhak Psudakwaan Fembelann bemmah
flan szya se|u]u bahawa kesdaan W cexan member! kesan kepada m\a|
keuennan Kerlersngannya yang mana zkan mamvrajudnskan xenuaun.
lertuduh ketana ke|erangzn sna menyokang pembelaan bahawa dadah
hdak duumpaw da\am karela mam cu mmah Terluduh Kedua uan bahawa
pada nan Kajaduan Halwm ada aacang menyerahkan kerala Mercedes
sehemm benam dalam sebuah kere1aAIphavfl puhh
[75] Mengenaw an kagagaxan pvhak Pendakwaan memasnkan kehadvran
saksl Amllm mu. aaya meruwk kepeda kes ‘n Cnuee Hizng v PP [1955]
2 ML./ 431,dm-zsna Mahkamah Agony ta\ah mamumsxan, amara Vain‘
‘WM: me vroseaunw ha: a cum;-Lat: aaamn .a in ma maybe at mmssas
in n. clued It me man. u msu nas the duty In an an necuury wwnesus
essenlm za the ufloldmg or in: natntive a! me pruseumou case to eslahflih
pmm .g..na¢ lhe necused beyond an mwnanne awn: Aum vury mm, m.
pmnecuwr should makn mum . ’ bl: Var cmsscximlnallon by an-
amna. n ma pmseculnun lafled In mm m my. ma Iuculed must he
newnes-
—Penekanan dvlambah
[79] Saya mga berpendspal bahawa Armrm aua>ah aaxa yang manna!
dan pemmg unluk mekangkapkan nzrahl kes pendakwian uan yugn
pamneman aexexan isu kamungkinan man duumpaw when m tempa|
kepdlan aanagannana dalam perluflnhan dmmbulkan Mungkin vanya
syn asn...c~.z..1m.namn
«-ma am.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mums dun-mm vu mum an.‘
max hegim penlmg semasa ken nendakwaan‘ namun se1e\ah dmmbmkan
lakva yang beycangganan, ketevangan Amm meruadl relevan dan
kagagaxan mengemukakannya msmmxenkan saya mengguna mm:
mcara unmk mengangnap kelerangan mum yang bakaldnkemukakin alsh
Amlml Udzk mamihak kepsda pmak Pendakwaan Say: dengan Im
mengguna pike! anggapan dmzwan s114(g)Ak(3 xewangan
[so] Dalam ks: Amrl Ibrahim A Anni. V‘ PP [1017] 1 cu 511‘
Mahkamah Pesekuluan |e|ah mamutunksn, anxnm lam
‘<2; The pnwer m 12-: own m draw an Idvane Wevunca undar 1 mm ov me
Ewdnrvce M: E dnscvsnnniry u dnpendx an me n:\n:ums(Inoes on me can and
pamzmarlyln casuwheveme mmedal wnlnossss an, um pruduczd -
[51] Adalall lugas an bahu pmak Pendakwaan unluk memnshkan saksi
yang dwawalkan Kapafla Pemhalaan dlkemukakan Saya meruwk kapada
ks: PP v Rasli bln ymomazv) 7 cu m, dipuluskan aleh Mahksmah
Paisekuluan yang telah mermuk kepada hulahan peguam (dalam kes
lelssbul) yang mm telah d\perse|u]uIsepeI1I benkur
1221 n suppofl at In: suhlmulun rehunce was mm an m. Enahsh Caun
Cnmmzl Anne]! use M R '4 Marine Henry Bryant s Ann\‘nsr{194E)31Cr App
x us‘ where the Cum rsaunmsu that me prosewnun ha: . du|y m max. a
pawn ma an we mama: mam. xv lble Ia dflencs w may dead: ml
m can mm
m} Leamad nnunsel msu menu us to the pve»Mnme«i ms: M van Lee Yang
V R [195s| 22 MLJ «:14 when: we Cami nan: that an witnesses mm
nataemanls have been laken ihntfld be bvaugm In Caurl by me mewuw‘
excem muse whoa: Ivmeme mu may and omwy mm rm hgm an me
pass, and any wwmess ml sn brought CD Cmm m\n| be made avaname to ma
nucused should he dulrem can such Mines;
[211 Yhnappmlinlveflsfl heavfly on lhadacmun uHmsCaumn n owe: many
vFF[1E95jJCLJ < Mlereln Ihscuulse own judgment Edglv mean J1 nu
25
sm pl!rnwGAAEn1D£|ABuYD
mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mn.u.y mm: mmn vu mum pans!
also wAh zppvlwil pessnfies rm». me Aumnan cue cl ammm V a mm
m cm Ha. wherein: m. nlex::evp|Ieads {:1 page 5; —
~ §IcDl\dVy,Il1IvI\xvuom for same dehale as In what .. mum :7, me npenmg
wum: an the sulemenl and n mum mu be mad as {nhwbmng me msaetmn
mm was pmsacmnr nus not m an \n the Cmwn can my eymmlness n he
wins m.unm.mmu.m.....mvw rwlcnmllfi hIm.=.s,lo1nx:mpLe,vmnr-
hr wnmwes man the wings: .s m : creams and trulhnd wxms m (ms mm
In: pmseculor wm arvsuva mnne .m.m .. grven ma oppanumly in 2:1! mg
wn1nau'[5Ie mm um Ymmg Sun Y mu: Prn1:culnr|19SA]2 sm 2571
[251 lumed amines! mm xubmnled out me cnnstquence at 1»:
vvveaounwvx fiawlura m mm mmme mm wntnlax-5 la the defence Vs a
mu mime aupeI\IM‘s ngmm . Immil and the ipyeflam had been dlpnvafl
an ovpnrlumly in wcseul Ms case m the run mnrmurn puuxble vmlh . mw
In aecunng an aaqunlal (See :2. Kwan Wan V PP[2W1| sou 53: Fe)‘
[B2] sememsnya a. muka macaw‘ 69: man 693
-ml Dug m mar Spec! me m amine! mm, mm pmsecumrs are under
mam weH-defined dune: mummy my duty vi msdosure (pea ; an at u.
cpc), 1u)dmymr.Il\ .ummmeanu rdavvwlwnnusas nm11M)dmylncunour.1
me me «my (See R v Eank:[I91e]2 xa an R V SugIlman(19E5)25 Cr
Ape R ms nu Mummm Kaaarm Anulhevv F'P[2D‘M]3S|.R1205)
(as; m mmw, :1 Is tamed Viw based an the aulhonlwuzwad In LA! by Veumed
mum Vanna lpveflinl \n W: Iuhrmslmu man he umsecunnn has dlvcvehnn
whether «a HH any plmcmlr wvlness‘ bu! such dlucvalmn u sumem to ma
hmlhbnns m my me dsuvaun musl be exerased mm dun ugam m
ccnsmetalwonx ulmmcxs and ma ram and my um wllnuniwho ma been
vmahqitnfl Ivy ma puke: um «um wnom me suhemants have men resumed
mus! ba mm nu ma neleme
sm pfirx-wEAAEn1D£1AaxsYO
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
[451 n 15 mle law on. n u nu! ma dmy al ma ippsflanl w plvua ms mnnuenbe
av n can . pnmcmar Mines: Io iuppun nn aaoam (see Yun Foe Su V pp
[1967] 1 LNS17E,|1§s7]2 ML! 19 am Sandi: Margavel anm Prn577)1
ms 1 n 1197311 MLJ 721 The ‘aw mica: upcm me pvasecunonma bmdernu
pm gmll am. :ppeHin| beyand leasuname doublxnd nu| an ma nppeflanl
m pm ms mnnbence wauannannnaa .n gxmspludenne Is ma me man the
oanwchon mmlwveflinlmuslles|noIanl11ewa:kn:ssuHhe deiemnebmon
In: strength at me pvusecmwon ma an.-awe n the burner am av nu! annnnn
\:w'
[as] Mengenav nna. kelerangan Arnnm yang Kvflak mac a: scan balas
clan pmak Pandakwaan, saya msvuwk kepadn kes Kamalan Shtlk
Mohd v pp 12:21:14 cu m flan bersannu dengzn pandangan flan
kmian yang annwx men Ham mengenai kapantmgan seseamng saksi
unluk an soak Dams dengzn panun (compma) oleh pmamnnax dalam
sasuan. pmswdmg ,enayan Keadaan .n. menumukkan betapa penungnya
lngss Pendakwaan unluk memasukan kehadwan Amvul Oleh kerzna
kalerangan Amlvw not tested by wny av cross examfmarron, wanyi lelah
mempuanmuskan keduadul (enuduh kerana kelarangan Am\rul konswslen
dengan ketevangan sm am 505
[341 Dalam kas ml, says berpandzngan. say: maum bnleh menenmz
kelaangan A.-mun, wa\aup<m dnanaxan sehagaw sehahagian 1pamaY)
namun aengan aaanya kelerangan yang sama dari saksl lam, kelevangan
Annm: Ialap Ielevan den boleh dlmlaw seadanya.
[as] Sekzdar unmk mebngkapkan, saya mannux kepada kes
Thai/anamln En subramaniam v PP (1997; 3 cu 150 dzn memjuk
kepada pnnslp yang mpmnskan oleh Mahkzmah Persekuman sepem
dlbawah
17
am p«mwGAAEmDn.Aaurn
“Nuns snn ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.ny mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
-n was :« ma aacuaaa In an. an mnaoem a>(p\an:nnn wmch me Conn
cnmmaveu male \|ke\yII1anm7l Dltnwlstme we unab:\anwnIpvnba|u\mu
ma mslapphed wn mu pmctedmgi PPV Vuvarap [1959] 2 Mu as Pc'
[as] Juga mermuk kepida kes Public Proucutor v Iskandar bin
Manamid Yu.:oI(ZWS] mu 559. lalah dlpuluskan behawa V
m 21 M ma aamsa M ma dshncl mp ma accused person nu. had Ifleged
man the bag wmch comamed ma drug: Wu awed by one Nzstan. a mum
wmu mu vnxanaa . nae Hum mm (ml mm TM: yam had manlqed In make
me ms uapa Gunny me aanvuuun, luvmg the managed person evenruafly
stunned Ind bemg hem Ieqpmmme lot I11: aaanaanaa mcnmmllmg Hem wxm
ma Auwwny m the muses pemun gwan under mun. ms awaanoa mu men!
saunas aansmananon lI| flan: 3| no sin: m ma Manna win he Impuached
The pzmnenl quesflon naawaa «a ma msarved thus was. was In pnssdfle man
the mystevwoux Nulanmfl praaaawexm, ann mu maqesnlncflml avananw
zlhmad In In mm as a pasxpan In escape in: charge’! AA mu slug: av me
aavanaa man. wax na man! demand that M m\mVn:1ulHy wove Nissan um
anal NI na naaaaa in an wu In mace», pevsuade ma pvummg wage of max
pmhibthly lmexucueeded mm en a aawanca avpnaaammy (hos: dmgl mum
we been Hassarfi. ma mexmalflyeycnelaung mn-
[371 saya belpendapal. din kesemmahan yang
dwkemukzkan da\am pamnaxaan, any: man hevsllat panaman den
penuxnan «erxemuman le|apI aanu mmnabwry)
Ksrrmngkman Im juga Ie\ah mmangkan kepada sakan pendakwaan lag:
keterangan
kemungkman
[ea] Puhak Pendakwaan bamwah memhawz kepada pemauan saya
mengenaw knaannlm saksn pemhelaan yang mkaxakan aemcnva dan
bevkepannngan Says dzpah, fakva bahawa sus max dapnl
menqasahkan Halim pevgw karumah Yenudnh Kedua menam kerela apa
max meruzdikan sns bukzm szksw yang kradxhelalau seomng saksuyang
berkepenflngan ann beta! sabe\ah Pads: pendzpal saya wga‘ soe
(Ammnl) lmak membenkan kelelangan yang saracms axau menuruukkan
as
am pl!ruwGAAEmD£1ABuYD
“Nana am.‘ n-nhnrwm n. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum am
swa: bvas alau mempunyaw aganda lelsendln hanya kerana memhenkan
kelersngan yang mammax kepada |enuduh-larluduh m. aflmah kerana
ksmungkman vevsx meveka lpembalaan) ad: benamya dan telah
memhuat saya hearing as In me correctness 0/ me cone/us»on (umuk
sabitan) — ruwk kes Salmln yang dxruiuk dv atas nntuk maksud
‘reamnsbls daubf.
Kulmpulnn
[39] Say: helpendapal hanawa kewuwdan 025 flan ueaerangan sum
sus :13" we memadwkzn ramauan kalemngan baung ks: Ierpums
kevana max duelaskan kebsrauaan harang kes dadah yang fluampzs
damn lempah masa (arsehm Pevcanggahan qkexemngan sm, sns aan
snay dangan xexerangan SP1 dan spz sens tanpz peruelasan oleh
msrska‘ memmkan «am: Aersebul sa|u landa tanya flan memadlkan
pmomny hzhawa dadah dqumpal dwmah Tenuduh Ksdua
senagamana ueeemngan semua saksmksx pembexaan ad:
ksmungkman benzrwalaupun hdakmyaklnl kabanarinnyi Says memguk
kepada kes Ganapathy Renwasamy V PP mm; 2 cu 1, yang
menyehul
«n ma. |o n. nmcmband Inn hnwevtr w-Ik . dflumu mly be. um
1-aw Iulng juduu L11 bo1nlazunfl\xw:nou\d mrljusl mm. mann-
dllencn an mu hash um um nmsucufleu wimnun m m be bellevvcd
um not an m...;.. Where In: law «zit: the aims :24 gmng an axbtananun
upon In accused pawn, and me explanihun Ixgwun mm 15 msmn: wan
vrvuacgnca‘ m. mun a duly hmmd m wnsldcr wlmhnr n mm
VI scmhly :1. cm, allhuunh nvl carmncm of It: Innh. On In: Issue at
am calm‘: dulym cansldurmn .1 mu, ms nu old dnlnlnn 1.. MIN PP
new 1 ms 52 [\9s3| Mu 2631: sill! good Llw is u wu «mu. mu
lufluvmd uy m. supmm Enutl m Momymzd Rnam hm mm V PP [1951]
1€L.IR¢p 211, (199113 cu am, mm: ML1 159'
1-:
N D|!ruwGAAEu1D£|ABuYD
um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
—Penekanan dnambah
[so] Saya ulang, dlpenngkal pembexaan, hanya reasonable dnubl penu
mkemukakan Maksud rsaxurlab/s doubt (nuuk kes s-mun) udalah Sam
um: wmclv makes you hssviate as to me correctness, slteryou mm lu/Iy
Investigated ms swdsnce and compared :1 m all its part, you say 1.7
ynurselfl doubt n he .5 gum
Konumun
(911 Make, se(e\ah memmbang fakta kas Dambalaan dengin parsvekln
yang new snflzvas dengan kemrangan kes pendakwnan. saw no not
acwn! ar be/rave me accused‘: sxplamanon but nevertheless yr rursas In
my mm a reasoname doubts: m rm gull! (Mn v PF'I1953)15 MLJ m)
[92] men yang demvklan, unluk perluduhan panama‘ dlbawsh : 35(3),
kednauuz tenuduh hanaya mengskss anggapan pengedzran dlbawah s.
anua) afas Imhangan banayl
mennmbwkan kevaguan yang munasabah Aarhadap kes penflakwaan
renummanuuun dengan ml uuepasxsn din dlhshaskan dan permduhzn
panama
kebarzngkallan dan dengan nu
[93] Manganav pammuhnn kedua‘ mwaupun szya hevnuas nan‘ darn
panzuacan Terluduh Panama malankan dvn din didah duumpan
dwbadannya, pembelaan gagal menaflkan sebahnguan e\emen kesalahzn
dwbawah 512(2) namun‘ oxen «um [emu mpumskan dwalas bahawa
rinman kaerangan nmng kes |eVah lerpuhts. maka Vanya man
mevwlqudkan kalnmpangan da\am Kai pendakwaan Walaupun fakva
|evsebu( hanya mhuknkan semasa kes pembelazn (lakla percanggahan
D25 dangan kanemngan sm dzn nasn penahhan kelerangan smsmy
Maka Tenuduh Panama mg: dllepiskan dan dlbebaskan dari pemmuhan
kzdua
sw pm...c~mm.Aamn
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
[9] sm tumn dam kendevaan uperzsi flan marnnerkanaflxan am
sebagai anggma was Salah seorang dsrlpsda nga (ay saspek Velakx
Melayu mam mslunkan am ke alah mar ruman 51:1 belsama uga 43)
lagw inggora bemndak n.ange,ar le\zk| Iersebul dan mamben arahan
kepada SP2 dan um Laa An Shm agar herads dx nampac kejadmn unluk
manga».-ax dua 42) law saspek lemkl Mehyu yang lawn
[cu] SP1 lelah benaya mermngkap saspek Celsehux sanalan nyengqar
smauh nrak mo meter ke arah kamsan |aman pannainan kanakakanak
sm kenalkan mu kepada saspak aan haw pemenksaan lubuh naaannya
menjumpai salu 41) peKe( plasuk hnslrmr aiayam dadah syzbu (F123)
dalam poke: hadapan kanan seluav Imam (P143) yang mpeksv saspak
yang kemudlannya mcamkan sebagaw Muhamad Ran bin Rasflm mm;
Tenuduh Penama
[11] 5:21 kamnmannya mzmbawa Terlufluh Panama ke hadapan mmah
Na 94 aamula flan due (2) saspek Vain (elah d:kena\ paw ssbagsx
Muhammad Nanafi bin Mahd Aznes waxlu Terluduh Kedua flan saspek
keugz sehagai Annnn Aflan Fahrm hm msnarnmsmn (Am I)
[12] Pemeviksaan badan lemadap ran-mun Kedua dan Amwul max
manemuv aaa-apa harang sa\ah Namun, pemankaaan ke am Terluduh
Kedua nalan dwjumpaw sa|u kuncl elekhomk berlamhang Memedes(P15A)
dw paket naaapan sebalah kanan semar panpang kelabu mac; yang
dwpakaw alan man
(131 sm xexan mengarahkzn Tenuduh Kedua mengakmkan mm
Mevcedez Benz dengzn nombcr panaanaran wvmzs (P15) yang
mparkn wemn kuvang 5 kakl darlpafla mman review! 591 kemudlan
manmankan pamenksaan ke alas kenderaan terxebul din dw dalam banal
menjumpai 1 Deg karwas mm. mm (Pwxy yang an flnlamnya
4
an p«mwGAAEmDa.Aautn
"Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; me mn.u.y mm; dun-mm vu mum am
[941 Vsu vamawan kalemngan baring kes wm wga lelah memban Kesan
kepada pambukuan mewampam karaguan munasabah umuk peflumman
kelxga yang man; hdak begun amen nemanan men keduadua beflah
pnhak flzkam Ilujahan maswngmavlng Sungguhpun beglhl, saya
herpem1apa|. Ianya |elap Ierkesan. Mm, keduz—dua tefluduh ]uga
mlepasxan aan dwbebaskan aan permduhan kulvga ml
Banankh s Novembev 2023
|NOOR HAVAYI a
Pesummayz Ks knman
Mahkarnah Tmgg Mzkayz
Jnhorflshm
Ferwakllan »
Ezgl plhak Pendakwaan
Fuan Sm uamza mm Abdmlah
nmbaxsn Fenflzkwz Raya
Pejzba| srenasmat Undang—Undang Negev: Jnhar
Ares 2, Bzngunan Data‘ Jaalar Muhammad
Kola xskanaav, lskandar Pmsn
Jahm
Bag: pmak Tenuduh Penama
Puan Lymanu h|n|| Mansov
Lydlana Law Chambers
AA‘ Ja\an Lembah 1
Taman Desa Jaya
81100 Jnhor Bahm
Jahnr
31
sw pm...c~mm.Aamn
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
Bag! pmak renumm Kedua
Encwk mm Fazaly Ah bm Mam Ghazzly
The Law Chambers cl Fazmy
No 24AJa\an Camav1
Taman Perhng
mun Tampal
Johov
sm pflruwGAAEu1D£|ABuYD
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
mengandungw enam (5; kemlan mampzf bemalm pIastiklutsmar|P11B)
disyakw ganja Semmsnya pemenksaan IanMSP1 mm: manwmpan salu
Wag: beg kenas herwami cuklal henuhs mm on m (mm
mengandungw ma kemran mampa| belbalul plasuk \usinaI(P12C) juga
msyam ganja
m1 Pemenksaan a. daiam karma mun meruumpzw sekapmg mu
(FHA) lenulls name Tarluduh Kedua ylng hersrrnpan dw buhagwan ‘am!
ms!‘ sebalah Km pernanau Pemenksaan m hadapan mmah pula,
bevdekalan kellgz-:—uga meveka (keduz—dua lenuduh den Annnm
berkumpm, SP1 meruumpaw due halal plasnk Vulsmal yang mangandungr
cecarr d\syak|ukelum(P13A can mam
[<51 Pemsnksaan satamsnyn dwbuat m man as Temmun Penamn m
damm rumah Na 94‘ yang melupakan mman kemarnan kelnavga
Terluduh Panama balsam: mu bans dan vslennyn, hdsk menemu: aDa~
apa baung man 591 an spz kemudlarmya bersama—sama kadua—dua
lenudnh darn Annmn bevgerak rnanam Mamsdez Benz memuu ks Wu San
Nam uh ulah kandaraan unerasv.
[we] on M) 5enA1am‘D€ny9d\ain dokumen nan penanaean barang kes
flnbual oleh sw dan dakumewdakumen berkailan mseraman kepada
Pegnwai Penyiasay lnsp Mend Hafiz bin Human (spa; paua keasnkan
hannya, 225 mu jam mam kmang 7 malam
my spa menghantiv baring xss xe Jabalan Kmui din haul anshsa
menaesahkan twang kes yang mmmpas adalah dadah berbahzya saw
(a) cannams bevy! bersm 3942 15 gram
m Mllragymne beral bevsm 1950 ml
m Memamphemmme halal bersm 24 34 gram
5
SN NmwGAAEmD£:Aautn
mm smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dnpltnn mu keg Pendakwaan
[ta] D1 penngkavl akmv kes pendzkwaan, salu kes prlma facrs
sebagznmzna mperunlukkan dmam $13007 Karwn Talacsra Jenayah
(KN) perm uwmxan olah pmak pendakwaan flan kemrangan mm: mg
bo\eh dxpercaysn dan kredwbel yang mana uka hdzk disangkal akan
membalehkan saman dlhual (rwuks 150 («p KTJ flan ks; Abctullnn Ann
Iwn pp (mo) 9 cu 151)
[191 Ungkapzn “msngemukakan kelerangsn kukuh yang membukltkan
setup aazu Yak!orkesaIamin"da\am 5 mm) belmzksud hahawa plhak
permakwaan perm menmuknkan senip alemen kesalahan sama ada
dengan mengemukakan kelerangan yang mush mpamayau, membuzt
mieren Qemsdap ram alau menggunapakaw anggapan \mdang—undang
umm kes AbdulI.ahAmn dw muka suraI196)
[201 K95 puma Iacfe va\ah kes yang nuancukum un|nkIer1uduh4er(uduh
mpanggu unmk mamawab penuduhan kealas mereka dan ketevangan
yang wxemuxakan mencukupl melamkan wa d|szngka\ alau dnzkas malalm
ketelangan lam (hha| kes salaahandnn v PF [ms] 1 cu :5) Dalsm
kes Dug cmng Huang Mn PF mm) 4 cu ms, panflangan Vmcent
Mg. J |aIah mnnuk flan msahkan men Mahkamah Persekutuan da\am kas
Abdullah Ann mengenaw apa yang |erjum\ah sabagav satu kes pnma
fame sap-em benku|
< prim: lama wrflence 15 zvmsnce mu .5 §\M<:\em to eslibush a fact In ma
Absence at any evvwdetloe m the camrary nm a Hal <:an<:\u:lv: 1 wmld mum
mu mere shmnd he cn:¢m\e evwdenw on each and every mgvadvanl av ma
ellence Cv5d>b\e wmanca n cw/wdence wmch Ms been filtered and when nas
nan: mnmgn the pmcsss av zvaluannn Any ewdenoe which m not uh «n be
amsd upnn shank! be n.,aa».a-
n D|!ruwGAAEmD£:ABuYD
Nuns s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m van; n. nnnnny mums dun-mm y.. mum puns!
[211 sew juga senagznnanz mpumskzn rfleh Mahkzmah Rayuan
dalam kes Loo! Kow char v. Public Pnmcuror 1200112 MLJ 55. yang
mengalakan sepem henkut
-u mererove «cum Irm mere ws onw one exams; ma| a was Imng mane
Lmdgv 5 wan aims are hush: umterulve alme muse anne umsecmmn use
He musl subleu me prosscufinn emdenoe to mzxlvvum wamanon and to ask
hlnvl-N Ins quesonn n : mm to can uwn (ha nwusau in enler ms defiance
and he e\u:Is ta mnan swarm am n pvepalad In cunmcl nnn an mu mm», at me
avmenne umm m we pmsecmlun mew w the answer .5 .n ma nwnlwz
than no puma line can has been made man and ma accused mum be enlmad
la an nequmm ‘
[221 Maka. daham menenmkan pembukuan kes prima /ame, salu
penllalan secava makzlma pm dxbual (erhadap kesahuuhan kaumngan
huklv yang mkanwkakan (armasuk menus: uraammu saksw-saksl am
manna! Inleren yang huleh dlbual dan keterangan mu kes pendakwaan
unmk memhuklwkan selian elemen kesalahan (nuuk kes PF V Mnhd
RldxIAbu smrlzaaal 1 CLJ 457)
KM Prim Facln
1231 Katavanqan wxn yang perm mkemukskan uncuk kesakahan
pengedavan flndah berbahayz dn umn 5 sea ( 1 (2; ADE zdalah
bahawa dadah yang dirampas adalah dadah berbahaya seperlv yang
dlsenarawkan aavam Jsdunl Panama ADE, In udalah dmam pemmkan
kedua-dun Ienuduh apabfla dmulnikan dadah zdalzh :1. bawah jzgaan,
kawalan dz-In pengeflalluan mereka uan setemsnya. meveka mengedar
dadzh l:rsuhu| Psngediran bo\eh omuknkan dengan kelerangan
langsung berdasarkan (alsvan pengedaran m bawzh seksyen ZADB alau
anggapan m nawan seksyen :7 (Ha)
SIN NmwGAAEmD£:Aautn
mm smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dsdah aaaran yangterssnaralA11./adus/Psnama man sepsmmsna
yang dkisfinastkan drbawah ADE
[24] Jems dan hava| dadzh lalah msaman dan d\'buk|vkan dan
kanarangan SP5 nan Laporan Kmua yam dwsedxskan‘ we sebauawmsna
dalam Denudnhnn Ianu Isms cannams aeran berslh 394216 gram,
Mllmgynme beral bevsm 1950 ml dan Melhamphetamme beral bevsih
2A.34 gram.
[251 Peguam kedua—dua |erIuduh bemulah nanawa vaMa\an xemnaan
harang Res lelah (emulus can wujud pevcanggahan xewangan sm
dengan Vapalarflzpcrzn polls yang dlkemukakan an Dzwza Paguam
mancadangkan bahawa pasnkan serbuan max (ems hergerik xe urn
Iatapl raven melakuxm use (3) semuan lam mlempm yang herasmgan
[251 Jug: mmuankan hanawa uaaa kelsrangan flan manadnana saksl
mengenm keberadzan dadah yang dlrampzs dan duamskan ianya da\am
kawaxan din ngaan sxapa pada mass serbuan ax Iakau lam auaxuxan,
[27] Oleh karana vsnandaan dan nmaangan masm bemm aubuan
semasa semusn amuan :1! ma Vokasl Lam mu, make mmalan kelerangan
barang kes man lerpmus Kegzgalan inn mewmudkan kelurnpangan
dalzm kas Fandakwaan dan mancalar kredvblw saksv pendskwaan
[23] Pzda penngk ' , m hadapall say: adalah kanamgan dan asks:
pandakwian yang mana max mauuukan Ida kemungkman mernpunyal
max yang Izaak havk alau mom unmk mengenakan mana—mana lenuduh
men an, saya menanma xeaevangan meveka sehagal hensr dsn
kcnsmen Cadangan Deguam fluengenaw kemungklnan lerpulusnya
ranman kelerangan harang kes semalamzla wmudnnya serbuan rain,
setakal ml mzsih Ixdak meflmaskan Dembukuan pad: |ah=p nrrma ram
sw NmwGAAEmD£:Aautn
«ma am n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm vu .mm v-vrm
[221 Make selakat penllalan says hevdasarkan ke|erzngan szksi
pendakwaan. says dapzm selelah dadah dwampas aleh svu, (andaan
amuse dw pegabzu nalkulwk kemudlan dxserahkan kepada pegawai
penymsan, spa yang selarusnya menghamar hsrang kes unluk '
oleh arm kvma. svs,
ahia
[an] Barang kas yang same: man mswmpan a. star penywmpanan barang
us sahlngga dwkemukakan ke mahkamah pad: nan pemcman (nquk
kss Gunnlan Ramlchzndrln v PF (2004; 5 cm 551 — - the cham of
swdsnce IS mats rmponarvl for Ms penhd /mm ms hme afrecovety mm
me camprsoan nflhs analysis by the charms! ';
131} Make dengan nu, saya mandapan bahawa ranlalan kelerangan
barang kes max lerpulus dan pmax pendakwaan man heqaya
memhukukzn slemen jams dan beral dadzh sebagaimana ds\sm
psrluduhan (mmxan ma dmuzt menglkul kes smnnz-mmul Guam y.
FP[1u1l] 1 on N din Su Ah Ping 1/. pp [1579] 1 ms ma)
Permltkan tsmadap man
[321 Eerkail kepsrman memnuknxan rarmmn pemmkan, pmak
pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan ketevangan bahawa kedua-dua
Aemduh mempunyal kawa\an aiau .agaan sena psngelanuan (emang
dadah yang dwjumpav (hhal kss emu Fun Leon v. PP[1955] MLJ 231).
Mahkamah dalam kes Chan Pun Loan Augie man memuluskan bahawa
“ a person rs smd to be m possessrun :1! a (mug fl hs has the power an
den! wnn u as the owner :9 the axe/usmn ofell othel pursans -
[33] Maksud "cusmdy", "cnmrol" and “pos:essxon" Kelah mmncangkan
flalam kes Leaw Nghu Lrm v Red [1555] 1 mm, yang mane mpenx
swam benkul.
N D|!ruwGAAEm1D£|ABuYD
um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
‘Custody means ha»/my car: ovguardwansmp‘ goods -n cuswdy an m m. cam
at me cusludmn and.|1y neressary <n\D‘Ica\\nu us xa new cars or mm on
hehill m wmnom aka Ya: mm um an m gums Imhsss ycm knmr were
they Ire and have me mans ovexatmima emu: war mm Cuflhw lhevefom
Imvhes knmdadgl um. .m...=. am wmvubmm -mus gmd: and pm-e<
nrcunlmr uvermam‘ nMamnun1m9 In Poisasnnn
comm muslbeprwedixa Vanaltdwlmuitavwsafirnmlhamhnun mmapaum
us me quads. Ineiflocnve er mm may am muluband
Fvabilflythe mos! mam demnmon any-uumn up
'Yhe|e1aIzcn at a peach he athmg mmmr. he nuyll N) p\Iuum axamue
nut‘)! mm: :5 me am my o! In: my «mus, nu ma axduslon at ulnev
verso... “
Ymxdafimnun dues n-1| expvess. Inn Man my mum meaning oflhewotfl
Include: sums .:.mm m knmdudga
A mm mun kmzw 9412‘: exwslence no . unmet ma have same men at us
vmereuboms were he can exams: my comm! mar m m mum wsxeqsmn
mmay. xmphu same knawtedwe hm nmnecessavfly mu orex:¢l><nu»Med9¢'
[:41 Mervsena. Dembukhan pengecanuan, Mahkamzh Pusekuluzn
dalam kes pm." bin Damn V Public Pruuculur (zoos) 1 cu 717
memuluskan bahawa e\amelI psngecanuan bow: «mm can mm Jan
kasimplflan vaxna Pallkan yang dwmjuk mm sapem benkm
-vmmmxmueagus very emu a mmmnnream The mmm ham wma»
llyl Waranna mkncw/ludge an be dniwn meumm use Incase Hwculfl us
suffirierfl for me alusanmon In wave lacks mm mu. m eumd Dmpeny be
mm lhzl mu anuned am he mamry krmw\ed9E'
[351 Rmgkasnya‘ man "pemwkan' menquk kepada keupayzan
pemlhknya unluk bemmsan dengan dadah dsngan mengecuallkan akses
m
sm p£ruwGAAEmDfl1ABxsYD
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
| 4,146 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
AC-82D-7-12/2021 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHD AMIRUL AMRIE BIN MOHD ZIMI | self-administration, dangerous drugs act, urine, botol urine, crdibility of investigation officer, credibility of prosecution witness | 09/11/2023 | Puan Ashvinii a/p Thinakaran | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ef2cf705-53d6-4e88-9d06-7ba9205b7dc0&Inline=true |
KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN
AC-83D-734-07/2021
PENDAKWARAYA
V
MOHAMAD SAIFUL NIZAM BIN SAKHALID
(NO.KP: 840624-08-5703)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PERTUDUHAN PINDAAN
BAHAWA KAMU PADA 14/07/2021, LEBIH KURANG JAM 11.50 MALAM DI TEPI
JALAN TAMAN JUTA INTAN 2, 36000 TELUK INTAN, DI DALAM DAERAH HILIR
PERAK, DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN, TELAH ADA DALAM MILIKAN
KAMU DADAH BERBAHAYA IAITU METHAMPHETAMINE SEBERAT 9.10 GRAM.
OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN DI
BAWAH SEKSYEN 12(2) AKTA DADAH BERBAHAYA 1952 DAN BOLEH DIHUKUM
DI BAWAH SEKYEN 39A(1) AKTA YANG SAMA.
HUKUMAN
DIKENAKAN HUKUMAN PENJARA SELAMA TEMPOH TIDAK KURANG DARI DUA
TAHUN TIDAK LEBIH DARIPADA LIMA TAHUN ATAU DIHUKUM SEBATAN TIDAK
KURANG DARI TIGA SEBATAN DAN TIDAK LEBIH SEMBILAN SEBATAN.
PRIMA FACIE:
[1] 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.
09/11/2023 15:17:36
AC-82D-7-12/2021 Kand. 58
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
(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.
[2] Kes Public Prosecutor v Poh Ah Kwang [2003] 3 AMR 670 dirujuk
berkenaan maksud prima facie ini:
“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..”.
[3] 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.
LATAR BELAKANG KES
Bagi kes ini, keterangan SP1, SP2 dan SP3 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
SP4 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.
Pihak-pihak juga tiada bantahan dalam saya mengambil alih bicara bagi kes ini. Saya
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
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.
SEKSYEN KESALAHAN:
[4] Dikemukakan seksyen-seksyen berkaitan pertuduhan dan kesalahan untuk
rujukan mudah seperti berikut;
Restriction on import and export of certain dangerous drugs
12. (1) No person shall except under the authorization of the Minister— (a) import into
Malaysia any dangerous drug specified in Parts III, IV and V of the First Schedule; or
(b) export from Malaysia any dangerous drug specified in Parts III and IV of the First
Schedule.
(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.
(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an
offence against this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one
hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to
both.
Increased penalty where the subject matter is the prescribed amount of certain
dangerous drugs
39A. (1) Every person found guilty of an offence against this Act
where the subject matter of the offence is—
(r) 5 grammes or more but less than 30 grammes in weight of Methamphetamine;
ELEMEN PERTUDUHAN:
[5] Di dalam kes ini, Mahkamah telah meneliti keperluan elemen-elemen
pertuduhan di bawah pertuduhan ini iaitu;
a) Dadah berbahaya tersebut berada di dalam milikan OKT;
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
b) OKT mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah tersebut; dan
c) Dadah berbahaya tersebut merupakan dadah methamphetamine, dadah
berbahaya yang tersenarai di bawah Jadual Pertama, Akta Dadah Berbahaya
1952.
[6] Prinsip berkenaan kes milikan dan pengetahuan ke atasnya boleh dilihat di
dalam kes PP v Abdul Rahman bin Akif [2007] 5 MLJ 1. Di dalam kes ini, Mahkamah
Persekutuan bersetuju dengan Lord Morris di dalam kes Warner v Metropolitan
Police Commissioner (supra) yang menyatakan:
“If there is assent to the control of a thing, either after having the means of knowledge
of what the thing is or contains or being unmindful whether there are means of
knowledge or not, then ordinarily there will be possession. If there is some momentary
custody of a thing without any knowledge or means of knowledge of what the thing is
or contains then, ordinarily, I would suppose that there would not be possession. If,
however, someone deliberately assumes control of some package or container, then I
would think that he is in possession of it. If he deliberately so assumes control knowing
that it has contents, he would also be in possession of the contents. I cannot think that
it would be rational to hold that someone who is in possession of a box which he knows
to have things in it is in possession of the box but not in possession of the things in it.
If he had been misinformed or misled as to the nature of the contents, or if he had made
a wrong surmise as to them, it seems to me that he would nevertheless be in
possession of them”.
FAKTA KES
[7] Mahkamah mendapati pertuduhan ke atas OKT adalah pada 14/07/2021 jam
lebih kurang 11:50 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Taman Juta Intan 2, 36000, Teluk
Intan, Perak telah ada dalam milikan OKT dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine
9.10 gram (berat bersih). SP1 sebagai pegawai tangkapan hadir dan memberi
keterangan bahawa beliau telah menahan OKT yang berada di dalam kereta Nissan.
[8] OKT pada waktu tersebut sedang duduk dibahagian belakang kereta Nissan
bersama seorang lagi dalam keadaan yang mencurigakan. Hasil pemeriksaan badan
dijumpai terdapat dadah berbahaya di poket hadapan seluar yang dipakai oleh OKT.
[9] Hasil pemeriksaan pada tubuh badan OKT, SP1 menjumpai 1 paket plastik
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
lutsinar (P8) berisi dadah disyaki jenis methamphetamine (anggaran berat: 24.36
gram) dalam poket seluar depan seluar jeans panjang berwarna biru (P5) yang dipakai
oleh OKT.
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
[10] Di dalam penelitian Mahkamah, di dalam pembuktian elemen-elemen
pertuduhan, barang kes tersebut hendaklah dibuktikan berada di dalam milikan
tertuduh, tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas barang salah tersebut dan dadah
berbahaya tersebut merupakan dadah methamphetamine, dadah berbahaya yang
tersenarai di bawah Jadual Pertama, Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952.
[11] Di dalam menilai elemen-elemen pertuduhan ini, Mahkamah seharusnya
berpuashati bahawa OKT yang sedang berada di bahagian belakang kenderaan yang
mana dia ditangkap bersama, mempunyai milikan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai
dibadannya dan mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas barang salah tersebut.
[12] Mahkamah melihat di dalam kes ini, hanya SP1 dan SP3 yang memberi
keterangan bahawa barang kes dijumpai di badan OKT di dalam 1 paket plastik
lutsinar berisi dadah disyaki jenis methamphetamine (anggaran berat: 24.36 gram) di
dalam poket seluar depan seluar jeans panjang berwarna biru (P5) yang dipakai oleh
OKT.
[13] Sewaktu pemeriksaan balas, Peguambela telah menimbulkan beberapa isu
berkenaan eksibit yang mana Pendakwaan gagal menjawab kepada isu tersebut.
Antaranya adalah isu kereta dimana OKT dan seorang lagi dijumpai bersama barang
kes adalah Nissan Sentra atau Toyota? SP1 di dalam Laporan Tangkapan telah
menyatakan OKT berada di dalam kereta Nissan Sentra, namun dalam keterangan di
Mahkamah sewaktu Pemeriksaan Utama telah nyatakan kereta Toyota.
[14] Jadinya wujud keraguan sememangnya barang kes dijumpai di mana? Sama
ada di dalam kereta Nissan Sentra sepertimana yang dilaporkan dalam Laporan
Tangkapan atau dalam kereta Toyota seperti dalam keterangan SP1? Pihak
Pendakwaan gagal mengemukakan gambar kereta mahupun kereta tersebut.
[15] Pihak Pendakwaan dalam hujahan menyatakan tiada isu berbangkit berkenaan
kereta yang terbabit kerana SP1 sewaktu keterangan dalam Pemeriksaan Semula
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
telah memperbetulkan keterangan beliau dengan menyatakan kereta yang betul
adalah Nissan Sentra dan bukan kereta Toyota. SP3 juga telah sahkan keterangan
SP1 dengan menyatakan OKT berada di dalam kereta Nissan Sentra.
[16] Akan tetapi, adakah keterangan sahaja mencukupi dalam membuktikan kereta
mana terbabit?
[17] Selain itu, Peguambela juga menimbulkan isu seluar yang dikemukakan di
Mahkamah oleh Pendakwaan adalah bukan seluar yang dipakai oleh OKT dimana
barang kes dijumpai di dalam poket hadapan seluar tersebut. Kedua-dua SP1 dan
SP3 mengakui seluar yang dipakai oleh OKT pada hari kejadian adalah seluar jeans
berwarna biru yang tidak berjenama. Keterangan mereka konsisten dengan Borang
Bongkar di P11, Borang Serah Terima di P12 dan Laporan Tangkapan di P13. Namun
begitu, seluar jeans yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwaan sebagai P5 merupakan
seluar jeans berwarna biru yang mempunyai jenama.
[18] Sewaktu Pemeriksaan Semula, SP1 apabila disoal oleh TPR, menyatakan:
A: Saya terlepas pandang. Masa check tu bahagian luar saja, tak tengok
bahagian dalam.
[19] Keterangan SP1 tidak boleh diterima oleh Mahkamah atas dasar logik. Jenama
yang dijumpai di seluar tersebut adalah ditempat yang sangat jelas kelihatan. Tempat
tersebut juga adalah merupakan tempat kebiasaan jenama dan saiz seluar dijahit.
Jenama ‘Diriku’ tersebut adalah sungguh jelas dan SP1 sendiri boleh membaca di
Mahkamah terbuka. Ia tidak masuk akal untuk Pegawai Tangkapan, Ahli Serbuan,
Pegawai Siasatan kesemuanya untuk tidak lihat jenama yang begitu jelas kelihatan
dan tiada Laporan Pembetulan yang dibuat oleh mana-mana pegawai. Mahkamah
mendapati keterangan SP1 adalah menimbulkan rasa curiga sama ada kenyataan
SP1 adalah betul atau tidak ataupun sekadar ‘after-thought’.
[20] Selain itu, seluar yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah juga terlalu panjang dan
besar apabila dipakai oleh OKT di Mahkamah Terbuka. Walaupun dalam
Pemeriksaan Semula SP1 menjelaskan OKT memakai tali pinggang dan kasut
bertutup, akan tetapi tali pinggang dan kasut tersebut tidak dikemukakan di
Mahkamah. Mahkamah mengambil kira apa yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Terbuka, dan pada waktu seluar tersebut dipakai oleh OKT, seluar tersebut besar dan
juga terlalu panjang sehingga sukar untuk OKT berjalan.
[21] Mahkamah turut merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Baskaran A/L
Vallasamy Rayuan Jenayah Perak No. 41-37-97 yang dikemukakan oleh Peguam
Pembela dalam Hujahan bertulis beliau dengan dimana diputuskan:
“... Isu pengemukakan seluar tersebut adalah menjadi amat mustahak dan penting
bagi pendakwaan menghapuskan apa-apa keraguan yang munasabah terhadap
pertikaian fakta ini. Oleh itu, kewujudan atau tidak seluar jeans yang dikatakan oleh
pihak pendakwaan di pakai oleh perayu dan justeru dari mana dadah tersebut telah di
perolehi, menjadi persoalan pokok dan seluar itu perlulah di kemukakan sebagai
eksibit untuk mengatasi apa-apa keraguan yang berbangkit daripada keterangan yang
dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan
mengemukakan eksibit ini, pada pendapat saya adalah fatal kepada kesnya.
Persoalan ini telah tidak diberi penilaian yang sewajarnya oleh Majistret Yang
Bijaksana apabila beliau memanggil perayu untuk membela diri. Dalam kata lain,
saya berpendapat bahawa Majistret bijaksana telah tersilap apabila beliau
memutuskan bahawa tiada keraguan munasabah yang timbul daripada
pertikaian atas isu ini, dan kesilapan ini pula telah menimbulkan keadaan salah
laksana keadilan terhadap perayu.”
[22] Walau bagaimanapun, bagi membuktikan kesemua elemen telah dipenuhi,
adalah juga menjadi tanggungjawab pihak pendakwaan untuk mengemukakan
keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa rantaian keterangan mengenai pengendalian
barang kes tersebut adalah utuh dan tidak pada bila-bila masa terjejas sebagaimana
yang telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Agung dalam kes Mohd Osman Pawan v. PP
[1989] 2 CLJ 388; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 108 SC; [1989] 2 MLJ 110; [1989] 1 MLRA
67.
[23] Selanjutnya dalam kes Sia Pang Liong v. PP [2012] 9 CLJ 848, berkenaan
dengan rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah
menyatakan seperti yang berikut:
[11] Thus, the identity of the drug exhibits was being challenged by the
appellant. Once there is such a challenge, the prosecution bears the burden of
proving beyond reasonable doubt that there are no gaps in the chain of
evidence. It is the burden of the prosecution to adduce evidence that the drug
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
exhibits that were recovered from the appellant and that were sent to the chemist
for analysis were the same drug exhibits that the appellant was charged with.
...
[14] It appears that PW7 after collecting back the drug exhibits from ASP
Izanizam, packed the drug exhibits and sent them to the chemist, But nowhere
in his evidence that he had indicated that the drug exhibits that he received from
ASP Izanizam on 28 October 2003 were the same drug exhibits that he sent to
ASP Izanizam on 29 September 2003. PW7 did not identify the drug exhibits to
be the same exhibits.
[15] ASP izanizam could have saved the situation, but he was not called as a
witness for the prosecution. Through PW7, it was revealed that the findings of
ASP Izanizam on the presence of finger print on the drug exhibits were negative.
It was for that reason (as argued by the DPP) ASP Izanizam was not called as
a witness for the prosecution, but only offered as a witness to the defence.
[16] But, we are of the view that the absence of positive identification by PW7
on the drug exhibits that he collected from ASP Izanizam were the same drug
exhibits that he sent to ASP Izanizam earlier had put into doubt whether the drug
exhibits that were analysed by the chemist were the same drug exhibits
recovered from the appellant.
[17] In the circumstances of this case, ASP Izanizam should have been called
by the prosecution as its witness. This is bearing in mind that the drug exhibits
were in ASP Izanizam's custody for almost a month. If he was called as a
witness, he could have explained what he did with the drug exhibits in particular
as to how the drug exhibits were kept during the said period. Most importantly,
he could have also identified the drug exhibits. But, it did not happen in this case.
This has raised a doubt as to the identity of the drug exhibits. Therefore, we are
giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant.
[24] Adalah pada pendapat Mahkamah, kegagalan Pendakwaan membuktikan
seluar yang dirampas adalah seluar yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah menimbulkan
keraguan yang munasabah berkenaan dengan isu milikan sekali arus adakah dadah
yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah adalah dadah yang dirampas didalam poket seluar
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
OKT? Kegagalan saksi Pendakwaan dalam menjalankan siasatan yang ‘holistic’ telah
membawa kepada kelompongan kes yang begitu besar dimana keutuhan dadah yang
dikemukakan di Mahkamah adalah dadah yang dirampas daripada OKT. Maka,
Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kesemua element dibawah pertuduhan
seksyen 39A(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952.
[25] Dalam kes PP v. Mohd Fikri Ramli [2022] 1 LNS 232, mahkamah telah
menerangkan bahawa terdapat dua senario yang boleh menyebabkan terputusnya
rantaian keterangan. Pertama, apabila pihak pendakwaan gagal untuk memanggil
saksi material berhubung dengan pengendalian ekshibit dan kedua apabila ekshibit
yang menjadi persoalan telah dikendalikan dengan secara tidak jelas.
[26] Mahkamah juga meruiuk kes PP v. Lee Yau Ket [2008] 1 LNS 172; [2008] 4
MLJ 223 berhubung dengan persoalan mengenai lompang/gap dalam pengendalian
barang kes di mana mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti yang berikut:
[57] The gap brings into question too many possibilities as to what happened to
the exhibits during that lacuna in the chain of custody, such that it cannot be
definitively concluded, without any doubt, that the remaining exhibits were left
untampered or unaltered.
[27] Bagi meneliti isu sama ada terdapat apa-apa lompang (gap) dalam keterangan
mengenai rantaian pengendalian barang kes yang boleh mewujudkan keraguan atas
identiti barang kes atau tidak, mahkamah telah meneliti keseluruhan keterangan yang
telah dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua belah pihak. Dalam kes ini pihak pembelaan telah
beberapa kali mencabar keterangan SP1 dan SP3 bahawa barang kes dadah yang
dirampas daripada tertuduh bukanlah barang-barang yang ada yang dikemukakan
kepada mahkamah.
[28] Dalam hal ini, apabila terdapat cabaran terhadap keterangan mana-mana saksi
pendakwaan berkenaan identiti barang kes dadah, pihak pendakwaan perlulah
mengemukakan keterangan yang melampaui keraguan yang munasabah bahawa
tidak terdapat lompang atau gap dalam rantaian keterangan mengenai seluar yang
dirampas daripada OKT dan dadah yang ditemui dan dirampas daripada tertuduh
pada hari kejadian. Walau bagaimanapun, pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk
memberikan penjelasan yang memuaskan berkenaan isu-isu yang telah berbangkit
sepanjang kes pendakwaan.
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
[29] Setelah meneliti keseluruhan kes pendakwaan, berhubung dengan isu sama
ada terdapat apa-apa lompang (gap) dalam rantaian keterangan mengenai barang
kes yang boleh mewujudkan keraguan atas identiti barang kes atau tidak, mahkamah
mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa tidak terdapat
lompang dalam keterangan mengenai rantaian pengendalian barang kes. Mahkamah
juga mendapati kelompangan tersebut tidak dijelaskan/diisi dengan penjelasan untuk
menutup kelompangan tersebut sehingga telah mewujudkan suatu jurang yang besar
yang telah menimbulkan keraguan mengenai identiti barang kes dadah dalam kes ini.
Oleh yang demikian, mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa inti pati pertama iaitu dadah
yang merupakan hal perkara pertuduhan adalah dadah sebagaimana yang ditetapkan
di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah gagal untuk dibuktikan oleh pihak
pendakwaan.
[30] Mahkamah juga merujuk kes Abdullah Yaacob v. PP [1991] 1 LNS 68,
Hashim Yeop A Sani CJ (Malaya) telah menimbangkan isu ini dan telah memutuskan
bahawa:
It is certainly true that, as was said in Su Ah Ping v. PP [1980] 1 MLJ 75, the
Federal Court had held there that it is not required of the prosecution to call all
the officers or the persons concerned who had seen or identified an exhibit. This
is not the real intention of the law. Su Ah Ping [1980] 1 MLJ 75 only decided the
general principles. But the facts of one case differ from those of another and the
duty of the prosecution in each case is to prove the case beyond any reasonable
doubt to the court. The case must be clearly proved without [reasonable] doubt
or question that can be raised about the exhibits. See also Teo Hoe Chye v. PP
[1987] 1 MLJ 220 at p 229. There should be no break in the chain of evidence
giving rise to doubt relating to the exhibits.
[31] Dalam kes Melinda Stevenson v. PP [2020] 6 CLJ 34; [2020] MLJU 436,
Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan rayuan perayu dan mengetepikan sabitan
dan hukuman apabila PW5 yang telah menjalankan proses pembongkaran tidak
mengecam ekshibit dalam mahkamah terbuka (open court) tetapi telah mengecam
kesemua ekshibit semasa prosiding berehat sebentar (during short break). Mahkamah
Rayuan dalam mengetepikan sabitan dan hukuman terhadap perayu telah merujuk
kes Lew Wai Loon v. PP [2014] 2 CLJ 649 yang telah memutuskan seperti yang
berikut:
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
[26] In other words, an exhibit, in a criminal or a civil trial, is physical or
documentary evidence brought before the court. Its admission and reliance upon
as a piece of evidence requires factual analysis of the facts and/or events that
are relevant not only for its admission as a piece of evidence but that such facts
and/or events may also be relied upon to test its reliability and trustworthiness
as a piece of evidence. In short it is a fact sensitive exercise.
[32] Pihak pembelaan ada menghujahkan tentang pemakaian Seksyen 114 (g) Akta
Keterangan ke atas isu ini. Mahkamah merujuk kepada Seksyen 114 (g) Akta
Keterangan dan dikemukakan untuk rujukan mudah;
114. Court may presume existence of certain fact
The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct,
and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
ILLUSTRATIONS
The court may presume--
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be
unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
[33] Mahkamah ini mengambil berat bahawa pemakaian seksyen ini adalah
mengikut kepada keadaan setiap kes dan kepentingan saksi/bukti yang dinyatakan
tersebut. Kes Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492,494 (SC) telah menggariskan
panduan bahawa:
“It is essential to appreciate the scope of Section 114 (g) lest it be carried too far
outside its limit. Adverse inference under that illustration can only be drawn if
there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of
failure to obtain evidence. It may be drawn from withholding not just any
document, but material document by a party in his possession, or for non-
production of not just any witness but an important and material witness to
the case”.
[34] Mahkamah turut merujuk kes Suayri Ayyapan lwn. Pendakwa Raya [2019]
MLRHU 423 pg 7 yang telah menjelaskan seperti berikut;
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
“Sekiranya Mahkamah mendapati terdapat satu jurang atau kelompangan yang besar
dalam kes pihak pendakwaan dan berpuas hati saksi yang tidak ditawarkan itu adalah
saksi penting dan pihak pendakwaan memendapkannya keterangan yang ada
padanya yang sentiasa boleh di perolehi serta apa yang dilakukan oleh pihak
pendakwaan itu bagi tujuan utama mengecewakan pihak pembelaan untuk
pembelaan maka kegagalan memanggil saksi atau menawarkan saksi itu memberi
inferen yang tidak berpihak yang kuat kepada pihak pendakwaan di bawah s 114(g)
Akta Keterangan.
[35] Pada nilaian Mahkamah, dua perkara tersebut:
a) seluar jeans OKT yang tidak berjenama
b) kereta yang terbabit
adalah bukti yang penting yang perlu dikemukakan untuk penilaian oleh Mahkamah
berkenaan kedudukan barang kes yang tidak dapat dinilai melalui Laporan Polis dan
gambar sahaja. Justeru, seksyen tersebut adalah terpakai di dalam ini.
[36] Isu tangakapan OKT adalah amat penting dalam memastikan kedudukan
barang kes sewaktu tangkapan dibuat. Jika sekiranya barang kes dijumpai di seluar
jeans tidak berjenama yang dipakai oleh OKT sepertimana yang dihujahkan oleh
Pendakwaan, maka seluar jeans tersebut harus dikemukakan di Mahkamah, namun
telah gagal dibuktikan oleh Pendakwaan. Jelas terdapat keraguan yang munasabah
sama ada seluar jean yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah adalah seluar jeans yang
sama dipakai oleh OKT sewaktu tangkapan dibuat. Jenama yang ada pada seluar
jeans yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah iaitu P5 berada ditempat yang jelas dilihat dan
bukan di tempat yang tertutup. Maka, alasan pendakwaan tersilap/terkhilaf tulis di
Borang Bongkar adalah tidak masuk akal dan seolah-olah ‘after-thought’. Kesilapan
yang sungguh ketara yang penting itu tidak diperbetulkan oleh Pegawai Tangkapan
mahupun Pegawai Penyiasat.
[37] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Chan Pean Leon v Public Prosecutor [1956]
1 MLJ 237 bagi maksud milikan tersebut;
“To establish "possession" for the purposes of criminal law, two separate questions
are involved. The first is whether the accused party was in possession of the article in
question and the second, by reason of the application of the maxim actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea, is whether he had knowledge of the nature of the thing
possessed.
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
"Possession" itself as regards the criminal law is described as follows in Stephen's
Digest (9th Edition, page 304):—
"A moveable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so 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 a mental element which must both
be present before possession is made out. The accused must not only be so situated
that he can deal with the thing as if it belonged to him, for example have it in his pocket
or have it lying in front of him on a table. It must also be shown that he had the
intention of dealing with it as if it belonged to him should he see any occasion to
do so, in other words, that he had some animus possidendi. Intention is a matter
of fact which in the nature of things cannot be proved by direct evidence. It can only
be proved by inference from the surrounding circumstances. Whether these
surrounding circumstances make out such intention is a question of fact in each
individual case.
[38] Kes PP v Sulaiman bin Mohamad Noor [1996] 1 MLJ 197 juga dirujuk oleh
Mahkamah dan ianya telah dijelaskan seperti berikut;
‘It is golden rule of law throughout the burden upon the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the subject matter of the charge, being the cannabis, was the
very thing that was recovered from the house and eventually brought before this
court”.
Keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan
[39] 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.
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Barang kes TPR lupus dan tertakluk kepada rayuan. Wang jaminan dikembalikan.
..................tt................
Ashvinii Thinakaran
30.10.2023
S/N Bfcs79ZTiE6dBnupIFt9wA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 30,130 | Tika 2.6.0 |
AB-83JS-12-12/2019 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMMAD ALIF SHAFIQ BIN KU ABDUL AZIZ | Seksyen 354 - OKT telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap mangsa-mangsa dengan tujuan untuk mencabut kehormatan mereka. Pembelaan OKT adalah pembelaan tidak waras menurut S84 Kanun Keseksaan. Di atas imbangan kebarangkalian, OKT telah gagal membuktikan pembelaan tidak waras. Bagi pertuduhan pertama, pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan Pertuduhan Pertama melangkaui keraguan munabasah. Justeru itu, OKT telah dilepaskan dan dibebaskan bagi pertuduhan pertama di akhir kes Pembelaan. Manakala bagi Pertuduhan Kedua, OKT telah didapati bersalah bagi Pertuduhan kedua dan disabitkan dengan pertuduhan dan dihukum penjara 8 bulan dari tarikh sabitan dan didenda RM5000 jika gagal bayar penjara 4 bulan. | 09/11/2023 | Puan Nurfarah Syahidah Binti Mohd Noh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3de8fe23-36d8-4284-be3d-9083f03eb09f&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI TAIPING
DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN
KES TANGKAP NO: AB-83JS-12-12/2019
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
MOHAMMAD ALIF SHAFIQ BIN KU ABDUL AZIZ
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
1. Ini adalah Alasan Penghakiman yang telah disediakan bagi rayuan oleh pihak
Tertuduh melalui peguamcaranya bagi sabitan dan hukuman yang telah
dijatuhkan ke atasnya setelah bicara penuh dijalankan.
2. Tertuduh di dalam kes ini telah dituduh dan dibicarakan atas DUA pertuduhan
di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan iaitu telah menggunakan kekerasan
jenayah terhadap mangsa-mangsa dengan tujuan untuk mencabul
kehormatannya.
3. Dilampirkan pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas tertuduh:
PERTUDUHAN PERTAMA:
Bahawa kamu pada 05.12.2019 jam lebih kurang 11.50 pagi, bertempat di
Klinik Komuniti Kurau Damai, Batu Kurau 34500 di dalam daerah Taiping, di
dalam Negeri Perak, telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap Aznida
Binti Mohamed Nor@Zahari, KPT: 860505-229-5204 dengan tujuan untuk
mencabut kehormatannya dengan cara menyentuh punggung.
Oleh yang demikian itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh
dihukum di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan.
PERTUDUHAN KEDUA:
Bahawa kamu pada 05.12.2019 jam lebih kurang 11.45 pagi, bertempat di
Klinik Komuniti Kurau Damai, Batu Kurau 34500 di dalam daerah Taiping, di
09/11/2023 09:12:25
AB-83JS-12-12/2019 Kand. 105
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
dalam Negeri Perak, telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap Siti
Fatimah Binti Ahmad Zawawi, KPT: 850630-03-5656 dengan tujuan untuk
mencabul kehormatannya dengan cara menyentuh payudara.
Oleh yang demikian itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh
dihukum di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan.
Hukuman di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan:
Barang siapa menyerang atau menggunakan kekerasan jenayah kepada
mana-mana orang dengan maksud hendak mencabul atau dengan mengetahui
mungkin bahawa dia akan dengan jalan demikian itu mencabul kehormatan
orang itu hendaklah dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh yang boleh
sampai sepuluh tahun atau dengan denda atau dengan sebat atau dengan
mana-mana dua daripada hukuman hukuman itu.
4. Mahkamah ini setelah mempertimbangkan pembelaan tertuduh serta hujahan-
hujahan kedua-dua pihak, bagi Pertuduhan Pertama, Mahkamah ini setelah
mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan pembelaan, setelah
membaca hujahan-hujahan yang telah difailkan mendapati bahawa pihak
pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan
munasabah dan OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan bagi pertuduhan
Pertama.
5. Manakala bagi pertuduhan kedua, Mahkamah ini setelah mendengar
keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan pembelaan, setelah membaca
hujahan-hujahan yang telah difailkan mendapati mendapati bahawa pihak
pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan
munasabah. Oleh itu, OKT disabitkan bersalah bagi pertuduhan kedua di
bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan dan dihukum dibawah seksyen yang
sama. Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pembelaan telah gagal
menunjukkan kepada Mahkamah ini bahawa OKT telah tidak waras atau tidak
sempurna akal ketika menyentuh payudara SP1. OKT juga telah gagal untuk
menujukkan kepada Mahkamah ini bahawa dia tidak berupaya mengetahui
perbuatannya menyentuh payudara SP1 sama ada salah atau berlawanan
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
dengan undang-undang. Mahkamah ini mendapati the defence of legal insanity
telah gagal dibuktikan oleh pihak pembelaan.
6. Bagi pertuduhan kedua, Mahkamah ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara
8 bulan dari tarikh sabitan iaitu 27.6.2023 dan dihukum denda RM5,000
jika gagal bayar penjara 4 bulan.
7. Tertuduh setelah selesai proses jatuh hukum telah memohon perintah
penangguhan pelaksanaan dan Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan
penangguhan bagi hukuman pemenjaraan sahaja dan wang jaminan sedia ada
sebanyak RM9,000.00 adalah dikekalkan, tiada jaminan tambahan
diperintahkan.
8. Tertuduh yang tidak berpuas hati atas sabitan dan hukuman yang telah
Mahkamah ini jatuhkan, telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan bagi merayu atas
sabitan dan hukuman. Alasan Penghakiman ini telah disediakan bagi tujuan
rayuan tersebut.
9. Kes pendakwaan melalui SP1 telah didengar oleh Tuan Majistret terdahulu
sehingga Tuan Majistret terdahulu kemudiannya telah diarahkan bertukar dan
diambil alih oleh saya di peringkat kes pendakwaan yang mana saya telah
mendengar keterangan SP2 sehingga SP7 dan sehingga kes pembelaan
selesai didengar. Tiada sebarang permohonan bicara semula atau ‘trial de
novo’ dibuat oleh pihak-pihak.
10. Saya meneruskan pendengaran kes dengan bergantung kepada nota prosiding
yang telah disediakan oleh Tuan Majistret terdahulu dan juga rujukan kepada
rakaman audio video mahkamah (CRT). Saya telah menyemak rakaman
tersebut dan dapat melihat suasana perbicaraan seolah-olah saya sendiri yang
mendengar keterangan dan melihat secara langsung ‘demeanor’ saksi-saksi
tersebut semasa mereka memberikan keterangan.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
11. Prinsip di dalam kes Mahendran Batu Malai Lwn. PP [2017] 1 LNS 115, telah
digunapakai sepenuhnya di mana Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes ini yang
menyatakan seperti berikut: -
Kami sepenuhnya bersetuju dengan dapatan hakim bicara mengenai isu ini.
Hakim bicara telah membuat dapatan yang betul berdasarkan kepada
keterangan yang berada di hadapannya. Kami ingin menambah bahawa
sekiranya hakim bicara berpendapat adalah perlu untuk meneliti dan
melihat kepada demeanour bagi menentukan kredibiliti saksi-saksi utama
pihak pendakwaan, hakim bicara mempunyai pilihan yang mudah untuk
merujuk perkara itu kepada rakaman CRT dan transkrip yang berada dalam
simpanan Mahkamah.
12. Pendakwaan telah mengemukakan seramai 7 orang saksi pendakwaan iaitu:
SP1: Siti Fatimah Binti Ahmad Zawawi
SP2: Aznida Binti Mohamed Nor @ Zahari
SP3: Sjn Mohd Akhir Bin Mohd Isa (RF115824)
SP4: Sjn Zuhairi Bin Abdul Rahim (RF156914)
SP5: En Aminuddin bin Alias
SP6: Insp Alyshita Bider (G24782)
SP7: Ku Shafiera Azeedah Binti Ku Abdul Aziz
13. Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah mendapati pihak pendakwaan
telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie ke atas tertuduh dan tertuduh telah
dipanggil untuk membela diri atas pertuduhan yang dikemukan ke atasnya.
Pilihan-pilihan telah diterangkan ke atas tertuduh dan tertuduh memilih untuk
memberi keterangan bersumpah daripada kandang saksi.
14. Semasa kes pembelaan, tertuduh telah mengemukakan seramai 2 orang saksi
pembelaan termasuk tertuduh sendiri iaitu Mohammad Alif Shafiq Bin Ku Abdul
Aziz selaku SD1 pakar psikaitrik iaitu Dr Ian Llyod Anthony selaku SD2.
15. Alasan penghakiman ini dikemukakan bagi rayuan yang telah difailkan oleh
Peguambela OKT ke atas keputusan Mahkamah tersebut.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
Fakta Kes Pendakwaan
16. Bagi mengelakkan kekeliruan, saya nyatakan di sini bahawa terdapat dua
pertuduhan ke atas OKT ini. Kedua-duanya adalah pertuduhan di bawah S354
Kanun Keseksaan. Bagi pertuduhan pertama adalah bagi dakwaan kesalahan
terhadap mangsa pertama tetapi dipanggil selaku SP2 manakala bagi dakwaan
pertuduhan pertama bagi kesalahan terhadap mangsa kedua selaku SP1.
Selepas ini, masing-masing dipanggil sebagai SP1 dan SP2.
17. Versi kes pendakwaan adalah pada 5.12.2019 di Bilik Rawatan Nombor 2 di
Klinik Komuniti Batu Kurau, Taiping, Perak, pada jam lebih kurang 11.45 pagi,
sewaktu SP2 sedang mencuci luka pada bahagian lutut sebelah kiri OKT, kaki
OKT telah bergerak dan menyentuh peha sebelah kanan SP2. SP2 dalam
keadaan terkejut telah meninggalkan tugasannya dan memaklumkan kepada
SP1 hal ini. Kemudiannya SP1 telah masuk ke dalam bilik rawatan nombor 2
tersebut dan telah menyambung tugasan SP2.
18. Sewaktu SP2 ingin mencuci luka pada bahagian lutut sebelah kiri OKT, SP2
telah memanjat satu mata anak tangga, dan semasa sedang melayur air ke
atas luka OKT, OKT telah mengatakan sakit dan telah memegang payu dara
sebelah kanan SP2. Merasa terkejut dengan sentuhan tersebut, SP2 telah
mencampakkan kapas yang telah digunakan kepada OKT.
19. Kejadian ini disaksikan oleh waris OKT iaitu adik OKT sendiri yang telah
dipanggil sebagai SP7. Setelah itu, SP7 telah membawa OKT keluar dan
kemudiannya SP7 juga telah memohon maaf kepada SP2 di atas tindakan OKT
tersebut.
20. Sewaktu di dalam perjalanan keluar daripada klinik tersebut, SP2 turut
menyatakan bahawa OKT telah menyentuh punggungnya daripada arah
belakang.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
Versi Pembelaan
21. Pembelaan daripada sedari awal kes ini dimulakan telah mengetengahkan
pembelaan tidak siuman menurut Seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan bagi OKT ini.
Keputusan di Akhir Pendakwaan
22. Menurut sek.173(f)(i) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ), apabila kes bagi pihak
pendakwaan ditutup, Mahkamah hendaklah menimbangkan sama ada
pendakwaan telah membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh.
Dalam menjelaskan maksud kes prima facie, Mahkamah telah memutuskan
dalam kes PP v Khee Thuan Giap [2017] 1 LNS 1838 seperti berikut: -
“… 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. Based on the established principle of law, before the Court
can rule that a prima facie case has been made out, a maximum
evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses must be done at the close
of the case for the prosecution …
[15] Maximum evaluation means the assessment process for the
essential purpose of analysing the credibility and reliability as well as
trustworthiness of the evidence of the prosecution. Credible evidence is
evidence which had been filtered and which had gone through the
process of evaluation and any evidence which is not safe to be acted
upon should be rejected (see PP v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ
209). Thus, what is required by a trial Court is to test the evidence
of a witness from all angles as well as its reliability and credibility
by considering the entire evidence placed before the Court. The
evidence must not be accepted at face value but must be tested
and evaluated before reliance can be placed on each piece of
evidence adduced. Further, the trial Court has the duty to consider
the evidence which favours the defence. This requires a
consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
for the prosecution and if there is any such doubt, there can be no
prima facie case (Balachandran v. PP (supra)).
[16] The above principle of law on maximum evaluation should be read
together with the principle relating to judicial appreciation of evidence
which is set out in the following words of Gopal Sri Ram JCA in Lee Ing
Chin & Ors v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 CLJ 19;; [2003] 2 MLJ 97.
A trier of fact who makes findings based purely upon the demeanour of
a witness without undertaking a critical analysis of that witness’s
evidence, runs the risk of having his findings corrected on appeal. It does
not matter whether the issue for decision is one that arises in a civil or
criminal case, the approach to judicial appreciation of evidence is the
same.”
23. Mahkamah dalam memutuskan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya
membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh, Mahkamah
bertanggungjawab mempertimbangkan keterangan kes pendakwaan dengan
memberikannya satu penilaian yang maksima. Seterusnya, Mahkamah perlu
mengutarakan persoalan muktamad berikut: Jika Mahkamah membuat
keputusan untuk memerintahkan tertuduh membela diri dan tertuduh
memilih untuk berdiam diri, adakah Mahkamah bersedia untuk
mensabitkan tertuduh dengan kesalahan berdasarkann keseluruhan
keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh pendakwaan. Jika jawapan bagi
persoalan ini adalah "Ya", maka tertuduh mestilah diperintahkan untuk
membela diri. Jika jawapan bagi persoalan ini adalah "Tidak", maka kes
prima facie adalah tidak berjaya dibuktikan dan tertuduh hendaklah
dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. (Rujuk kes-
kes: Mat v. Public Prosecutor [1963] 1 LNS 82; [1963] MLJ 263,
Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 2 MLJ 301; [2004] 2 MLRA 547;
[2005] 1 AMR 321 FC).
24. Justeru, dalam membuat penilaian maksimum ke atas semua keterangan yang
dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan, Mahkamah perlu menentukan sama ada
elemen-elemen bagi kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
telahpun dipenuhi. Rujuk kes Arulpragasan A/L Sandaraju V Public
Prosecutor [1997] 1 MLJ 1.
25. Dilampirkan peruntukan undang-undang bagi Seksyen 3534 Kanun
Keseksaan;
“354 Assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to
outrage modesty
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending to
outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty
of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years or with fine or with whipping or with any two of such
punishments”
26. Manakala Seksyen 349 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan definisi "force"
seperti berikut:
“A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of
motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any
substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as
brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or
with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so
situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling. ”
27. Seksyen 350 Kanun Keseksaan pula menyatakan definisi “criminal force"
sebagai;
“Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's
consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by
the use of such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by
the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear, or annoyance to
the person to whom the force is “used, is said to use criminal force to
that other.”
28. Seksyen 351 Kanun Keseksaan pula mendefinisikan "assault' sebagai:
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
“Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing
it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person
present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is
about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault."
29. Saya merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya lwn. Mohd Yusri Kassim [2023]
5 LNS 39 yang menggariskan elemen yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak
pendakwaan bagi pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan ini.
[12] Justeru, adalah menjadi kewajipan dan bebanan undang-undang
kepada pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan bahawa:-
i) Tertuduh telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap
mangsa/pengadu iaitu Saksi Pendakwaan Ke-2 (SP2); dan
ii) Perbuatan kekerasan jenayah itu dilakukan dengan niat untuk
mencabul kehormatan SP2.
30. Kes ini turut merujuk kepada kes PP v. Kamarul Azamin Mohamad & Another
Appeal [2021] 2 CLJ 386 yang telah menggariskan elemen pertuduhan bagi
Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan seperti berikut;
[15] The ingredients of the offence are:
(i) there must have been assault or use of criminal force on a person;
(ii) such assault or use of criminal force must have been made:
(a) with intention to outrage modesty; or
(b) with knowledge that the person's modesty was likely to be
outraged.
[16] Therefore it must be proven that:
(i) the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the victim; and
(ii) that he intended thereby to outrage the victim's modesty; or that
he knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage victim's
modesty.
31. Maka, adalah jelas di sini untuk Mahkamah menilai di akhir kes pendakwaan
samada OKT telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah ke atas SP1 dan SP2 di
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
dalam kes ini serta samada kekerasan jenayah tersebut dilakukan dengan niat
untuk mencabul kehormatan mangsa SP1 dan SP2.
Elemen Pertama: Samaada tertuduh telah menggunakan kekerasan
jenayah ke atas mangsa iaitu SP1 dan SP2.
32. SP1 dan SP2 jelas menyatakan bahawa sentuhan telah dilakukan ke atas
mereka dengan menggunakan tangan OKT ke atas payudara SP1 manakala
sentuhan dengan menggeselekan kaki atau peha ke atas peha SP2.
33. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes PP v Preevan Chanderan [2022] 2 SMC
429 yang mana sentuhan ke atas belakang badan mangsa telah dilakukan oleh
tertuduh di dalam kes ini dan Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa kekerasan
jenayah telah dilakukakan ke atas mangsa.
[16] PW2, in her evidence, stated unequivocally that the accused
person did touch her back in the presence of PW1, who witnessed the
incident. The accused person’s act of touching PW2’s body is
“force”, as it “causes motion to that other (ie. PW2)” and patently a
criminal force, “knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force
he will illegally cause injury, fear, or annoyance to the person to
whom the force is used”.
34. Berbalik kepada kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, adalah jelas di sini telah
terdapat sentuhan yang menyebabkan motion to the other person dan jelas
bahawa uses of such force will illegally cause injury, fear or annoyance to the
person whom the force is used, di dalam kes ini SP1 dan SP2.
35. Masakan tiada annoyance ditimbulkan oleh OKT di dalam kes ini apabila sudah
ada laporan polis dilaporkan di atas sentuhan OKT ke atas SP1 dan SP2 serta
SP1 dan SP2 jelas di dalam keterangan mereka menyatakan mereka
merasakan marah dan terkejut serta takut di atas kejadian yang menimpa
mereka ini. Apatah lagi SP1 dan SP2 hanyalah menaburbakti di dalam
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
menjalankan tugasan mereka selaku petugas kesihatan malahan telah
disentuh oleh OKT.
Keterangan sokongan / Corroborative Evidence
36. Mahkamah ini di dalam mendengar kes ini telah memberikan amaran kepada
diri sendiri bahawa di dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan jenayah seksual; ianya
memerlukan keterangan sokongan atau corroborative evidence.
37. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes PP lwn. Yong Choo Kiong [2022] 10 CLJ
103 yang mana Yang Arif Datuk Abdul Wahab Mohamed, Hakim Mahkamah
Tinggi menyatakan bahawa :
[37] Walaupun begitu, ini tidak bermakna keperluan terhadap
keterangan sokongan dalam kes seksual adalah menjadi suatu
kemestian dan sabitan tidak boleh dikenakan ke atas tertuduh tanpa
keterangan mangsa rogol disokong. Sabitan bagi kesalahan kes-kes
seksual boleh dibuat tanpa keterangan sokongan dengan syarat
mahkamah telah memberi amaran kepada dirinya mengenai bahaya
untuk bergantung hanya kepada keterangan tersebut dan berpuas hati
bahawa adalah selamat untuk mengetepikan keterangan sokongan.
Saksi Berkepentingan
38. Keterangan SP7 selaku saksi mata adalah sangat penting walau sekalipun SP7
adalah saksi berkepentingan kerana SP7 adalah adik kepada tertuduh.
39. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Muhammad
Roszuhaizat bin Hassan dan rayuan-rayuan lain [2015] 7 MLJ 366 yang
mana dinyatakan seperti berikut berkenaan dengan keterangan saksi
berkepentingan;
[39] Tidak terdapat anggapan undang-undang bahawa saksi
berkepentingan tidak patut dipercayai. Saksi berkepentingan
adalah berhak diterima keterangan mereka sama seperti saksi-saksi
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
lain sehingga dapat dibuktikan dari keadaan sekeliling, saksi tersebut
adalah sebaliknya.
40. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Muhammad
Adli Shah bin Mohd Yusry [2021] MLJU 2904 yang mana Mahkamah Tinggi
menyatakan bahawa saksi-saksi yang menpunyai hubungan kekeluargaan
adalah saksi-saksi berkepentingan;
[286] Walaupun keterangan alibi T1 disokong oleh keterangan SD2-
SD6 namun kesemua saksi-saksi pembelaan merupakan saksi
berkepentingan. Hal ini adalah kerana SD2 mempunyai hubungan
kekeluargaan dengan T1 yang mana SD2 merupakan ibu kandungnya.
Manakala SD3 adalah adik SP70 bersama T1 pada masa T1 dilihat
melompat pagar dan SD4, SD5, dan SD6 merupakan rakan-rakan
kepada T1.
[287] Saya merujuk sekali lagi kepada kes Hemankumar Subramaniam
v. PP [supra] yang mana Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan akan ibu
tertuduh adalah saksi berkepentingan perlu berhati-hati. Manakala di
dalam kes Suzimi Shaari v PP [2011] 5 CLJ 259 yang menyatakan isteri
adalah juga saksi berkepentingan, seperti berikut:
“With regard to the accused’s defence on the second charge, the
learned trial judge rejected the accused’s defence that the
cannabis found in the bedroom of his house was for his own
consumption. The learned trial judge rejected the evidence
DW2, the accused’s wife, on the ground that DW2 was an
interested witness and DW2 did not know that the cannabis was
kept in the bedroom”.
41. Maka, adalah jelas dapat dilihat bahawa keterangan saksi berkepentingan
perlulah dipertimbangkan dengan berhati-hati dengan mengambil kira segala
keadaan sekeliling.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
42. Justeru itu, Mahkamah ini di dalam mendengar dan mengambil keterangan
SP7 berkenaan dengan kejadian telah memperingatkan diri sendiri bahawa
SP7 adalah saksi berkepentingan. SP7 adalah merupakan saksi penting di
dalam kes ini memadangkan beliau adalah saksi mata yang berada di dalam
bilik rawatan nombor 2 tersebut Bersama dengan tertuduh ketika kejadian
tersebut berlaku.
43. Keterangan SP7 sewaktu pemeriksaan utama adalah dirujuk:
SP7: Abang saya menerima rawatan di bilik C. Abang saya berbaring di atas
katil dan saya di bahagian kepala, saya berdiri di sebelah kepalanya. Saya ada
Nampak abang terima rawatan cuci luka daripada nurse. Sewaktu di dalam
bilik itu, ketika abang sedang cuci luka, abang kata sakit dan dia tersentap
lalu tersentuh misi itu. Lepas itu, abang saya nak turun dan misi itu baling
abang saya dengan kapas cuci luka itu. Saya boleh camkan misi itu. Nurse itu
Nampak macam marah pada ketika itu.
Selepas abang di baling dengan kapas, saya ajak abang saya keluar, dan saya
mintak maaf kepada misi itu. Saya kemudian berjumpa semula dengan misi itu
dan minta maaf saya katakan abang saya tak waras selepas accident itu. Tiada
nurse lain datang merawat abang saya selepas itu, hanya seorang nurse
itu sahaja.
44. SP7 di dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa hanya ada satu mangsa
sahaja iaitu misi yang membaling kapas ke arahnya abangnya. Mahkamah
merujuk kepada keterangan oleh SP1 yang menyokong keterangan oleh SP7;
KETERANGAN SP1:
Pemeriksaan Utama
Semasa itu pesakit dia dalam keadaan baring, saya ambil kapas guna air untuk
cuci, saya perah kapas ke atas lukanya untuk melembutkan luka. Saya cuci
luka dan dia cakap dia sakit, dan ada one time dia tepis tangan saya, lepas itu
masa saya cuci, dia bangun, dia cakap dia sakit dan dia pegang breast
sebelah kanan saya. Lepas tu adik dia peluk, pegang dia dan cakap kenapa
hang kenapa buat macam tu dan terus bawa dia keluar. Saya sempat baling
kapas yang saya telah gunakan dekat dia. Ianya adalah tindakan spontan
saya.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
45. Jelas di sini bahawa keterangan SP7 adalah menyokong keterangan SP1
berkenaan dengan sentuhan yang telah dilakukan oleh OKT ke atas SP1.
46. Namun demikian, keterangan SP7 juga ada kelompangannya apabila SP7
menyatakan ada seorang sahaja nurse yang merawat abangnya. Mahkamah
merasakan mustahil ini boleh berlaku. Hal ini kerana, SP1 adalah seorang
pembantu perubatan iaitu MA manakala SP2 adalah seorang jururawat. Pada
kebiasannya perbezaan mereka boleh dilihat dengan jelas pada pakaian yang
mereka pakai ketika di Klinik iaitu jururawat pada kebiasannya akan memakai
baju uniform berwarna putih manakala MA akan memakai baju berwarna.
47. TPR terpelajar telah memohon kepada Mahkamah pada hari perbicaraan untuk
refresh the memory of the witness iaitu SP7 dalam hal ini. SP7 telah dirujuk
dengan rakaman percakapan di bawah S112 KTJ beliau dan beliau
menjelaskan bahawa:
KETERANGAN SP7:
Pemeriksaan Utama
TPR: Saya rujuk dengan kenyataan puan yang ada jururawat yang lain masuk
ke dalam dan menyambung cuci luka. Boleh puan jelaskan kenyataan puan
ini?
SP7: Bukan misi yang lain, misi yang sama.
48. Mahkamah juga tidak pasti apa yang menimbulkan kekeliruan pada SP7 di
dalam mengenalpasti samada terdapat mangsa yang berbeza atau tidak pada
waktu kejadian ini berlaku. Seperti yang telah Mahkamah ini jelaskan,
perbezaan ketara sudah pastinya adalah pada pakaian yang mereka pakaikan.
49. Namun, Mahkamah ini pada peringkat kes pendakwaan menerima keterangan
SP2 berkenaan sentuhan ke atas peha SP2 mengambilkira keterangan SP2
telah disokong dengan keterangan SP1 yang menjelaskan keadaan SP2
selepas disentuh oleh OKT. Tambahan lagi, keterangan SP1 dan SP2 juga
konsisten bahawa sentuhan yang dilakukan oleh OKT kepada SP2 adalah
pada bahagian peha.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
Pemeriksaan Utama (SP1)
…Dia cakap macam ketakutan dan dia cakap dia tidak selesa dengan patient
tersebut, sebab kaki tangan pesakit ini sentuh paha kanan dia…
Pemeriksaan Utama (SP2)
…Semasa waktu kaki pengadu kena pada peha, saya macam geram, tapi saya
dah penat, jadi saya rasa ok dan panggil kawan. Saya tidak marah, sebab kalau
marah, nanti lain pula…
50. Jelas dapat dilihat di sini bahawa sentuhan ke atas SP2 juga telah dilakukan
oleh OKT. Maka, pada hemat mahkamah ini, elemen ini telah berjaya dipenuhi
oleh pihak Pendakwaan.
Elemen Kedua: Perbuatan kekerasan jenayah itu dilakukan dengan niat
untuk mencabul kehormatan SP1 dan SP2.
51. Pertama sekali adalah wajar untuk melihat apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan
mencabul kehormatan. Ianya tidak diberikan suatu maksud di dalam Kanun
Keseksaan, namun nas undang-undang ada menjelaskannya.
52. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Mohd Fairuz bin Ahmad v Public
Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 2453;
[38] Modesty is not defined under the Penal Code (Act 574). In Mrs.
Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr [1996] AIR 309;
1995 SCC (6) 194, the Supreme Court of India was called upon to
construe the provision of section 509 of the Indian Penal Code on
insulting the modesty of a woman (similar provision of section 509 of
Indian Penal Code refers to “woman” whereas our section 509 of the
Penal Code (Act 574) refers to “person” which is gender-neutral).
[39] After considering the dictionary meaning of “modesty” and
interpretation given to it in State of Punjab v Major Singh [1967] AIR 63,
1966 SCR (2) 286, the Supreme Court of India held that “the ultimate
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the
action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is
capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman”.
53. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes Mohd Ikhsan bin Ramli v Pendakwa
Raya [2018] MLJU 2071 yang mana perayu ini telah mencium mangsa dan
telah Berjaya membuka pakaian mangsa serta telah menghisap payudara
mangsa dan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam mendengar rayuan bersetuju
perbuatan ini telah mencabul kehormatan mangsa ini;
[37] Any action calculated to forcefully touch or hold any part of a
woman’s body without consent either for sexual fulfillment or
perversity must certainly outrage the modesty of a woman. There
was clear intent on the part of the Appellant to do so in this case.
54. Jelas di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini bahawa SP1 dan SP2 masing-
masing telah disentuh oleh OKT tanpa kerelaan mereka apatah lagi pada
bahagian badan yang sensitive iaitu payudara serta peha.
55. Maka, Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa elemen kedua juga telah Berjaya
dipenuhi oleh pihak Pendakwaan.
Pembelaan OKT
56. OKT sepanjang kes pendakwaan dijalankan telah mengetengahkan
pembelaan tidak waras di bawah Seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan.
84. Act of a person of unsound mind:
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.
57. Mahkamah ini di dalam membuat keputusan di akhir pendakwaan telah turut
merujuk kepada kes PP v Misbah Saat (1998) 1 CLJ 759 di muka 779 yang
mana dinyatakan bahawa;
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
“The mere fact that the court has cognizance of a medical report to
indicate that at the time of the commission of the offence the accused
was of unsound mind, is irrelevant at the stage when the accused is
certified fit to stand trial and he chooses to plead guilty. In any case, for
purposes of establishing insanity as a defence, the medical report
by itself is insufficient.”
58. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Ja’afar bin
Halid [2021] MLJU 235 yang mana dinyatakan bahawa;
[66] Sehubungan dengan itu, memandangkan OKT telah
membangkitkan pembelaan di bawah pengecualian umumiaitu
“insanity” yang merujuk kepada “act of a person of unsound mind” atau
perbuatan orang yang tidak sempurna akalnya di bawah Seksyen 84
KK, maka adalah terletak beban ke atas OKT untuk membuktikannya
berdasarkanbeban di atas imbangan keberangkalian (on the balance of
probabilities). Rujuk kes yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah
Persekutuan iaitu Goh Yoke v. PP [1969] 1 LNS 48; Juraimi Husin v. PP
[1998] 2 CLJ 383 dan Rajagopal v. PP [1976] 1 LNS 122. Oleh yang
demikian, sewajarnya OKT dipanggil untuk membela diri bagi
mengemukakan pembelaan tersebut.
59. Justeru itu, adalah jelas bahawa Laporan Perubatan sahaja tidak memadai
untuk Mahkamah mendengar pembelaan OKT ini.
Keputusan Mahkamah di akhir Pendakwaan
60. Mahkamah turut merujuk kepada kes PP v. Datuk Haji Harun bin Idris [1977]
1 MLJ 15 telah membuat pemerhatian mengenai isu keterangan saksi-saksi
yang mana dinyatakan seperti berikut:
“…in my opinion, discrepancies there will always be, because in the
circumstances in which the event happened, every witness does not
remember the same thing and he does not remember accurately every
single thing that happened…the question is whether the existence
of certain discrepancies is sufficient to destroy their credibility.
There is no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must either be
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
believed in its entirety or not at all. A court is fully competent, for good
and cogent reasons, to accept one part of the testimony of a witness
and to reject the other.”
61. Mahkamah ini mendapati keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah credible
dan tiada percanggahan yang material yang menjurus kepada asas kes ini.
(Rujuk kepada perenggan 36-50 berkenaan dengan credibility of SP7
selaku saksi berkepentingan di dalam kes ini.)
Bantahan oleh Peguamcara OKT berkenaan Pakar Psikiatrik tidak
dipanggil sebagai Saksi Pendakwaan
62. Walaupun di dalam kes ini, pihak Pembelaan ketika kes Pendakwaan ditutup
telah membuat bantahan dengan menyatakan bahawa pihak Pendakwaan
seharusnya memanggil Pakar Psikiartik yang telah menyediakan Laporan
Perubatan Psikiatrik (sewaktu kes Pendakwaan telah ditandakan sebagai ID4)
iaitu Dr Ian Llyod Anthony.
63. Pada ketika itu, peguam telah menarik perhatian Mahkamah kepada kes Ti
Chuee Hiang V Public Prosecutor [1995] 2 MLJ 433 pada bahagian ini;
Obiter
In any event, in this case it would not have sufficed for the prosecution
to have merely made the informer available to be called as defence
witness, as this would have put the defence at the disadvantage of not
having been able to cross-examine him on any point which might
support the prosecution case.
64. Namun, Puan TPR terpelajar pada ketika itu, kekal dengan keputusan mereka
bahawa mereka tidak akan memanggil Dr Psikiatrik tersebut dan telah
menawarkan beliau selaku saksi Pembelaan dan pihak Pembelaan
menerimanya.
65. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Misbah Saat (supra) yang mana
menyatakan seperti berikut;
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
“[5a] It is a well-established principle that only the accused has the
right to raise the defence of insanity if he so wishes. Neither the
prosecution nor the the judge can raise the issue of insanity during a
trial, if the accused has not himself raised this defence.”
66. Maka, adalah jelas bahawa tiada keperluan untuk pihak Pendakwaan
mengemukakan Dr Ian Llyod Anthony sebagai saksi mereka. Apatah lagi
keterangan Dr tersebut tidak mungkin akan menyokong kes Pendakwaan
seperti yang dijelaskan di dalam kes Tii Chuee Hiang (supra). Mahkamah ini
turut merujuk kepada Nota Keterangan bertarikh pada 10.1.2020 yang mana
dinyatakan bahawa:
Peguam maklum OKT mungkin ada unsur masalah mental, mohon OKT
dimasukkan ke hospital bahagia untuk pemerhatian.
67. Mahkamah merujuk kepada NK yang menunjukkan bahawa pihak Pembelaan
yang telah memohon OKT dihantar ke Hospital Bahagia untuk pemerhatian di
bawah Seksyen 342 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Mahkamah ini sekali lagi
mengulangi bahawa tidaklah salah pada pihak Pendakwaan tidak
mengemukakan Dr Ian Llyod Anthony sebagai saksi mereka dan mereka turut
telah menawarkan Dr tersebut selaku saksi pembelaan. Rujuk Nota
Keterangan bertarikh pada 13.9.2023.
TPR: kami tutup kes pendakwaan dan kami tawarkan saksi kami iaitu
Doctor Psychiatrist Dr Ian Lloyd Anthony (HBUK).
68. Seperti yang telah Mahkamah ini nyatakan sebentar tadi, tiada sebarang
alasan untuk Mahkamah ini menganggu kebolehpercayaaan saksi-saksi yang
telah pihak Pendakwaan kemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini.
69. Justeru itu, Mahkamah ini di akhir kes pendakwaan mendapati selain daripada
kesemua elemen yang telah digariskan dipenuhi bagi membuktikan kes
pendakwaan juga telah menilai keterangan saksi-saksi yang telah pihak
pendakwaan kemukakan serta menilai bukti-bukti yang telah dikemukakan,
berpuas hati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima
facie ke atas OKT bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
Keseksaan dan telah memanggil tertuduh untuk membela diri seperti yang
digariskan di bawah Seksyen 173(ha) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ).
70. Mahkamah di peringkat ini telah mengarahkan untuk OKT membela diri
terhadap pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 298 Kanun Keseksaan dan telah
memberi pilihan kepada tertuduh mengikut peruntukan Seksyen 173(ha)
Kanun Tatacara Jenayah sama ada:
i. Memberi keterangan bersumpah di dalam kandang saksi;
ii. Memberi keterangan di dalam kandang TERTUDUH; atau
iii. Berdiam diri.
71. OKT kemudiannya telah memilih untuk memberikan keterangan bersumpah di
dalam kandang saksi.
Kes Pihak Pembelaan
72. Di peringkat pembelaan, tertuduh telah memilih untuk memberi keterangan
bersumpah di dalam kandang saksi. Bagi kes pembelaan, selain daripada
tertuduh yang memberikan keterangan, tertuduh turut mengemukakan saksi
pembelaan (SD2) iaitu Dr Ian Llyod Anthony.
73. Sekali lagi Mahkamah ingin membawa kepada perhatian Mahkamah yang
mendengar rayuan bahawa OKT ini mengemukakan pembelaan tidak waras di
bawah Seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan.
74. Pembelaan OKT ini adalah berikutan kemalangan yang telah dialami oleh OKT
sebelum ini iaitu pada 26.11.2019 yang mana OKT telah melanggar khinzir.
Akibat daripada kemalangan itu, OKT telah mengalami kecederaan luka-luka
pada kepala, lutut serta yang paling utama di sini adalah cerebral concussion
yang mana menurut OKT serta SD2 ianya telah menyebabkan OKT hilang
kewarasan.
75. Namun demikian, sepanjang perbicaraan berlangsung, pihak Pembelaan tidak
menidakkan sentuhan telah dilakukan ke atas SP1 dan SP2.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
Keterangan SD1
76. Berdasarkan keterangan SD1 jelas dapat dilihat bahawa SD1 mengatakan dia
tidak menyentuh mangsa SP1 dan SP2, serta dia tiada niat untuk mencabul
kehormatan mangsa-mangsa serta dia juga tidak mengingati kejadian tersebut
77. Versi ini sangat konsisten dengan pembelaan SD1 yang mana dia mengalami
masalah mental ketika itu, maka dia tidak dapat mengingati apa yang telah
berlaku.
Keterangan SD2
78. SD2 ialah Dr Ian Llyod Anthony selaku Pakar Perunding Forensik Psikiatrik di
Unit Forensik Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta yang telah menyediakan Laporan
Psikiatrik bagi SD1 di dalam kes ini yang telah ditandakan sebagai Eksibit D9.
79. Secara konlusi daripada keterangan oleh SD2 menyatakan bahawa pada masa
kejadian yang didakwa, disebabkan oleh kecederaan yang serius dan keadaan
mental dlm keadaan acute confusional state, OKT tidak mampu utk mengetahui
sifat dan akibat daripada perbuatannya serta juga tidak mampu utk mengetahui
perbuatan tersebut adalah salah. Ini adalah direct result daripada acute
confusional state. Maka SD2 berpendapat bahawa SD2 tidak waras semasa
kejadian tersebut berlaku.
80. Namun demikian, SD2 telah menyatakan melalui D9 di para 9(b) dan (c)
bahawa walaupun pada masa kejadian OKT adalah dalam keadaan mental
yang tidak waras serta tidak sedar akan sifat dan akibat perbuatannya serta
tidak mampu untuk mengetahui bahawa perbuatannya adalah salah dan
bertentangan dengan undang-undang, pada hari laporan ditulis, keadaan
mental OKT adalah stabil serta OKT layak dihadapkan di Mahkamah untuk
dibicarakan serta mampu untuk membela diri.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
Samada pembelaan tidak waras telah berjaya dikemukakan oleh pihak
Pembelaan.
81. Dilampirkan peruntukan undang-undang di bawah Seksyen 84 Kanun
keseksaan untuk rujukan;
“84. Act of a person of unsound mind:
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.”
82. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Abdul Azhim Mohammad v. PP [2023] 1
LNS 985 yang menyatakan seperti berikut;
[40] St is trite law that the appellant must establish unsoundness of
mind as prescribed under section 84 of the Penal Code to exonerate
the appellant from the offence charged against him. Hence the
burden is shouldered by the defence to prove this defence on the
balance of probabilities as decided by the Federal Court in Goh Yoke
v. PP [1969] 1 LNS 48; [1970] 1 MLJ 65, Rajagopal v. PP [1976] 1
LNS 122; [1977] 1 MLJ 6 and Juraimi Hussin v. PP [1998] 2 CLJ 383.
This is consistent with section 105 of the Evidence Act 1950 which
states:
"105. Burden of proving that cases of accused come within
exceptions
105. When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of
proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within
any of the general exceptions in the Penal Code, or within any
special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the
same code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and
the court shall presume the absence of those circumstances.
ILLUSTRATIONS
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
(a) Accused of murder alleges that by reason of unsoundness of
mind he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof
is on A"
83. Di dalam kes Misbah Saat (supra), dinyatakan seperti berikut;
[3] It is an established principle of law that if an accused person can
establish that he was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of
the act of wrongdoing, he is entitled to raise the defence of insanity
under s. 84 of the Code. The test for insanity under s. 84 of the
Code is not the medical test of insanity but the legal test, that is,
the wrongdoer was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. The
burden is on the accused to prove his insanity as required by s. 84
of the Code.
84. Maka, jelas dilihat di sini bahawa beban pembuktian bagi pembelaan
ketidakwarasan ini adalah pada OKT sendiri dan OKT perlu membuktikan
pembelaan ini pada imbangan kebarangkalian. Ujian atau Test yang
digunakan oleh Mahkamah di dalam mendengar atau menerima pembelaan ini
adalah legal insanity dan bukannya medical insanity.
85. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes PP lwn. Ja'afar Halid [2021] 1 LNS
149 yang melampirkan seperti berikut;
[84] Dalam kes PP v. Shalima Bi [2016] 2 CLJ 231, perbezaan di antara
"legal and medical insanity" telah diputuskan seperti berikut:-
"Legal and Medical Insanity
[51] The law is trite that the court is only concerned with legal
insanity and not with medical insanity. Section 84 of the Code is
concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. 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 I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
7. '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.
[52] Thus, where medical insanity has been established, the
defence of insanity under s. 84 of the Code is only available where,
at the time the accused committed the act, he:
(a) did not know the nature of his act; or
(b) did not know that what he was doing was wrong; or
(c) did not know that what he was doing was contrary to law.
[53] What a trial judge has to do as the first step in determining whether
the defence of insanity has been established is to see whether the
accused was medically insane at the time he committed the act. Expert
medical evidence is necessary as the question of whether he was
medically insane at any particular point in time is in the realm of
forensic science. It is not something that the court can determine
without the benefit of expert opinion.
[54] Once that threshold is crossed, the next step is for the trial judge
to consider whether, by reason of medical insanity, the accused
was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was
doing was either wrong or contrary the law. Expert medical opinion
is irrelevant as the question of whether the accused was incapable
of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
either wrong or contrary to law is a matter to be inferred from the
proved facts and circumstances and not from expert medical
opinion. It is purely a question of fact for the trial judge to
determine."
….
[90] Dalam menentukan sama ada pihak pembelaan telah
melepaskan beban bagi membuktikan OKT tidak waras semasa
melakukan kesalahan tersebut, Mahkamah juga perlu meneliti
keseluruhan keterangan yang ada. Segala fakta yang telah
dibuktikan di peringkat pendakwaan berkaitan kejadian hendaklah
juga diteliti dan dipertimbangkan. Kelakuan dan tindakan OKT
sebelum, semasa dan selepas kejadian adalah fakta yang sangat
relevan. Bagi tujuan tersebut, keterangan yang telah diberikan oleh
saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan keterangan pembelaan hendaklah
dirujuk secara keseluruhannya.
86. Jelas di sini bahawa threshold pertama iaitu medical insanity telah berjaya
dipenuhi oleh pihak OKT dengan pengemukaan Eskibit D9. Namun,
Mahkamah ini sekali lagi menekankan bahawa medical insanity bukanlah suatu
hak automatik yang memadai bagi pembelaan tidak waras diterima di
Mahkamah ini.
87. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Jaafar Hadid (supra) yang jelas menyatakan
bahawa kelakuan dan tindakan OKT sebelum, semasa dan selepas
kejadian adalah fakta yang sangat relevan.
88. Menurut SP7 selaku adik kepada OKT, OKT ini sering berbogel dirumah, serta
turut melancap ketika berada di klinik. Benar, tindakan ini tidak akan dilakukan
oleh mana-mana orang waras, namun Mahkamah percaya OKT ini faham
akan sifat perbuatannya (nature of his act) yang salah di sisi undang-
undang. Ini kerana jelas bahawa sekiranya OKT tidak mengetahui atau
memahami akan tindakannya, mana mungkin OKT tahu bahawa
perbuatannya di dalam menyentuh wanita lain atau melancap akan
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
memberikan suatu kepuasan seksual kepadanya? Jelas sentuhan OKT
kepada mangsa-mangsa adalah sentuhan pada kawasan-kawasan yang
membangkitkan perasaan berahi dan berniat untuk memuaskan dirinya.
Maka, pada pandangan Mahkamah ini, OKT telah gagal membangkitkan
pembelaan tidak waras di bawah Seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan.
89. Kegelisahan OKT sewaktu berada berhampiran dengan mangsa-mangsa juga
menunjukkan mangsa berasa resah gelisah. Tambahan pula keterangan SP7
yang menyatakan mangsa telah bermain dengan kemaluannya di klinik jelas
menunjukkan bahawa OKT sedang bernafsu dan sentuhan ke atas mangsa-
mangsa adalah suatu tindakan yang berniat untuk mencabul kehormatan
mangsa demi kepuasan seksual OKT. Bahkan OKT turut melakukan sentuhan
kepada SP2 ketika keluar daripada klinik itu setelah kejadian tersebut. Justeru
itu, pada hemat Mahkamah ini OKT sedar akan perbuatannya dan faham akan
perbuatannya itu.
90. Berdasarkan dapatan ini, Mahkamah ini menolak pembelaan OKT ini dan
mendapati OKT ini telah gagal membuktikan pembelaan tidak waras pada
imbangan kebarangkalian.
Keputusan Mahkamah di Akhir Pembelaan
91. Seksyen 182A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah adalah dirujuk. Turut merujuk
kepada kes PP v. Jaya Ganesh Jayabalan & Ors [2023] 1 LNS 1166
(1) At the conclusion of the trial, the Court shall consider all the
evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
(2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court shall find the accused guilty and he may be
convicted on it.
(3) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court shall record an order of acquittal
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
92. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada prinsip yang digunakan di dalam kes Mohamed
Radhi bin Yaakob v PP [1991] 3 CLJ 169 yang menerima pakai prinsip di
dalam kes Mat v PP [1963] 29 MLJ 263 tentang kesahihan cerita pembelaan
yang mana Hakim Tun Suffian (pada ketika itu) memutuskan.......
"If the Court accepts the explanation given by or on behalf of the
accused, it must acquit. But this does not entitle the Court to
convict if it does not believe that explanation, for he is still entitled
to an acquittal, if the explanation raises a reasonable doubt as to
his guilt, as the onus of proving his guilt lies throughout on the
prosecution. If upon the whole evidence the court is left in a real
state of doubt, the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of
proof which lies upon it."
93. Mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada kes Ali Tan bin Abdullah v Public
Prosecutor [2013] 2 MLJ 676 yang membicangkan mengenai beban
pembuktian di akhir kes pembelaan;
[24] In our judgment, on the facts of the present case, the learned JC
was entitled and correct in holding that the unsworn statement of the
appellant was incapable of raising a reasonable doubt on the
prosecution's case. It is true that an accused person has no burden to
prove his innocence. The cardinal principle in our administration of
criminal justice system is that the prosecution must prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This refers to the
standard of proof which must be satisfied by the prosecution
before a court finds the accused guilty. Proof beyond
a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves the court firmly convinced
of the accused's guilt. However, it is not proof with absolute
certainty (see Pang Chee Meng v Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 MLJ
137). Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond
the shadow of doubt (see Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All
ER 372) ….
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
94. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes Arulpragasan Sandaraju v PP [1997]
1 MLJ 1 yang menggariskan seperti berikut;
“…At the end of the defence case, it is the duty of court to consider the
defence evidence in the light of the prosecution evidence. The court
considers the case as a whole...”
95. Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Atik Hussin bin Abu
Bakar and other cases [2016] MLJU 968 telah menyatakan bahawa:
“The onus of proving the guilt of an accused person beyond
reasoanable doubt, which never shifts, lies throughout on the
prosecution. It is not upon the accused to prove his innocence.”
96. Di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah ini setelah menilai keseluruhan keterangan
daripada saksi pendakwaan dan saksi pembelaan yang telah dikemukakan
serta hujahan kedua-dua pihak dalam memastikan sama ada pihak
pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes ke atas OKT melangkaui
keraguan yang munasabah.
97. Berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi terutama saksi Pendakwaan ketujuh
(SP7), Mahkamah ini telah mendapati bahawa pihak pembelaan telah
berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes Pendakwaan
bagi Pertuduhan yang pertama iaitu:
i. Keterangan oleh SP7 tidak menyokong atau corroborate keterangan
mangsa iaitu SP2.
98. SP7 di dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa:
Pemeriksaan Utama
Lepas itu, abang saya nak turun dan misi itu baling abang saya dengan kapas
cuci luka itu. Saya boleh camkan misi itu. Nurse itu Nampak macam marah
pada ketika itu.
99. Keterangan oleh SP1 turut dirujuk oleh Mahkamah ini:
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
Pemeriksaan Utama SP1
…Saya sempat baling kapas yang saya telah gunakan dekat dia. Ianya adalah
tindakan spontan saya..
100. Ini jelas menunjukkan proses kejadian tersebut yang berlaku ke atas SP1
adalah disokong oleh SP7. Penceritaan di antara SP1 dan SP7 jelas disokong
antara satu sama lain.
101. Namun, SP7 jelas menyatakan hanya seorang jururawat yang telah merawat
abangnya. Pada hemat Mahkamah ini, memadangkan SP7 selaku saksi mata
juga tidak dapat memastikan jika ada mangsa lain di dalam kes ini, tidak
sewajarnya dakwaan SP2 diterima di Mahkamah ini. Mahkamah ini sekali lagi
merujuk kepada keperluan corroboration evidence di dalam kes jenayah
seksual. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini menolak keterangan SP2 di atas
alasan di atas.
ii. Tindakan SP2 selepas kejadian mencabul kehormatannya tidak
mencerminkan kemarahan atau perasaan terkejut mangsa.
102. Mahkamah merujuk kepada Nota Keterangan bagi keterangan SP2 sewaktu
pemeriksaan utama
Pemeriksaan Utama (SP2)
Semasa saya minta Fatimah sambung, saya ada ada maklum kepada Fatimah
dan Fatimah setuju untuk pergi buat dia kata takpe akak buat. Selepas saya
pergi beli air….
103. SP2 semasa di dalam memberikan keterangan adalah seorang yang agak
tegas dan bersikap emotional. Mahkamah ini berkali-kali memberikan
peringatan kepada SP2 agar menjawab soalan yang diajukan oleh peguam
kepadanya dengan baik. Namun, tindakan SP2 selepas SP2 menyatakan
beliau telah dicabul adalah dengan keluar daripada Klinik Komuniti tersebut dan
kemudiannya telah pergi membeli air adalah sangat tidak masuk akal
mengambil kira SP2 di dalam keterangannya sangat agresif dan menyatakan
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
beliau berasa marah. SP2 dilihat terlalu tenang pada hari kejadian dan tidak
seperti yang telah dia gambarkan sebagai marah.
104. Selain itu, SP2 mengambil jalan mudah dengan meninggalkan kawannya iaitu
SP1 dengan OKT walaupun SP2 menyatakan dia telah dicabul kehormatannya
oleh OKT.
Pemeriksaan Utama (SP2)
Saya minta Fatimah untuk gantikan tempat saya, saya nak ke kedai beli
air, di sebelah saja. Sebab hari tersebut hari yang sibuk untuk saya. Dan
Fatimah setuju untuk ganti.
Kesan kejadian adalah saya merasa takut, trauma, dan tak selamat. Sebab
pesakit luka akan datang lagi. Tujuan buat report adalah untuk lindungi
saya dan kawan-kawan.
105. Pada pandangan Mahkamah ini perbuatan SP2 yang meninggalkan SP1
bersama dengan OKT yang telah mencabulnya adalah sangat tidak masuk akal
mengambil kira niat suci beliau ingin melindungi rakan-rakanya. Jika benar,
SP2 merasakan sentuhan OKT ke atas beliau adalah suatu sentuhan yang
berniat untuk mencabul kehormatannya, sudah pastilah SP2 selaku seorang
yang emotional apatah lagi pada hari yang sangat panjang dan memenatkan
akan bertindak lebih bijak dengan menemani rakan sekerjanya itu.
106. Mahkamah ini menolak keterangan SP2 yang beliau merasakan sentuhan OKT
adalah sentuhan yang bersifat untuk mencabul kehormatannya kerana
tindakan SP2 sejurus selepas itu sangat tidak menujukkan bahawa beliau
merasakan kehormatannya dicabul. Sekali lagi, Mahkamah ini menekankan
bahawa SP2 seorang yang agak emotional ketika memberikan keterangannya
namun tindakan beliau pada hari kejadian terlalu bersahaja. Jika niat SP2
adalah untuk melindungi rakan sekerjanya, sudah pastilah tindakan yang
sewajarnya diambil oleh SP2 pada hari kejadian adalah sekurang-kurangnya
untuk menemani SP1 ketika proses cuci luka tersebut dijalankan.
107. Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada Seksyen 8 Akta Keterangan 1950 yang
menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation
for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or
proceeding in reference to that suit or proceeding, or in reference to any
fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person
an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant if
the conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant
fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
108. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Parlan Dadeh v PP [2009] 1 CLJ
717 yang telah merujuk kepada Sarkar Sarkar on Evidence 15th Edition Says,
yang mana dinyatakan adalah:
[30] In commenting on the admissibility of evidence of conduct under s. 8
Sarkar on Evidence 15th edn says at p. 175:
The conduct of party to a proceeding or his agent in reference to
such proceeding at the time when the facts occurred out of which
the proceeding arises, or in reference to any fact in issue or
relevant fact, or the conduct of the complainant, is relevant; but the
condition precedent to its admissibility as 'conduct' is that it must directly
influence or be influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact and such
conduct does not include action resulting from other causes or
circumstances. It must be the essential complement of the act done or
refused to be done. Conduct includes antecedent or subsequent conduct
involving both actions and statements.
And at p 194:
What is meant by the words, if such conduct influences or is influenced
by any fact in issue or relevant fact, is that there must be a direct or
immediate relation between the conduct and the fact in issue. Conduct
which is brought about by some other agency though connected with the
facts in issue is not relevant conduct.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
109. Jelas di sini, bahawa tindakan pengadu iaitu SP2 di dalam kes ini selepas dia
dicabul kehormatannya adalah sangat tidak relevan. SP2 menyatakan dia pergi
membeli air dan membiar rakannya berada dalam keadaan begitu, jelas
menunjukkan bahawa SP2 pada awalnya tidak merasakan sentuhan yang
dikenakan oleh OKT ke atasnya adalah tidak bersifat mencabul
kehormatannya.
110. Maka, pada atas alasan ini, Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah
gagal membuktikan Pertuduhan Pertama melangkaui keraguan munabasah.
Justeru itu, OKT telah dilepaskan dan dibebaskan bagi pertuduhan
pertama di akhir kes Pembelaan.
111. Bagi pertuduhan kedua, Mahkamah ini setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-
saksi pendakwaan dan pembelaan, setelah membaca hujahan-hujahan yang
telah difailkan mendapati mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya
membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah. Oleh itu, OKT disabitkan
bersalah bagi pertuduhan kedua di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan
dan dihukum dibawah seksyen yang sama.
Rayuan Mitigasi
112. Di dalam rayuan mengurangkan hukuman, tertuduh melalui peguambelanya
telah memohon suatu hukuman yang ringan dengan memberikan Mahkamah
ini latar belakang tertuduh. Tertuduh berusia 29 tahun, seorang yang bujang.
Bekerja kampung dengan gaji sebanyak RM1,500.00 sebulan. Tertuduh
menanggung ibunya yang berumur 51 tahun serta dua adik beradik lain yang
berumur 13 dan 6 tahun. Ini juga merupakan kesalahan kali pertama oleh
tertuduh. Selain itu, peguam turut berhujah bahawa hanya disebabkan oleh
OKT memilih untuk dibicarakan bukanlah suatu yang melayakkan OKT ini
diberikan hukuman yang berat dan Peguambela telah memohon hukuman
yang minimum.
Hujahan pemberatan
113. Puan TPR terpelajar telah memohon hukuman berat ke atas OKT ini ambil kira
telah mencabul kehormatan mangsa sehingga menyebabkan mangsa berasa
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
trauma. Selain itu, kes juga telah dibicarakan sejak 2020. Puan TPR terpelajar
telah memohon hukuman berat dikenakan ke atas OKT ini.
Trend Hukuman
Kes Hukuman
PP v Zolkapli Long @ Mohamad
[2023] 1 LNS 1851
Mahkamah Tinggi telah menjatuhkan
hukuman penjara selama 18 bulan ke
atas Tertuduh.
Pendakwa Raya lwn Jasni Azwan
bin Abdullah [2020] MLJU 2598
8 bulan penjara.
- Kes Bicara Penuh
PP lwn. Md Azizul Hoque [2022] 5
LNS 148
hukuman penjara selama 15 bulan
berjalan dari tarikh tangkap
- Kes OKT Mengaku salah
PP lwn. Mohd Syamim Rosli [2020]
2 SMC 25
8 bulan penjara.
- Kes bicara penuh
Faktor Pemberatan
114. Mahkamah ini sekali lagi merujuk kepada kes Zolkapli Long (supra) yang
mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah melampirkan seperti berikut:
Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan
hukuman penjara sehingga 10 tahun dan berdasarkan tafsiran di
bawah seksyen 52B Kanun Keseksaan, kesalahan di
bawah seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan tergolong sebagai suatu
kesalahan serius (rujuk kes Pendakwa Raya lwn. Thevesh a/l
Sashikumar dan satu lagi [2020] 9 CLJ 817; [2020] 12 MLJ 603) …
115. Memadangkan kesalahan yang OKT disabitkan ini adalah suatu kesalahan
yang serius, mahkamah ini turut juga menimbangkan keperluan awam. Di
dalam kes ini, mangsa adalah merupakan seorang pembantu perubatan yang
tugasnya adalah memberikan rawatan kepada orang awam. Tugasan mangsa
adalah suatu tugasan yang mulia. Namun demikian, apa yang OKT telah
lakukan kepada mangsa adalah sesuatu yang tidak wajar dilakukan, bahkan
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
suatu yang terutamanya apabila niat mangsa adalah telus untuk membantu
OKT di dalam mencuci lukanya yang telah kering dan berkuping.
116. Didalam kes Pendakwaraya lwn. Mohamed Danny Mohd Jedi [2018] 1 LNS
50, Mohamed Zawawi Salleh HMR (pada ketika itu) membuat penyataan
berikut: -
“It is trite law that a sentence must be proportionate to both the
seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the
offender. The concept of proportionality was explained in the Canadian
Supreme Court Case of R v. Ipeelee [2012] SCC12. [2012] 1 SLR 433
in paragraph 37 as follows:
“Proportionality in the sine qua non of a just sanction. First, the
principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of the
offence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It
promotes justice for victims and ensure public confidence in the
justice system…Second, the principle of proportionality
ensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate,
given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In this
sense, the principles serves a limiting or restraining functioning
and ensures justice for the offender.”
117. Selain itu, kesan trauma yang dialami oleh mangsa turut besar melibatkan
mangsa berasa kurang selesa dalam keadaan jika berhadapan dengan
pesakit-pesakit lelaki. Ini adalah kesan trauma yang pada hemat Mahkamah ini
adalah sangat relevant dan kuat kesannya kepada mangsa.
118. Berdasarkan hal ini. Setelah Mahkamah ini mendengar factor mitigasi pihak
pembelaan dan factor pemberat oleh pihak pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah
menjatuhkan hukuman penjara 8 bulan bermula dari arikh sabitan 27.6.2023
dan dihukum denda RM5000 jika gagal bayar penjara 4 bulan ke atas tertuduh.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
119. Mahkamah berharap dengan hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas OKT ini, OKT
akan mengambil iktibar dengan perbuatan yang telah OKT lakukan serta
bertindak sebagai pengajaran kepada orang awam di dalam kes-kes begini
terutama kes yang melibatkan sentuhan kepada kakitangan perubatan
khususnya.
120. Walaubagaimanapun saya dengan rendah diri memohon pertimbangan
Mahkamah Tinggi Yang Mulia terhadap keputusan ini.
Bertarikh pada 8 November 2023.
S/N I/7oPdg2hEKPZCD8D6wnw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2023-11-13T11:04:19+0800
| 66,256 | Tika 2.6.0 |
JA-45A-37-12/2020 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) MUHAMAD RAFI BIN ROSDIN 2. ) MUHAMMAD HANAFI BIN MOHD AZNEE | Perbicaraan jenayah terhadap 2 tertuduh- terdapat tiga pertuduhan- S.39B91)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta Racun 1952 dibaca bersama S34 Kanun Keseksaan-tempat kejadian di sebuah rumah beralamat di Jalan Sekuntum, Taman Bukit Dahlia,Pasir Gudang, Johor Bahru-OKT1 melarikan diri dan berjaya diberkas-dadah di badan dijumpai- pemeriksaan di dalam bonet Kereta Mercedes Benz menjumpai 1 bag kanvas biru IKEA dan bag kertas "Just Do It"-mengandungi 6 ketulan mampt dipercayai ganja- pendakwaan gagal buktikan kes prima facia atas semua pertuduhan-dilepas dan dibebaskan untuk semua pertuduhan. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3109f51c-6bcc-41e0-936a-df061c196e74&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 14:03:50
JA-45A-37-12/2020 Kand. 46
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HPUJMcxr4EGTat8GHBludA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
.m—¢5A—37—12/2020 Kand. 46
zeumozs uvzs
DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JONDW amnu
DALAM NEGERI JOHDR DARUL uxzmu
PEREICARAAN JENAYAH NO: JA-45A-(35-la)-11I2o1I1
FENDAKWA mu
uwnu
MUHAMAD RAFI am ROSDIN
MUHAMMAD HANAFI am MOHD AZNEE
ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN
Panglnllln
[<1 Keduz<1ua|enuduh\s\ah dfluduh dengan mat beuama mengedar
dadah an bawah s a9s<1)<a) Akla Dadah Eevbahaya v952 (Anny can 5
9(1)Ak|a Racun I952 mbaca hevsama s 34 Kamm Keseksazn
[21 Tevdapfl nga (3) Defluduhan |emadap meveka, sepem henkm
F-mmuvun Panama
1JAr45A—a$1Mo2a — Tan-mun Panama dun Temmun Kzmm 4/uudun
nm.nmama)
IN »«=umu.4zm=asuam
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
'Eahawa kamu barsamzruma pad: 215 mm, pm Izhm kn-inn n an mllnm
m nnflannn mmah No 9:‘ Jilan Sdmmum <4. Yaman auxm mam rm
Gudang‘ m dahm dnauh Juhut Blhm m dullm mum John! Dam ‘(aknm
Iehah menuedlr dadah wmaya pm: bmm um: gum lulu c......a..
om Mu kamu «aim mnhxukuu sun kesiluhm m mm Seksyen as: may
Am Eladah E-erbaluya «:52 flan mm dmnkum m buwan Seksyen ass (2;
Anayang xnmndmmhncanasnmadvlzawnh Se«sy:n34 Kanun Keseksaan‘
P-mmun-n mu
(JA45A—a7—1z/2020 — nu-mun Paflaml um;
‘Bahawa kamu pada 2152:1211, .m mam kuung 11 4a mum u. hldnpan
mmnh No at man Sekumum u, Taman Bum nam Pam smug. a
mm mm. Jmur Elihu‘ m mm. Negen Jahor mm Vukzlm man mmxm
am.» aemanm beral bemh 24.34 gum mm Imlamphuuminl om. nu
klmu mun memunn mu xmnnan dv hawah Seksyarv I212)AkIa Dzdah
Bemuhaya I952 dun mm «mm. um um). Seiuyen mm Ann ynrw
Plrluduhan Kaila:
musaauzaazo . Tmuaulv Panama flan Yam.-tun Kedua duuduh
basnma-sums)
-Baum Iumu bersamtxama pad: 2: a ma, pm mam kunnn 1: 40 mnlnm
a. amp... rumah Na ea. man Sakunwm <4, Tamar: Euiul mam pm
Gudang, a. dzlam mm. Jnhar mm m dnrnm Nesyen Jana! Diml Yakzlm
lnllnmdnpnndalammnhkankamulawnyang!.ersanava\da\amJ:du:lPnn,:mI
din Jamal mg. (Bmxn Pukmvamk) Am mm 125: mu Milruaynlnn
s.u..w.x Issamllllll-vain flu-ganlru kamu wan msiakukan um kauhmn
u. bawm Stxsyen am An; Raw 1952 my w-n «mum m bawah
semen 3242; Kali ‘/ing um: dzn mm. mum. Slksyun 34 Knmm
Kzuksurv
sm »«=wM.=.4zm.usua.m
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
arang Vain Gan mampunya. pengelahusn (enmng dzman yang
evsaalkan
[36] Dahm kes vm. mhsk pendakwaan Isiah mengemukakan Iaklz darn
mrem benkut unluk membukukan pamillkzn lamadau dadah
1. xeuua-ans «enumm nan Amnm dnlmat sedang bevkumpul an
naaapnn mman bardakalan dengan kereva Mercedes yang
mnakn dmadapan mman yang mana dadah da\am penuduhan
panama duumpax dl da\am bonel newakang keveta dan oecanr
kelum dalzrn pammnnan kehga dljumpax hemumplmn mereka
berkumpm
2 Dadah anvnm pemmunan keduz duumpai daiam seVua( yang
mam: nleh Tammnn Panama
3 Tenuduh Panama dvlangkap 52121571 cubs melankan am dan
alan umuax uneven aanawa bellau ada pengelahuan mengenau
fladah mg dqumpaw
A Panamuan kad nama keduzrdua Ierluduh dw dalam arm rssl
keruta memhuknkan meleka msmpunyzw zksus |emadID xerexa
flan jarak keve|a yang pamn aawam jarsk deksl an naunpan
mman Tenuduh Penams wga memhenkan mlenans
uengelahuan
5 Keoemngan Anna: Anaka Nov Aznn, SP6 warm lunang kepada
Termduh Kaduz menyatakan calah membenkan Harem Iersebul
unluk kegunaan Tenuduh Kedua sepzruang kehadaan spa an
John! aanm sejak hmzn Januan, 2u2o. Hanya «maps: 1 kunm
unluk kevela Ievsehln dan |elah flvsevahkan kepada Tenuduh
Kedua darn spa mangesankan hahawa kerela |eIsebutadz\zh dw
bawah jagaan Temmuh Kedua pads nan k€|advan
aw HPwMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
"Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; me mn.u.y mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
s Kunm keIe(a dljumpaw pada Temmuh Kedua. maka barang kes
yang mjwnpa. sdalah dmawah kawalan Tenuduh Keduz
sspsnuhnya dan dmam pengelahuannya
7 Mflrugymne yang dwampzs mg: berada an dapan kedua-flu:
tenudu ' |u p/am srghlkelrka anenun alen sm
[371 Fada penngkal mu, pihak pembexaan mengaiakan sepem berikm
1 Terpulusnya rzmaall keterangan kes aan Keragunn kepada
krednbililx SP1 uan spz. Pemaaxaan hwahkan kelerzngan
bahawa selepas serbuan di mman Terluduh Panama. barang
kes tevus amawa ke lbu Pe;iba| Polls Daemh Sen Alan: W lndak
banar kerina pembelaan |elah mervgemukakan Iapmamaporan
pulls n24, D25, nzs yang mamkzuklikan sm max xems pulang
ke mu sen mam
2 Teldapal pevcsnggahan dalam kemrangan sm flan spa dan
hada peruelasan dlhual man mana-mana saw
3 Pada panngkat wm pembenaan menegaskan bahawz uada
keterangan danpada sm akan smpakah yang rnempunyai
kawalan darn jagaan pzda bzrang kes dan dua beg mu semasa
serhuan dilakukan dv fig: xampac yang benaman
4 Pmak Pendakwaan eenan gagm unmk memanggn Amwul Aflan
Fahmn hm Hshammuddm sebagzw szksx maaan pmak
Pendakvraxan mengaiakzn Annmv max ho\eh member:
kaevangan aeas laklur kealhalan man maakang aleh dukumen
peruhakan man ad: sebarang mm. manunjnkkan Armml ‘unfit
Io give evrdemze”
5 Pmak Pendakwaan wga gagax unmk mengemukakan keputusan
anahs: mnna DNA walaupun mkanakan caman man mamb-
aw HPLuMcu4E:7ra¢AsHaIuaA
«-ma s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m van; ..a nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
s Keaunua (emmuh max mempunyal kawakan aksmsxf pad:
kenderaan wvn 129 kerana nzda saksx yang nampak swap:
yang membawa keraka lersehm ke Iempal kejadwin Jugs ma
saks: yang nampak sama ads meleka ada hevumszn dengan
bamng kes dan Mada kelsrangan sukongan sepsm DNA
mzhupun can ‘an yang menuruukkan having kes pemah
dmvuskan a\ah kedua-dua lenuduh
7 Pmak pendakwaan wga gzgal membuklwkan mat hersama dx
hzwah 5 34 Kanun Keseksaan (emadap keaemua oxnemaaap
peauuum ca. 3155 Pemuexaan menghupahkan hanawa nada
kelerangan memmgukkan mu.-mua terluduh mampurvyaw "prs—
arrange p/an” Imluk mengedar dadah aan kehadvan mareka
hanyalah semahrmata ‘mere plswnce"
5 Tmflnkan Terluduh Panama melankan um Im hanya se\alI
dengan dadah yang duumpaw m da\am kuceknys an bawah
S1212)/39A ADE Peruuatan Terluduh Kedua dan Arrwul
kehl-waLan "emu max menyumbang kepada pemnukuan
wujudnyz pengelahuan tenlallg adanya dadah yang dnrampas
om. SP1 kerana M3 mar mereka lahu‘ pasll meteka Inga akan
melankan am
[an] Undang-undang aflalah mmap bahawz dengan hanya mempunyal
jagaan aluu kzwalan ke a\as dadah lersebm lwdak mancukuw unmk
memhukukan pemmkan (hhal Inrnhlm Mnllnrnad v. PF (101 114 cu 1)
[39] Adalah ma berdassvkan nas keskes dmuan banawa dua esemen
yang dvpevlukan LIMHK memhukhkan pemilxkan man kawalan fizxkal dan
pzngelahuan Umukmemenulmmsurl Lia meslvdmuuukkanbahawa
IerIud\m—|enuduh berida barhamplran dengan dadah dan meveka bnleh
mengendahkannya seowarmnan Ia zdalah mum mereka Bag! unsurmerflal
.3
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
axan msns rea puua Derlu fllbukhkan bahawa Cerludulrlevluduh Dermal
axan hemasral unmk bemrusan dengan dadah Iersebul (mlsndsd In deal
mm ma drugs) (vuiuk kes FF v Abdul Ranman Ah!/[2007] 5 ML! 237
(F0), Chan Pun Lana v PF [1955] 22 ML] 217 Inc); nalam em ksia
lam‘ kapeduan unsur fifikal dun menus! tersebul perm wuwd nan
dlhukbkan sehemm pem kzn dapzl dihukukan.
[AD] D. am has pendakwzan saya mendapzu bahawa keduadua
Ierluduh mempnnyai kawa\an dan ;agaan aana pengellhuan mengenm
dadah yang auumna. maka Ianya aaaxan dalam mmkan meleka semzsa
anangkap
[.41] vaaa penngkal nn szya menevima keterznqan sm bahawa
Tenuduh Kedua Ie\ah dutahan samasa mluar rumah berssma Amnul flan
kuncl karma Memfles yang dljumpaw flan semar Tennmm Kedna
mamaawa kepada penemuan barzng kes dadah Cannabis darn banal
helakang karara Tarluduh Panama pnva lelah bemndak malaflkan dm
dan dadah dljumpaw d:\:m selunr yang mpakaw auahm Fada peungkat
W, saya berparmangan naaa sebab urnuk merzg elerzngan sm dan
spz (mwk PP V. MnPI.lmIdAIi[19£2]18ML.I 257 um Shah Vrwm Ton
v. ;=P{2o13) 1 ms 377)
[421 Olah yang uennxnan, saya memmuskan aanawa aamaaaman
kapada Ke(erarI§an mg dlkemukakan‘ shaman permhkan dadah lelsehul
lelah flmukhkan seczva afivmam
Keduadua Temlduh man mengedardadah
[431 Bagi alaman psngedaran Imlnk pammnhan panama‘
memandangkan elemen pammxan Devan beqaya amnman maka saya
membual dapalan bahawa sa|u kes prfma ram pangedzvan umnknkan
bawah seks‘/En 130(4) Kn aenaan pemskauan angaspan bawah
sakswn 37(da) ADE (mmk kes Abdullah Man) berdasarkan berm dadah
Cannabis yang melamm wax rmmma znu gram (5 37(da)(vi))
[44] Cfleh yang aenukuan, kedua-dun lenuduh (emu mpanggu unmk
membela din dan mereka memllm uruuk mamben kstsvangan secara
hmumpan
xaa P-mbolun
[451 Kedua-due lenuduh |eIah membenkan ketzerangan secara
hersumpah den memanggwl Ilma (5) bring Saks! awam yang melupakan
zhh keluarga mereka dan Amlm
[46] Pada malam 21 52020, keduadua lerluduh dan Amm-I sedan;
herkumpm din lepak dv nadapan rumah Na 94, mm Tenuduh Panama
Supasukan anggala polvs man membual serhuan pzda anggaran jam
11 an mz\zm aan semass han keiaman. negzva maivh dalam oempan
Parmlah Kawaxan Pergevakan Eevsyaval
[47] Semssa samuany Tenuduh Panama man me\ankan am can
beqsya mlangkap dan mbawa ke hadapan mmah lersahut. Pemanksaan
badan acaa kedua-dun ienuduh flan Armml max msmumpaw barang salsh
(slaw kemuduan merwmpaw dadah dahm poxecseluar Tsfluduh Fensma
[451 Pemenksann pana kenderzan WYR 125 yang berafla herdekman
dengan mereka juga tidzk menemul apa-spa harang sa\ah
[491 Pemenksaan a. da\am bmk Tenuduh Penama ax aauam vumahnya
‘ugz hdak manamui ape-apa barring salah sanammya SP1 membawa
kedua-dua |enuduh flan Amwul ke rumah Tanuaun Kedua ax Na 32, Jalzn
Sekunlum s, Tamzn amt Dahha Pnsv Gudang‘ (myuk Vzpman Pulvr 7025)
yang mana serhuan ml mam aleh spa sun Mohd Aznee bin AN Malek
(hapa Tenuduh Keauay dan sos, sm Nur Az\e\a mm. Mona Aznee (mm
.5
am »«=wMq.4zm.asua.aaa
«-ma Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
Tarluduh Katina) mml berada m da\am rumah Terluduh Kedua pada
masa sevhuan kevana mavaka (Inggal :1: sum
[50] Femenksaan Dada wk Tenuduh Kedua lelah menemm 1 bag mm
beflulrsan KKEA flan 1 beg kenas hertuhsan Nike yang mana an dzlamnya
duumpal sejumlnh dadah msyakkl gznya salapas pemenman dawn
nmk Termduh Keaua, menglkul sm nan sns‘ sw amnax kaluar dari umu
nu memegang 1 bag mm henullsan IKEA man 1 beg kenas herlullszn
Nike
[51] sns .uga mengalakan bahawa nag hum berluhian IKEA dan beg
kenas berlullszn Nwke tersebut gmawa oleh rnkun Temmuh Kedua
hernama Hahm yang paga masa nu ads dalang ks lumah unmk naqumpa
Tarluduh Kedua Dlsebahkan sos makmmkan yang Tenuduh Kadua
naaa m rumah‘ Hallm man memmca um umuk masuk ke hmk Tenuduh
Kedua un|uk maletakkan dahum harang kelengkapan pevmaman
compu(erc1IbII\kTenuduh Kedua dan zkan kambah samma Dada mamm
nanh sns nampak Hahm bawa beg mm benuhs IKEA flan beg kenas
bsrlulis Nike masuk xe bmk Tenuduh Kedua sebalum memmla mri unmk
pmang lanpa mernegang heg—beg |eIsehut lagi
[52] Hanna Ideflah mkan Tsrluduh Kedua yang salam amnau datang ke
rumah hersama Amlrm untuk hermamin E-Spoil yang dlarwrkan hampw
aamap ma\am sn5 wga mngavaxan banawa Tenumm Kedua se\a!u
mangaruurkan pelmaman E-Sporl a|as lahan sevem Dma den PUBG aan
sememangnya kamasaannya Halvm akan aaxang ke Nmsh mereka
nenemh dahuhl unluk mewezaxkan perkakasan permainan darn makanzn
aaaemm memmakan pevmaman
[531 Talah jug: dlhlqahknn hahawa mjuan ymak pnlis mambual Iarhuan
ke mman Teduduh Kedua adalah kerana barang kes hdak pemeh
15
am »«=wMq.4zma«aaua.aaa
«-ma am n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
ayumpa. dalam kevela WYR 129 sehagawmana kelerangan saksx
pendakwian
Analin din Dapalan cfllkhlr kes Pembelaan
[54] Eevdavarkan kepada seksyen 182A KTJ, uka pendakwaan hanaya
membukhksn kesnya melampaui saharang keraguan yang munasahah,
xeauama nenumm nenaaman umapau bslsalah din 1.5mm Namun
uka senammya, Mahkamah hendmdah mmepas dzn membehaskan
cenumm uzuyuk kes Ealzchandnn y. PP {zoos} 1 cu :5 asn
Monnmad Radhl um Yizcob y. PF (1991) 1 cu Rap 311)
[551 Mengenal anggapzn pengadarin dnhawah saws), beban akan
harpindah kepada kedua-dua lenuduh mm menyangkau anggapan
versebul alas Imhengan kehavangkzhan yang mana bebarmya ada¥=h
new heval dari memmbulkzn keraguan yang munasabah (Muk ks: pp y.
vuym/{ms} 1 ms 116)
[as] Mengwkul kes Liam Hung Boon y. up [2012] 1 LIVE 1455,
Mahksmah Rayuan memuluskan
‘So me Ippeflanl had in renal m. npevltlve Dresumpfiun .71 Imlficxmw uvdev x
mm mm mm on the mm at pwbabtlwex mm Vuvel at rebulm Nice:
3 71-whet emdarmary burden an the anpe\lnn\'
[571 Dengan pemzkam anggapan dv bawan 5371637 Im juga, e\emen
pengedaran Ievah dlanggap maka keduama lenuduh mkanaxan
msngedar fladah (ersebut semnggz umukukan sebahknys (mm: the
canfraryls pmyed; Tenuduh-lertuduh flengan W peflu mengemukaksn
kelerangan yang mencukupv umuk mengakas anggzpan leysebut alas
wubangan keharangkalmn (nquk Ny cm Km y PP (1594; 2 cm 591
darn Manamad Radhi y PF(1992)1 so» 445;.
[59] Ds\am Dembalaan mereka. Iertuduh-(enuduh mengemukakan Iakla
mbawah szbagzw mm. sangganan (rabumz/evidence)
1 raaa dadah awnpaz semasa serbuzn dlbuat amaaapan rumah
Na 94
2 Dadah Cirmabss hanya auumusx ax ds\am mum Tertuduh Keduay
dmlmahnya d\ No 32, Jalan Sekunlum a
3. sakn panmaxaan sm dan sns mengeszhkan sm memegang
beg lkaa |urun uan mllk Terluduh Kadua.
4 Saks: sos ma mengalaksn meVma| Ham membawa Deg
ban-maan Ikea |erse|>u(na1k ks Tenuduh Kenna
5 sns (Am\ru¥) menaalaksn Dada ma\am xaaman, ma man
dxhanlar olsh nakmn ke mman renuaun Panama nan mereka
hevmain game Manna Legsnddmadapan mrnzhnya Amnrm [ugz
mengalakan saarang yang meraka pinggll sebagax -um datang
menghamar kereua Memedes yang dlgunakan oleh Temmuh
Kedua. pakw berdekatan dengzn mnan, menguncv kerata dan
malelakkan kuncw alas Iembok pager n-man Tenuduh Panama
flan beflam pelgw menallu kendevaan Vain (Araham puun)
Semasa pnhs dztang membua| serhuan‘ Terluduh Penama
melankan dm sus nampix Pohs ambvl kuncl dan atas lambvk
uan memenksa keuava Mercedes Seae\sh dflahan xeuga-uga
meveka caran dnhawa ke mmah Tenudun Kenna dan selelah
memenksaan dI|7ua| dw bllxk Tammun Kedua, sue mangarakan
mehha| pohs meluumpaw neg hewarna bvu benullsan Vkea flan
Sam beg kenas bellulisan Nike yang mana cam. dwlurqukkan men
pafis mengandungw gama
6. Usm Demenkssan uxama namau-p Amm mhax Panaakwaan
memahun (ankh lam unluk memenksa naxaa dan menyemak
beberapa an yang dmmbulkzn Manangnya Amwul hdak Vagi
in
am HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
«-ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ma nrW\nnU|:I mm: flan-mm VII nF\uNG Wm!
dapal mkesan aiei. pihak Pendakwaan pada |ankh henkumya
wz\aupun sapma lelih aixeiuai-kan Kegagalan serahan saplna
dlkalakan kerana Amiml cam. puiang xe Keiaman dan hdzk iagi
flupal mkeaan Maka xaeiangan spa lerhenh saiakac
pemenksazn mama lanpa dlwal bales olen pmax Pendskwsan
[591 Saya meneml dan mempemmbsngkan keseiunman pembaiaan
keduadua Ierluduh dan saks>-saksi pemneiaai. dan oeipemapan,
lemiduh-Iertuduh (elah mengemukakan versl yang berbeza dengan kas
pendnkwaan iaiapi selan darn dvsokong oxen xeiarangan sm, SD5 aai.
5D6(/lmirul)
[ea] Meruiuk kepada xeiemngan sud flan 505‘ darn pengamalan saya
dan segi demenaur dim kanslslsnsl kelerangan, saya berpendapal
merekatidak mermruukkzn ada herkemungklnan msmhenksn xexaiangan
urmik kapenlingan Terluduh Kedua semala-mafia zlau eeigaiang dengan
ielas saksi yang berkepenlmgan (mlemsted) alau yang mak man
mperzayal iunimsmimyi sagiiu iuga dengan xeieiangan sue
[61] Puma pelingkal mi, pemneiaan hanya peiiu menyangkal bllkh
pengedaran alas imnangan kebalangkallan dan se|emsnyanya
mammbulkan keraguan yang rmmasabah lerhadzp ks: Pendakwaan
xeauamia Ierluduh lidak sekadar manafikan ieiapi memhenkan sam
versl kejadian yang bane» dilenms nemvama lakls bahawa memang
|erdapa| beherapa semuan iam miaxuxan pada nan yang sama
bersangkm dengan panangkipan maieka
[521 Mahkamah Rayuan daiam supwimanu-nra/Lands nrrdsmveys
Kucliing Division v uaiianmi RAmblIK-M12014] 1 LNS m ada
mew/abut mengenai lahap pembu
n‘ szya pellk sehagai panduan
‘- Thu aavanaa ul nmbabmes may he vwsuaflsed is a scale mm ma pmnm
plncmg ms ewdenue on ana ma and ma aaranaam umnaa on ma am ma
Cum waluavu ma amanca aa In ma wugm .: clmes ov mun: mnvumbls
uvwaenue names no wewqhl nemana mmut evwdenw «a puxmy ma durum
hkewwsa can curvy nawa-am ana hence ma ram ‘bale demaf
[ea] Saya ‘uga mengamhll pandusn makwd -xenaguaa mImasahah‘dan
pehkln dalam kes PP v Smmln 11511 1 LNS 1 15 sepeni amawan.
-u \s ml maa possible aaum, uauusa everymmg mmmg m human awaaa ana
dlpandmq upvm mum amdsnm .a apen m same possnaa er ma-navy flwbl
n V: IMI stale am-a case wmch ans! ma am. mmaanmn Ind mnanmanan
at an evmeme was ma mmds av Mars In men conduun In a mom cenamly
M the am av me an-ge
I: ran aaam am um Hut -maananua mum’ is me mm which mam
ywu naasuxa as to m. eomanua M m. cnncllulun mun. yaa much. :4
unanr your aim: Ind upon your cwuclenun am you um Vully
lnvucyrlnd ma wldcncv and complnd n m an n. aana, you a In
ymnsifl n mm Mlle is gulhy, men 1: V: a maanam. man u h a mum:
wman umu u. ynur ...aa.n..n am am: a rlslmy plant mm or a
somehmzs smd Imus! b: aaam so iommn am mazannax 2x to pmducem
ma mmdx «:1 ma |umrs aama uucanmnly us «a ma vevflln lo he given A
reasanalfle daum must be a aouhl ansmg Hum ma ewdervue av want av
nmdsnne and c:mu7| be an wmawury duuhl or oanpeclwv unvedabw w
ev\denae'
-Penakanan mlambah
[ea] Selelah menflaw kembalx krsdxbllm sm din SP2 dan maaamngkan
dennan ketevangan pambexaan, saya aapan vets: pemaaxaan ada
kamungkvnan (probable) benar saya menquk kepzda pvmsxa asas da\am
kes Ma: v PP (19531 ms 32 yang mana ma lakla yang dlkemukaknn
aleh pembnflaan In: new drpercays: maka keduadua (emmuh perm
anepaauan Jtkapun fakm yang amukakan alah mervka mak
an
an HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
ma. sanaw n-nhnrwm a. med a mm .. nrighvnflly MIMI dun-mm van mum perm
[31 D\ am kes pendakwaan, saya memumskan hahawa pmak
pendakwaan benzya mamhukukan Xe: pnma Yams alas pemmuhan
kezlas mereka nan (anuduh-(enuduh mpanggu unluk memnaxa dun
[4] Mereka lelah memmh member: katemngan bersumpah dan1imz(5)
saksx awam pembalaan yang Vzinlelah mpanggll D. akmrkas pemhelaany
saya menaapan xenuuumemaun bsrjaya mengakas anggavan an bawah
s27 (Ga) den salemsnys benaya memmhulkan keraguan yang
mlmasahih lamadap kes panflakwaan Maka mpumakan bzhawa
pendakwaan Isiah gagal memnukmkan ks: mmampam keraguan
mlmasahzh
[5] owan yang darmkvany kedua-dua lenuduh |e\ah flflepaskan dzn
dibehatkan nan sauap penuduhan ks alas mevska.
[6] Pmak Pendakwaan |e\ah merayu ke Mahkamall Rayuan alas
kepumsan (ersebul, maka benkut adalah imam says
Nlrill kn Plndakwnn
[71 Bemndak a«as mzklumal keglatan daflah, pada 21 Jun 2:120‘ yam
lebm kurang 11 zu malam. lnsp Mahd Aflzwm Fairuz bin Ramlv (sum
hersama bebsrapa anggmanyz lelah bevgsrak ks Vokasn m No. 94‘ man
Sekunmm 14‘ Tzmzn sum Dahlm Fun Gudangy Juhov (mmnh Na. :4)
[31 Kerela apevasl mpamra. hadapan rumah Na 94 nan sm melmal
lerdapal M93 13) nrang max. Memyu seflang bemln den herkumpm dn
hadapan vumah (ersehut Persekn:-nan Vukasl kanka nu muarangi cahaya
lampu ]alan dzn pagar rumah dalam xeaaaan lerbuka Fads: masa yang
sama, sa\ah saarang anggom semuan‘ Sjn Mahd Fawzal bin Ra1aI|(SP2)
mehlwafi iebuah Kereva jams Mercedes Eenz parklr aw nauapan rumah
(elsebul
sw HPwMcu4Ema1AsHaIuaA
"Nuns Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; .. gummy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
mpamayai sekalipum saya max bcleh mensahllkan mereka memnkan
ada absan bahawa xlnya gagan memmhulkan keraguan yang munasabah
am Manama mum Yaacab I/PP (1921) 2 cu 2011)
[65] Says telah mermaw dengan |elm kes pembelaan aan man msmbual
dnpmnn sa<a:as dengan 5152A KTJ Sayapxga mermux xevaaa Dinduan
Radni m da\am kes Mahmud mam Yukon sapem berikut
-n m . wafl uuhluhed rmnm|2\e an Mnmysmn amnmax law max me genera!
mean ac pram hes Imroughuul ma Ina! on ma Dvusecmmn in mm bsynnd
rl snnihle duum me gum ar Ihe mum ran ma Lmervoe mn vmum na ..
durged were 1: no swmlzv human mined on me nursed m pnwe ms
mnuuarwee Ne up/esumad nnaaam unm woven gumy
Yo eam an aoqmflak ma cue, .; nmary in 12.“: relsunlme duuhl m Ihe
pvusacumm case \n ma mwse a~ me proeecuonn saw, me pmxecmmn may
clown: My on mnama Ihmlmy mmumphuns In Draw: aue armare M In
aaaamm Ingredients at In charge wnan «na« occurs «n. pamcmar um... ac
pron! as append In ma ganam burden shm m ma fleverwe to ram sum
presumpbans an we balance m pnanannmaa Much Imm ma amends Dam! av
vnew u haavmltun una burden ulcaslma araaaenaua mm, hunllwicuwnw
hyhnec man he bumon anna mammmn m wave beynnd reawrlnlzle mm
[66] Keslmpmannya‘ szya bsrpandaual hahawa xexevangnn bukv kes
pemhelazn ada kemungklnan Dena: Sehubungan dengan nu, walzupun
udak yak: saya jugs berpendapat keselmuhzn kas namnexaan man
benaya memmbmkan kavaguan yang munasabah (emadap kes
pendakwaan dan salerusnya memslahksn anggapan amawan s 37(fla)
a|as wrlbangan keharingkallan
Punilaian kumangan Pombalaan
[57] Dadah (perluduhan panama) ada ksmungkmzn lelah mjumpa. an
rumah Tenuduh Keduz we 1:) many saksx manganaxan xanyi «mam
11
am HPLuMcu4Ema1AsHaIuuA
«ma am.‘ n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm van mum am
mum oxen spa, (mime: uleh sm, sns dan sue) sa|u beg mm benuhsan
IKEA dan salu beg kenas hanullsan NIKE sns mangalakan bag nu
dxbawa nleh Halvm sebemm Tenuduh Kmua dwangkap Fakla ml yuga
mum web sue (Amlvw)
[ea] vem buhawn kenumgkman dadah sebenamya hdak duumpzw
damn kerela kerana pmak pulvs lelah membua| serbuzn m we (3) Inkasx
Iain, txfleh dilevima
[as] Padz han kqadian, Tenuduh Kadua pavw Nmah Tertuduh Penama
sslalah amanm alsh sD7 Fakla mi disoknng dengan kelevangan so:
(ayah Terluduh Perlama) yang nampak Terluduh Kedua datang (Idak
menawkl kendaraan Mengvkut sum semasa mum-mula sampm kerela
Mercedes (yang dlkalakan ads dadah flldmamnya) mad: :1! lempal parkvr
mluu mmah Yermduh Panama Vni menyokung kumungkman kere|a
Mercedes Ievsebul sebsnamya mm d\ (empal psklrpafls mas: Tenudun
Ksdua mma-mws sampaw m mmah Telluduh Pellama
[701 Kewujudan panama Hzhm‘ msem dalam kes pendakwaan Iagw
Dlsahkan uleh sps bahawa Tenuduh Kedua man sswakan karma
kepada Hahm pada harl kuaman ram ml mengxkat pmak Pendakwaan
kerana Ia dmmbulksn flan kelerangan saksl meveka — mink kes 1» v Ha
ha Kun (mu) 3 cm 71, on Mzka ada kemungkman walak Hllxm
bukan vekaan (finflousj
[71] Peguam te\ah hevhmah bahavwa ke|erangin SD4 uan sns nampak
SP1 membawa keluar dadah max dlpenksa ba\as aleh plhak
Penflakwaan Twdalquga amankan hahawa mhak pohs ads pelgw ks lumah
Tenudun Kedua kerana Pandakwlan hdak menamkan xewumaan Iaper.-n
Wlvs ms
22
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
172] Saya dapzu. whak Pendakwaan ada mencadangkan kepuda
Terluduh Panama, sm mm 505 bahawa «am sw «mm: menjumpax
barsng kes m mmzh Tenuduh Kedua am vekaan kerana mengikut ms‘
uaaa barang sa\ah man duumpal semasa pemzviksazn mwat din
meveka udzk berxelujn Se|elah menyemak nn|a kelemngan‘ waapau
nmak Pendakwaan ndak meny:1a\ ba\as tau ml kepsda Tenuduh Kedua
Mengenal sue pula‘ pihak Pendikwun mink belpeluang mm menyoal
hams mm m. aias kegagalan unmk mengesannya
[13] Sungguhpun begnu‘ seya bevpendapal, huuan D25 dxkzmukakan
oxen pmak Pemnexaan adakah uniuk menyanggah ke|emngan sw yang
menguakan pasukan sevbuan Ie\ah (ems bavgerak balnk he IF-‘D Sen Mam
pads malam |alssbu| sedsngkan ada semuan lam dmuan
[74] Selerusnya, lakia bahawn sm, sns dan sns secsra kunsislen
mengaiakin ads mehha|SP1 membawa am having mg menyerupaw
beg yang fllrampas, mamamkau kreammu ss-1 semkimmaxarkama sm
Vangsung lvdak menyanmh Iakta benzwa hahau dan pasuksn ad: pergl ke
mmah Tertufluh Kedua Naratil mi pammg kerana susulan dan nu,
persoalan mg hmbm adzlall mengenal ramalan kelzvangan barana Keys
[75] Jwka pmak Fendzkwaan hdak menankan sevbnan lawn ad: dxbust
semeslmya penjelasan mengenaw keberadaan baring kes yang helum
dllandakan mmaxvumxan kapadz Mahkamah Tanya maK\uma| mengena.
kawa\an barang Res sebemm SP1 sampaw ke mu‘ saya (idak none»
menulup sebelah maca em memhua\ mlevan Ianya dalam jagaan SF1
[151 ms lalah dmux kepada spa dan bellau wga tebh mengesahkan
kewugudannya Fercanggahan kmevangan sm. swz flengnn D25 perm
duelasksn Saya menquk kepada s 91 Ana Kelemgan dan keg Ah M: v
PP[1.v51)1 Mu 22:1, Namun begun, dalam kes ml. hada penmaian man
mbuax o\eh svc
rm wamaun sna (Amwrul) gagal maawa a\eh pmik Pendakwaan
semasa kes Pendakwaan, namun behau lelah benaya msapma \m|uk kes
pembelzan waxauaagamnapun, usal pemanksaan mama, kanamran
Amvm lehh gagal an umskan aleh plhzk Pendakwaan dan kmemngannya
Malt dapal dlperiksa balas men plhak Psudakwaan Fembelann bemmah
flan szya se|u]u bahawa kesdaan W cexan member! kesan kepada m\a|
keuennan Kerlersngannya yang mana zkan mamvrajudnskan xenuaun.
lertuduh ketana ke|erangzn sna menyokang pembelaan bahawa dadah
hdak duumpaw da\am karela mam cu mmah Terluduh Kedua uan bahawa
pada nan Kajaduan Halwm ada aacang menyerahkan kerala Mercedes
sehemm benam dalam sebuah kere1aAIphavfl puhh
[75] Mengenaw an kagagaxan pvhak Pendakwaan memasnkan kehadvran
saksl Amllm mu. aaya meruwk kepeda kes ‘n Cnuee Hizng v PP [1955]
2 ML./ 431,dm-zsna Mahkamah Agony ta\ah mamumsxan, amara Vain‘
‘WM: me vroseaunw ha: a cum;-Lat: aaamn .a in ma maybe at mmssas
in n. clued It me man. u msu nas the duty In an an necuury wwnesus
essenlm za the ufloldmg or in: natntive a! me pruseumou case to eslahflih
pmm .g..na¢ lhe necused beyond an mwnanne awn: Aum vury mm, m.
pmnecuwr should makn mum . ’ bl: Var cmsscximlnallon by an-
amna. n ma pmseculnun lafled In mm m my. ma Iuculed must he
newnes-
—Penekanan dvlambah
[79] Saya mga berpendspal bahawa Armrm aua>ah aaxa yang manna!
dan pemmg unluk mekangkapkan nzrahl kes pendakwian uan yugn
pamneman aexexan isu kamungkinan man duumpaw when m tempa|
kepdlan aanagannana dalam perluflnhan dmmbulkan Mungkin vanya
syn HPLuMcu4Ema1AsHaIuuA
«-ma am.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mums dun-mm vu mum an.‘
max hegim penlmg semasa ken nendakwaan‘ namun se1e\ah dmmbmkan
lakva yang beycangganan, ketevangan Amm meruadl relevan dan
kagagaxan mengemukakannya msmmxenkan saya mengguna mm:
mcara unmk mengangnap kelerangan mum yang bakaldnkemukakin alsh
Amlml Udzk mamihak kepsda pmak Pendakwaan Say: dengan Im
mengguna pike! anggapan dmzwan s114(g)Ak(3 xewangan
[so] Dalam ks: Amrl Ibrahim A Anni. V‘ PP [1017] 1 cu 511‘
Mahkamah Pesekuluan |e|ah mamutunksn, anxnm lam
‘<2; The pnwer m 12-: own m draw an Idvane Wevunca undar 1 mm ov me
Ewdnrvce M: E dnscvsnnniry u dnpendx an me n:\n:ums(Inoes on me can and
pamzmarlyln casuwheveme mmedal wnlnossss an, um pruduczd -
[51] Adalall lugas an bahu pmak Pendakwaan unluk memnshkan saksi
yang dwawalkan Kapafla Pemhalaan dlkemukakan Saya meruwk kapada
ks: PP v Rasli bln ymomazv) 7 cu m, dipuluskan aleh Mahksmah
Paisekuluan yang telah mermuk kepada hulahan peguam (dalam kes
lelssbul) yang mm telah d\perse|u]uIsepeI1I benkur
1221 n suppofl at In: suhlmulun rehunce was mm an m. Enahsh Caun
Cnmmzl Anne]! use M R '4 Marine Henry Bryant s Ann\‘nsr{194E)31Cr App
x us‘ where the Cum rsaunmsu that me prosewnun ha: . du|y m max. a
pawn ma an we mama: mam. xv lble Ia dflencs w may dead: ml
m can mm
m} Leamad nnunsel msu menu us to the pve»Mnme«i ms: M van Lee Yang
V R [195s| 22 MLJ «:14 when: we Cami nan: that an witnesses mm
nataemanls have been laken ihntfld be bvaugm In Caurl by me mewuw‘
excem muse whoa: Ivmeme mu may and omwy mm rm hgm an me
pass, and any wwmess ml sn brought CD Cmm m\n| be made avaname to ma
nucused should he dulrem can such Mines;
[211 Yhnappmlinlveflsfl heavfly on lhadacmun uHmsCaumn n owe: many
vFF[1E95jJCLJ < Mlereln Ihscuulse own judgment Edglv mean J1 nu
25
sm npwMu.4zm.asna.m
mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mn.u.y mm: mmn vu mum pans!
also wAh zppvlwil pessnfies rm». me Aumnan cue cl ammm V a mm
m cm Ha. wherein: m. nlex::evp|Ieads {:1 page 5; —
~ §IcDl\dVy,Il1IvI\xvuom for same dehale as In what .. mum :7, me npenmg
wum: an the sulemenl and n mum mu be mad as {nhwbmng me msaetmn
mm was pmsacmnr nus not m an \n the Cmwn can my eymmlness n he
wins m.unm.mmu.m.....mvw rwlcnmllfi hIm.=.s,lo1nx:mpLe,vmnr-
hr wnmwes man the wings: .s m : creams and trulhnd wxms m (ms mm
In: pmseculor wm arvsuva mnne .m.m .. grven ma oppanumly in 2:1! mg
wn1nau'[5Ie mm um Ymmg Sun Y mu: Prn1:culnr|19SA]2 sm 2571
[251 lumed amines! mm xubmnled out me cnnstquence at 1»:
vvveaounwvx fiawlura m mm mmme mm wntnlax-5 la the defence Vs a
mu mime aupeI\IM‘s ngmm . Immil and the ipyeflam had been dlpnvafl
an ovpnrlumly in wcseul Ms case m the run mnrmurn puuxble vmlh . mw
In aecunng an aaqunlal (See :2. Kwan Wan V PP[2W1| sou 53: Fe)‘
[B2] sememsnya a. muka macaw‘ 69: man 693
-ml Dug m mar Spec! me m amine! mm, mm pmsecumrs are under
mam weH-defined dune: mummy my duty vi msdosure (pea ; an at u.
cpc), 1u)dmymr.Il\ .ummmeanu rdavvwlwnnusas nm11M)dmylncunour.1
me me «my (See R v Eank:[I91e]2 xa an R V SugIlman(19E5)25 Cr
Ape R ms nu Mummm Kaaarm Anulhevv F'P[2D‘M]3S|.R1205)
(as; m mmw, :1 Is tamed Viw based an the aulhonlwuzwad In LA! by Veumed
mum Vanna lpveflinl \n W: Iuhrmslmu man he umsecunnn has dlvcvehnn
whether «a HH any plmcmlr wvlness‘ bu! such dlucvalmn u sumem to ma
hmlhbnns m my me dsuvaun musl be exerased mm dun ugam m
ccnsmetalwonx ulmmcxs and ma ram and my um wllnuniwho ma been
vmahqitnfl Ivy ma puke: um «um wnom me suhemants have men resumed
mus! ba mm nu ma neleme
sm »«=wM.=.4zm.msua.m
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
[451 n 15 mle law on. n u nu! ma dmy al ma ippsflanl w plvua ms mnnuenbe
av n can . pnmcmar Mines: Io iuppun nn aaoam (see Yun Foe Su V pp
[1967] 1 LNS17E,|1§s7]2 ML! 19 am Sandi: Margavel anm Prn577)1
ms 1 n 1197311 MLJ 721 The ‘aw mica: upcm me pvasecunonma bmdernu
pm gmll am. :ppeHin| beyand leasuname doublxnd nu| an ma nppeflanl
m pm ms mnnbence wauannannnaa .n gxmspludenne Is ma me man the
oanwchon mmlwveflinlmuslles|noIanl11ewa:kn:ssuHhe deiemnebmon
In: strength at me pvusecmwon ma an.-awe n the burner am av nu! annnnn
\:w'
[as] Mengenav nna. kelerangan Arnnm yang Kvflak mac a: scan balas
clan pmak Pandakwaan, saya msvuwk kepadn kes Kamalan Shtlk
Mohd v pp 12:21:14 cu m flan bersannu dengzn pandangan flan
kmian yang annwx men Ham mengenai kapantmgan seseamng saksi
unluk an soak Dams dengzn panun (compma) oleh pmamnnax dalam
sasuan. pmswdmg ,enayan Keadaan .n. menumukkan betapa penungnya
lngss Pendakwaan unluk memasukan kehadwan Amvul Oleh kerzna
kalerangan Amlvw not tested by wny av cross examfmarron, wanyi lelah
mempuanmuskan keduadul (enuduh kerana kelarangan Am\rul konswslen
dengan ketevangan sm am 505
[341 Dalam kas ml, says berpandzngan. say: maum bnleh menenmz
kelaangan A.-mun, wa\aup<m dnanaxan sehagaw sehahagian 1pamaY)
namun aengan aaanya kelerangan yang sama dari saksl lam, kelevangan
Annm: Ialap Ielevan den boleh dlmlaw seadanya.
[as] Sekzdar unmk mebngkapkan, saya mannux kepada kes
Thai/anamln En subramaniam v PP (1997; 3 cu 150 dzn memjuk
kepada pnnslp yang mpmnskan oleh Mahkzmah Persekuman sepem
dlbawah
17
am HPLuMcu4Ema1AsHaIuaA
“Nuns snn ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.ny mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
-n was :« ma aacuaaa In an. an mnaoem a>(p\an:nnn wmch me Conn
cnmmaveu male \|ke\yII1anm7l Dltnwlstme we unab:\anwnIpvnba|u\mu
ma mslapphed wn mu pmctedmgi PPV Vuvarap [1959] 2 Mu as Pc'
[as] Juga mermuk kepida kes Public Proucutor v Iskandar bin
Manamid Yu.:oI(ZWS] mu 559. lalah dlpuluskan behawa V
m 21 M ma aamsa M ma dshncl mp ma accused person nu. had Ifleged
man the bag wmch comamed ma drug: Wu awed by one Nzstan. a mum
wmu mu vnxanaa . nae Hum mm (ml mm TM: yam had manlqed In make
me ms uapa Gunny me aanvuuun, luvmg the managed person evenruafly
stunned Ind bemg hem Ieqpmmme lot I11: aaanaanaa mcnmmllmg Hem wxm
ma Auwwny m the muses pemun gwan under mun. ms awaanoa mu men!
saunas aansmananon lI| flan: 3| no sin: m ma Manna win he Impuached
The pzmnenl quesflon naawaa «a ma msarved thus was. was In pnssdfle man
the mystevwoux Nulanmfl praaaawexm, ann mu maqesnlncflml avananw
zlhmad In In mm as a pasxpan In escape in: charge’! AA mu slug: av me
aavanaa man. wax na man! demand that M m\mVn:1ulHy wove Nissan um
anal NI na naaaaa in an wu In mace», pevsuade ma pvummg wage of max
pmhibthly lmexucueeded mm en a aawanca avpnaaammy (hos: dmgl mum
we been Hassarfi. ma mexmalflyeycnelaung mn-
[371 saya belpendapal. din kesemmahan keuerangan yang
dwkemukzkan da\am pamnaxaan, any: man hevsllat panaman den
penuxnan «erxemuman le|apI lalu kemungkman mmnabmry)
Ksrrmngkman Im juga Ie\ah mmangkan kepada sakan pendakwaan lag:
[ea] Puhak Pendakwaan bamwah memhawz kepada pemauan saya
mengenaw knaannlm saksn pemhelaan yang mkaxakan aemcnva dan
bevkepannngan Says dzpah, fakva bahawa sus max dapnl
menqasahkan Halim pevgw karumah Yenudnh Kedua menam kerela apa
max meruzdikan sns bukzm szksw yang kradxhelalau seomng saksuyang
berkepenflngan ann beta! sabe\ah Pads: pendzpal saya wga‘ soe
(Ammnl) lmak membenkan kelelangan yang saracms axau menuruukkan
as
am HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
“Nana am.‘ n-nhnrwm n. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum am
swa: bvas alau mempunyaw aganda lelsendln hanya kerana memhenkan
kelersngan yang mammax kepada |enuduh-larluduh m. aflmah kerana
ksmungkman vevsx meveka lpembalaan) ad: benamya dan telah
memhuat saya hearing as In me correctness 0/ me cone/us»on (umuk
sabitan) — ruwk kes Salmln yang dxruiuk dv atas nntuk maksud
‘reamnsbls daubf.
Kulmpulnn
[39] Say: helpendapal hanawa kewuwdan 025 flan ueaerangan sum
sus :13" we memadwkzn ramauan kalemngan baung ks: Ierpums
kevana max duelaskan kebsrauaan harang kes dadah yang fluampzs
damn lempah masa (arsehm Pevcanggahan qkexemngan sm, sns aan
snay dangan xexerangan SP1 dan spz sens tanpz peruelasan oleh
msrska‘ memmkan «am: Aersebul sa|u landa tanya flan memadlkan
pmomny hzhawa dadah dqumpal dwmah Tenuduh Ksdua
senagamana ueeemngan semua saksmksx pembexaan ad:
ksmungkman benzrwalaupun hdakmyaklnl kabanarinnyi Says memguk
kepada kes Ganapathy Renwasamy V PP mm; 2 cu 1, yang
menyehul
«n ma. |o n. nmcmband Inn hnwevtr w-Ik . dflumu mly be. um
1-aw Iulng juduu L11 bo1nlazunfl\xw:nou\d mrljusl mm. mann-
dllencn an mu hash um um nmsucufleu wimnun m m be bellevvcd
um not an m...;.. Where In: law «zit: the aims :24 gmng an axbtananun
upon In accused pawn, and me explanihun Ixgwun mm 15 msmn: wan
vrvuacgnca‘ m. mun a duly hmmd m wnsldcr wlmhnr n mm
VI scmhly :1. cm, allhuunh nvl carmncm of It: Innh. On In: Issue at
am calm‘: dulym cansldurmn .1 mu, ms nu old dnlnlnn 1.. MIN PP
new 1 ms 52 [\9s3| Mu 2631: sill! good Llw is u wu «mu. mu
lufluvmd uy m. supmm Enutl m Momymzd Rnam hm mm V PP [1951]
1€L.IR¢p 211, (199113 cu am, mm: ML1 159'
—Penekanan dnambah
[so] Saya ulang, dlpenngkal pembexaan, hanya reasonable dnubl penu
mkemukakan Maksud rsaxurlab/s doubt (nuuk kes s-mun) udalah Sam
um: wmclv makes you hssviate as to me correctness, slteryou mm lu/Iy
Investigated ms swdsnce and compared :1 m all its part, you say 1.7
ynurselfl doubt n he .5 gum
Konumun
(911 Make, se(e\ah memmbang fakta kas Dambalaan dengin parsvekln
yang new snflzvas dengan kemrangan kes pendakwnan. saw no not
acwn! ar be/rave me accused‘: sxplamanon but nevertheless yr rursas In
my mm a reasoname doubts: m rm gull! (Mn v PF'I1953)15 MLJ m)
[92] men yang demvklan, unluk perluduhan panama‘ dlbawsh : 35(3),
kednauuz tenuduh hanaya mengskss anggapan pengedzran dlbawah s.
anua) afas Imhangan kebarzngkallan dan dengan nu banayl
mennmbwkan kevaguan yang munasabah Aarhadap kes penflakwaan
renummanuuun dengan ml uuepasxsn din dlhshaskan dan permduhzn
panama
[93] Manganav pammuhnn kedua‘ mwaupun szya hevnuas nan‘ darn
panzuacan Terluduh Panama malankan dvn din didah duumpan
dwbadannya, pembelaan gagal menaflkan sebahnguan e\emen kesalahzn
dwbawah 512(2) namun‘ oxen «um [emu mpumskan dwalas bahawa
rinman kaerangan nmng kes |eVah lerpuhts. maka Vanya man
mevwlqudkan kalnmpangan da\am Kai pendakwaan Walaupun fakva
|evsebu( hanya mhuknkan semasa kes pembelazn (lakla percanggahan
D25 dangan kanemngan sm dzn nasn penahhan kelerangan smsmy
Maka Tenuduh Panama mg: dllepiskan dan dlbebaskan dari pemmuhan
kzdua
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
[9] sm tumn dam kendevaan uperzsi flan marnnerkanaflxan am
sebagai anggma was Salah seorang dsrlpsda nga (ay saspek Velakx
Melayu mam mslunkan am ke alah mar ruman 51:1 belsama uga 43)
lagw inggora bemndak n.ange,ar le\zk| Iersebul dan mamben arahan
kepada SP2 dan um Laa An Shm agar herads dx nampac kejadmn unluk
manga».-ax dua 42) law saspek lemkl Mehyu yang lawn
[cu] SP1 lelah benaya mermngkap saspek Celsehux sanalan nyengqar
smauh nrak mo meter ke arah kamsan |aman pannainan kanakakanak
sm kenalkan mu kepada saspak aan haw pemenksaan lubuh naaannya
menjumpai salu 41) peKe( plasuk hnslrmr aiayam dadah syzbu (F123)
dalam poke: hadapan kanan seluav Imam (P143) yang mpeksv saspak
yang kemudlannya mcamkan sebagaw Muhamad Ran bin Rasflm mm;
Tenuduh Penama
[11] 5:21 kamnmannya mzmbawa Terlufluh Panama ke hadapan mmah
Na 94 aamula flan due (2) saspek Vain (elah d:kena\ paw ssbagsx
Muhammad Nanafi bin Mahd Aznes waxlu Terluduh Kedua flan saspek
keugz sehagai Annnn Aflan Fahrm hm msnarnmsmn (Am I)
[12] Pemeviksaan badan lemadap ran-mun Kedua dan Amwul max
manemuv aaa-apa harang sa\ah Namun, pemankaaan ke am Terluduh
Kedua nalan dwjumpaw sa|u kuncl elekhomk berlamhang Memedes(P15A)
dw paket naaapan sebalah kanan semar panpang kelabu mac; yang
dwpakaw alan man
(131 sm xexan mengarahkzn Tenuduh Kedua mengakmkan mm
Mevcedez Benz dengzn nombcr panaanaran wvmzs (P15) yang
mparkn wemn kuvang 5 kakl darlpafla mman review! 591 kemudlan
manmankan pamenksaan ke alas kenderaan terxebul din dw dalam banal
menjumpai 1 Deg karwas mm. mm (Pwxy yang an flnlamnya
4
an HPLuMcu4Ema¢AsHaIuuA
"Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; me mn.u.y mm; dun-mm vu mum am
[941 Vsu vamawan kalemngan baring kes wm wga lelah memban Kesan
kepada pambukuan mewampam karaguan munasabah umuk peflumman
kelxga yang man; hdak begun amen nemanan men keduadua beflah
pnhak flzkam Ilujahan maswngmavlng Sungguhpun beglhl, saya
herpem1apa|. Ianya |elap Ierkesan. Mm, keduz—dua tefluduh ]uga
mlepasxan aan dwbebaskan aan permduhan kulvga ml
Banankh s Novembev 2023
|NOOR HAVAYI a
Pesummayz Ks knman
Mahkarnah Tmgg Mzkayz
Jnhorflshm
Ferwakllan »
Ezgl plhak Pendakwaan
Fuan Sm uamza mm Abdmlah
nmbaxsn Fenflzkwz Raya
Pejzba| srenasmat Undang—Undang Negev: Jnhar
Ares 2, Bzngunan Data‘ Jaalar Muhammad
Kola xskanaav, lskandar Pmsn
Jahm
Bag: pmak Tenuduh Penama
Puan Lymanu h|n|| Mansov
Lydlana Law Chambers
AA‘ Ja\an Lembah 1
Taman Desa Jaya
81100 Jnhor Bahm
Jahnr
31
sw »«=wMq.4zm.asuam
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
Bag! pmak renumm Kedua
Encwk mm Fazaly Ah bm Mam Ghazzly
The Law Chambers ol Filmy
No 24AJa\an caman
Taman Perhng
mun Tampal
Johov
sw »pwMu.4zm.asuam
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
mengandungw enam (5; kemlan mampzf bemalm pIastiklutsmar|P11B)
disyakw ganja Semmsnya pemenksaan IanMSP1 mm: manwmpan salu
Wag: beg kenas herwami cuklal henuhs mm on m (mm
mengandungw ma kemran mampa| belbalul plasuk \usinaI(P12C) juga
msyam ganja
m1 Pemenksaan a. daiam karma mun meruumpzw sekapmg mu
(FHA) lenulls name Tarluduh Kedua ylng hersrrnpan dw buhagwan ‘am!
ms!‘ sebalah Km pernanau Pemenksaan m hadapan mmah pula,
bevdekalan kellgz-:—uga meveka (keduz—dua lenuduh den Annnm
berkumpm, SP1 meruumpaw due halal plasnk Vulsmal yang mangandungr
cecarr d\syak|ukelum(P13A can mam
[<51 Pemsnksaan satamsnyn dwbuat m man as Temmun Penamn m
damm rumah Na 94‘ yang melupakan mman kemarnan kelnavga
Terluduh Panama balsam: mu bans dan vslennyn, hdsk menemu: aDa~
apa baung man 591 an spz kemudlarmya bersama—sama kadua—dua
lenudnh darn Annmn bevgerak rnanam Mamsdez Benz memuu ks Wu San
Nam uh ulah kandaraan unerasv.
[we] on M) 5enA1am‘D€ny9d\ain dokumen nan penanaean barang kes
flnbual oleh sw dan dakumewdakumen berkailan mseraman kepada
Pegnwai Penyiasay lnsp Mend Hafiz bin Human (spa; paua keasnkan
hannya, 225 mu jam mam kmang 7 malam
my spa menghantiv baring xss xe Jabalan Kmui din haul anshsa
menaesahkan twang kes yang mmmpas adalah dadah berbahzya saw
(a) cannams bevy! bersm 3942 15 gram
m Mllragymne beral bevsm 1950 ml
m Memamphemmme halal bersm 24 34 gram
5
syn npwMu.4zm.asnam
mm smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dnpltnn mu keg Pendakwaan
[ta] D1 penngkavl akmv kes pendzkwaan, salu kes prlma facrs
sebagznmzna mperunlukkan dmam $13007 Karwn Talacsra Jenayah
(KN) perm uwmxan olah pmak pendakwaan flan kemrangan mm: mg
bo\eh dxpercaysn dan kredwbel yang mana uka hdzk disangkal akan
membalehkan saman dlhual (rwuks 150 («p KTJ flan ks; Abctullnn Ann
Iwn pp (mo) 9 cu 151)
[191 Ungkapzn “msngemukakan kelerangsn kukuh yang membukltkan
setup aazu Yak!orkesaIamin"da\am 5 mm) belmzksud hahawa plhak
permakwaan perm menmuknkan senip alemen kesalahan sama ada
dengan mengemukakan kelerangan yang mush mpamayau, membuzt
mieren Qemsdap ram alau menggunapakaw anggapan \mdang—undang
umm kes AbdulI.ahAmn dw muka suraI196)
[201 K95 puma Iacfe va\ah kes yang nuancukum un|nkIer1uduh4er(uduh
mpanggu unmk mamawab penuduhan kealas mereka dan ketevangan
yang wxemuxakan mencukupl melamkan wa d|szngka\ alau dnzkas malalm
ketelangan lam (hha| kes salaahandnn v PF [ms] 1 cu :5) Dalsm
kes Dug cmng Huang Mn PF mm) 4 cu ms, panflangan Vmcent
Mg. J |aIah mnnuk flan msahkan men Mahkamah Persekutuan da\am kas
Abdullah Ann mengenaw apa yang |erjum\ah sabagav satu kes pnma
fame sap-em benku|
< prim: lama wrflence 15 zvmsnce mu .5 §\M<:\em to eslibush a fact In ma
Absence at any evvwdetloe m the camrary nm a Hal <:an<:\u:lv: 1 wmld mum
mu mere shmnd he cn:¢m\e evwdenw on each and every mgvadvanl av ma
ellence Cv5d>b\e wmanca n cw/wdence wmch Ms been filtered and when nas
nan: mnmgn the pmcsss av zvaluannn Any ewdenoe which m not uh «n be
amsd upnn shank! be n.,aa».a-
[211 sew juga senagznnanz mpumskzn rfleh Mahkzmah Rayuan
dalam kes Loo! Kow char v. Public Pnmcuror 1200112 MLJ 55. yang
mengalakan sepem henkut
-u mererove «cum Irm mere ws onw one exams; ma| a was Imng mane
Lmdgv 5 wan aims are hush: umterulve alme muse anne umsecmmn use
He musl subleu me prosscufinn emdenoe to mzxlvvum wamanon and to ask
hlnvl-N Ins quesonn n : mm to can uwn (ha nwusau in enler ms defiance
and he e\u:Is ta mnan swarm am n pvepalad In cunmcl nnn an mu mm», at me
avmenne umm m we pmsecmlun mew w the answer .5 .n ma nwnlwz
than no puma line can has been made man and ma accused mum be enlmad
la an nequmm ‘
[221 Maka. daham menenmkan pembukuan kes prima /ame, salu
penllalan secava makzlma pm dxbual (erhadap kesahuuhan kaumngan
huklv yang mkanwkakan (armasuk menus: uraammu saksw-saksl am
manna! Inleren yang huleh dlbual dan keterangan mu kes pendakwaan
unmk memhuklwkan selian elemen kesalahan (nuuk kes PF V Mnhd
RldxIAbu smrlzaaal 1 CLJ 457)
KM Prim Facln
1231 Katavanqan wxn yang perm mkemukskan uncuk kesakahan
pengedavan flndah berbahayz dn umn 5 sea (1) (2; ADE zdalah
bahawa dadah yang dirampas adalah dadah berbahaya seperlv yang
dlsenarawkan aavam Jsdunl Panama ADE, In udalah dmam pemmkan
kedua-dun Ienuduh apabfla dmulnikan dadah zdalzh :1. bawah jzgaan,
kawalan dz-In pengeflalluan mereka uan setemsnya. meveka mengedar
dadzh l:rsuhu| Psngediran bo\eh omuknkan dengan kelerangan
langsung berdasarkan (alsvan pengedaran m bawzh seksyen ZADB alau
anggapan m nawan seksyen :7 (Ha)
syn npwMu.4zm.asnam
mm smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dsdah aaaran yangterssnaralA11./adus/Psnama man sepsmmsna
yang dkisfinastkan drbawah ADE
[24] Jems dan hava| dadzh lalah msaman dan d\'buk|vkan dan
kanarangan SP5 nan Laporan Kmua yam dwsedxskan‘ we sebauawmsna
dalam Denudnhnn Ianu Isms cannams aeran berslh 394216 gram,
Mllmgynme beral bevsm 1950 ml dan Melhamphetamme beral bevsih
2A.34 gram.
[251 Peguam kedua—dua |erIuduh bemulah nanawa vaMa\an xemnaan
harang Res lelah (emulus can wujud pevcanggahan xewangan sm
dengan Vapalarflzpcrzn polls yang dlkemukakan an Dzwza Paguam
mancadangkan bahawa pasnkan serbuan max (ems hergerik xe urn
Iatapl raven melakuxm use (3) semuan lam mlempm yang herasmgan
[251 Jug: mmuankan hanawa uaaa kelsrangan flan manadnana saksl
mengenm keberadzan dadah yang dlrampzs dan duamskan ianya da\am
kawaxan din ngaan sxapa pada mass serbuan ax Iakau lam auaxuxan,
[27] Oleh karana vsnandaan dan nmaangan masm bemm aubuan
semasa semusn amuan :1! ma Vokasl Lam mu, make mmalan kelerangan
barang kes man lerpmus Kegzgalan inn mewmudkan kelurnpangan
dalzm kas Fandakwaan dan mancalar kredvblw saksv pendskwaan
[23] Pzda penngk ' , m hadapall say: adalah kanamgan dan asks:
pandakwian yang mana max mauuukan Ida kemungkman mernpunyal
max yang Izaak havk alau mom unmk mengenakan mana—mana lenuduh
men an, saya menanma xeaevangan meveka sehagal hensr dsn
kcnsmen Cadangan Deguam fluengenaw kemungklnan lerpulusnya
ranman kelerangan harang kes semalamzla wmudnnya serbuan rain,
setakal ml mzsih Ixdak meflmaskan Dembukuan pad: |ah=p nrrma ram
sw »«=wM=a.4zm.«asuam
«ma am n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm vu .mm v-vrm
[221 Make selakat penllalan says hevdasarkan ke|erzngan szksi
pendakwaan. says dapzm selelah dadah dwampas aleh svu, (andaan
amuse dw pegabzu nalkulwk kemudlan dxserahkan kepada pegawai
penymsan, spa yang selarusnya menghamar hsrang kes unluk '
oleh arm kvma. svs,
ahia
[an] Barang kas yang same: man mswmpan a. star penywmpanan barang
us sahlngga dwkemukakan ke mahkamah pad: nan pemcman (nquk
kss Gunnlan Ramlchzndrln v PF (2004; 5 cm 551 — - the cham of
swdsnce IS mats rmponarvl for Ms penhd /mm ms hme afrecovety mm
me camprsoan nflhs analysis by the charms! ';
131} Make dengan nu, saya mandapan bahawa ranlalan kelerangan
barang kes max lerpulus dan pmax pendakwaan man heqaya
memhukukzn slemen jams dan beral dadzh sebagaimana ds\sm
psrluduhan (mmxan ma dmuzt menglkul kes smnnz-mmul Guam y.
FP[1u1l] 1 on N din Su Ah Ping 1/. pp [1579] 1 ms ma)
Permltkan tsmadap man
[321 Eerkail kepsrman memnuknxan rarmmn pemmkan, pmak
pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan ketevangan bahawa kedua-dua
Aemduh mempunyal kawa\an aiau .agaan sena psngelanuan (emang
dadah yang dwjumpav (hhal kss emu Fun Leon v. PP[1955] MLJ 231).
Mahkamah dalam kes Chan Pun Loan Augie man memuluskan bahawa
“ a person rs smd to be m possessrun :1! a (mug fl hs has the power an
den! wnn u as the owner :9 the axe/usmn ofell othel pursans -
[33] Maksud "cusmdy", "cnmrol" and “pos:essxon" Kelah mmncangkan
flalam kes Leaw Nghu Lrm v Red [1555] 1 mm, yang mane mpenx
swam benkul.
‘Custody means ha»/my car: ovguardwansmp‘ goods -n cuswdy an m m. cam
at me cusludmn and.|1y neressary <n\D‘Ica\\nu us xa new cars or mm on
hehill m wmnom aka Ya: mm um an m gums Imhsss ycm knmr were
they Ire and have me mans ovexatmima emu: war mm Cuflhw lhevefom
Imvhes knmdadgl um. .m...=. am wmvubmm -mus gmd: and pm-e<
nrcunlmr uvermam‘ nMamnun1m9 In Poisasnnn
comm muslbeprwedixa Vanaltdwlmuitavwsafirnmlhamhnun mmapaum
us me quads. Ineiflocnve er mm may am muluband
Fvabilflythe mos! mam demnmon any-uumn up
'Yhe|e1aIzcn at a peach he athmg mmmr. he nuyll N) p\Iuum axamue
nut‘)! mm: :5 me am my o! In: my «mus, nu ma axduslon at ulnev
verso... “
Ymxdafimnun dues n-1| expvess. Inn Man my mum meaning oflhewotfl
Include: sums .:.mm m knmdudga
A mm mun kmzw 9412‘: exwslence no . unmet ma have same men at us
vmereuboms were he can exams: my comm! mar m m mum wsxeqsmn
mmay. xmphu same knawtedwe hm nmnecessavfly mu orex:¢l><nu»Med9¢'
[:41 Mervsena. Dembukhan pengecanuan, Mahkamzh Pusekuluzn
dalam kes pm." bin Damn V Public Pruuculur (zoos) 1 cu 717
memuluskan bahawa e\amelI psngecanuan bow: «mm can mm Jan
kasimplflan vaxna Pallkan yang dwmjuk mm sapem benkm
-vmmmxmueagus very emu a mmmnnream The mmm ham wma»
llyl Waranna mkncw/ludge an be dniwn meumm use Incase Hwculfl us
suffirierfl for me alusanmon In wave lacks mm mu. m eumd Dmpeny be
mm lhzl mu anuned am he mamry krmw\ed9E'
[351 Rmgkasnya‘ man "pemwkan' menquk kepada keupayzan
pemlhknya unluk bemmsan dengan dadah dsngan mengecuallkan akses
m
sm »«=wM.=.4zm.usua.m
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
| 4,178 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
JA-45A-36-12/2020 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) MUHAMAD RAFI BIN ROSDIN 2. ) MUHAMMAD HANAFI BIN MOHD AZNEE | Perbicaraan jenayah terhadap 2 tertuduh- terdapat tiga pertuduhan- S.39B91)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, Akta Racun 1952 dibaca bersama S34 Kanun Keseksaan-tempat kejadian di sebuah rumah beralamat di Jalan Sekuntum, Taman Bukit Dahlia,Pasir Gudang, Johor Bahru-OKT1 melarikan diri dan berjaya diberkas-dadah di badan dijumpai- pemeriksaan di dalam bonet Kereta Mercedes Benz menjumpai 1 bag kanvas biru IKEA dan bag kertas "Just Do It"-mengandungi 6 ketulan mampt dipercayai ganja- pendakwaan gagal buktikan kes prima facia atas semua pertuduhan-dilepas dan dibebaskan untuk semua pertuduhan. | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f3b81088-1485-48c5-8859-6ba5395fbc91&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 13:56:03
JA-45A-36-12/2020 Kand. 106
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N iBC484UUxUiIWWulOV8kQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
.m—¢5A—3s—12/2020 Kand. ms
zeumnzs ]J'Eb:D]
DI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JONDW amnu
DALAM NEGERI JOHDR DARUL uxzmu
PEREICARAAN JENAYAH NO: JA-45A-(35-la)-11I2o1I1
FENDAKWA mu
uwnu
MUHAMAD RAFI am ROSDIN
MUHAMMAD HANAFI am MOHD AZNEE
ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN
Panglnllln
[<1 Keduz<1ua|enuduh\s\ah dfluduh dengan mat beuama mengedar
dadah an bawah s a9s<1)<a) Akla Dadah Eevbahaya v952 (Anny can 5
9(1)Ak|a Racun I952 mbaca hevsama s 34 Kamm Keseksazn
[21 Tevdapfl nga (3) Defluduhan |emadap meveka, sepem henkm
F-mmuvun Panama
1JAr45A—a$1Mo2a — Tan-mun Panama dun Temmun Kzmm 4/uudun
nm.nmama)
IN xacaaouuxuuwwuwavam
-ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
'Eahawa kamu barsamzruma pad: 215 mm, pm Izhm kn-inn n an mllnm
m nnflannn mmah No 9:‘ Jilan Sdmmum <4. Yaman auxm mam rm
Gudang‘ m dahm dnauh Juhut Blhm m dullm mum John! Dam ‘(aknm
Iehah menuedlr dadah wmaya pm: bmm um: gum lulu c......a..
om Mu kamu «aim mnhxukuu sun kesiluhm m mm Seksyen as: may
Am Eladah E-erbaluya «:52 flan mm dmnkum m buwan Seksyen ass (2;
Anayang xnmndmmhncanasnmadvlzawnh Se«sy:n34 Kanun Keseksaan‘
P-mmun-n mu
(JA45A—a7—1z/2020 — nu-mun Paflaml um;
‘Bahawa kamu pada 2152:1211, .m mam kuung 11 4a mum u. hldnpan
mmnh No at man Sekumum u, Taman Bum nam Pam smug. a
mm mm. Jmur Elihu‘ m mm. Negen Jahor mm Vukzlm man mmxm
am.» aemanm beral bemh 24.34 gum mm Imlamphuuminl om. nu
klmu mun memunn mu xmnnan dv hawah Seksyarv I212)AkIa Dzdah
Bemuhaya I952 dun mm «mm. um um). Seiuyen mm Ann ynrw
Plrluduhan Kaila:
musaauzaazo . Tmuaulv Panama flan Yam.-tun Kedua duuduh
basnma-sums)
-Baum Iumu bersamtxama pad: 2: a ma, pm mam kunnn 1: 40 mnlnm
a. amp... rumah Na ea. man Sakunwm <4, Tamar: Euiul mam pm
Gudang, a. dzlam mm. Jnhar mm m dnrnm Nesyen Jana! Diml Yakzlm
lnllnmdnpnndalammnhkankamulawnyang!.ersanava\da\amJ:du:lPnn,:mI
din Jamal mg. (Bmxn Pukmvamk) Am mm 125: mu Milruaynlnn
s.u..w.x Issamllllll-vain flu-ganlru kamu wan msiakukan um kauhmn
u. bawm Stxsyen am An; Raw 1952 my w-n «mum m bawah
semen 3242; Kali ‘/ing um: dzn mm. mum. Slksyun 34 Knmm
Kzuksurv
sm muaouuxuuwwwuwuvakn
mm. smm Illfl IVWW .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
arang Vain Gan mampunya. pengelahusn (enmng dzman yang
evsaalkan
[36] Dahm kes vm. mhsk pendakwaan Isiah mengemukakan Iaklz darn
mrem benkut unluk membukukan pamillkzn lamadau dadah
1.
xeuua-ans Ierludun nan Amnm dnlmat sedang bevkumpul an
naaapnn mman bardakalan dengan kereva Mercedes yang
mnakn dmadapan mman yang mana dadah da\am penuduhan
panama duumpax dl da\am bonel newakang keveta dan oecanr
kelum dalzrn pemmnnan kehga dljumpax hemumplmn mereka
berkumpm
Dadah anvnm pemmunan keduz duumpai daiam seVua( yang
mam: nleh Tammnn Panama
Tenuduh Panama dvlangkap seiemh cubs melankan am dan
alan umuax uneven aanawa bellau ada pengelahuan mengenau
fladah mg dqumpaw
Panamuan kad nama keduzrdua lerluduh dw dalam arm mt
keruta memhuknkan meleka msmpunyzw zksus |emadID xerexa
flan jarak keve|a yang pamn aawam jarsk deksl an naunpan
mman Tenuduh Penams wga memhenkan
uengelahuan
Keoemngan Anna: Anaka Nov Aznn, SP6 warm lunang kepada
Termduh Kaduz menyatakan calah membenkan Harem Iersebul
unluk kegunaan Tenuduh Kedua sepzruang kehadaan spa an
John! aanm sejak hmzn Januan, 2u2o. Hanya «maps: 1 kunm
unluk kevela Ievsehln dan |elah flvsevahkan kepada Tenuduh
Kedua darn spa mangesankan hahawa kerela |eIsebutadz\zh dw
bawah jagaan Temmuh Kedua pads nan k€|advan
mlenans
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
"Nuns am.‘ nun nrwm be used m van; me angwnauuy mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
[37]
s Kunm keIe(a dljumpaw pada Temmuh Kedua. maka barang kes
yang mjwnpa. sdalah dmawah kawalan Tenuduh Keduz
sspsnuhnya dan dmam pengelahuannya
7 Mflrugymne yang dwampzs mg: berada an dapan kedua-flu:
tenudu ' |u p/am srghlkelrka anenun alen sm
Fada penngkal my pihak pembexaan mengaiakan sepem berikm
1 Terpulusnya rzmaall keterangan kes aan Keragunn kepada
krednbililx SP1 uan spz. Pemaaxaan hwahkan kelerzngan
bahawa selepas serbuan di mman Terluduh Panama. barang
kes tevus amawa ke lbu Pe;iba| Polls Daemh Sen Alan: W lndak
banar kerina pembelaan |elah mervgemukakan Iapmamaporan
pulls n24, D25, nzs yang mamkzuklikan sm max xems pulang
ke mu sen mam
2 Teldapal pevcsnggahan dalam kemrangan sm flan spa dan
hada peruelasan dlhual man mana-mana saw
3 Pada panngkat wm pembenaan menegaskan bahawz uada
keterangan danpada sm akan smpakah yang rnempunyai
kawalan darn jagaan pzda bzrang kes dan dua beg mu semasa
serhuan dilakukan dv fig: xampac yang benaman
4 Pmak Pendakwaan eenan gagm unmk memanggn Amwul Aflan
hm Hshammuddm szksw maaan pmak
Pendakvraxan mengaiakzn Annmv max ho\eh member:
kaevangan aeas laklur kealhalan man maakang aleh dukumen
Fahmn sebagzw
peruhakan man ad: sebarang mm. manunjnkkan Armml ‘unfit
Io give evraemre“
5 Pmak Pandakwaan wga gagax unmk mengemukakan keputusan
anahs: mnna DNA walaupun mkanakan caman man mamb-
syn xacaaouux wwnm/am
«-ma s.nn nun nrwm be used m van; ..a nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
pzngzlal-man Umukmemenulmmsurl
IerIuduh—|enuduh berida bsrhamplran dengan dadah dan meveka been
5 Keaunua (emmuh max mempunyal kawakan aksmsxf pad:
kenderaan wvn 129 kerana nzda saksx yang nampak swap:
yang membawa keraka lersehm ke Iempal kejadwin Jugs ma
saks: yang nampak sama ads meleka ada hevumszn dengan
bamng kes dan Mada kelsrangan sukongan sepsm DNA
mzhupun can ‘an yang menuruukkan having kes pemah
dmvuskan a\ah kedua-dua lenuduh
7 Pmak pendakwaan wga gzgal membuklwkan mat hersama dx
hzwah 5 34 Kanun Keseksaan (emadap keaemua oxnemaaap
peauuum ca. 3155 Pemuexaan menghupahkan hanawa nada
kelerangan memmgukkan mu.-mua terluduh mampurvyaw "prs—
arrange p/an” Imluk mengedar dadah aan kehadvan mareka
hanyalah semahrmata ‘mere plswnce"
5 Tmflnkan Terluduh Panama melankan um Im hanya se\alI
dengan dadah yang duumpaw m da\am kuceknys an bawah
S1212)/39A ADE Peruuatan Terluduh Kedua dan Arrwul
kehl-waLan "emu max menyumbang kepada pemnukuan
wujudnyz pengelahuan tenlallg adanya dadah yang dnrampas
om. SP1 kerana M3 mar mereka lahu‘ pasll meteka Inga akan
melankan am
[an] Undang-undang aflalah mmap bahawz dengan hanya mempunyal
jagaan aluu kzwalan ke a\as dadah lersebm lwdak mancukuw unmk
memhukukan pemmkan (hhal Inrnhlm Mnllnrnad v. PF (101 114 cu 1)
[39] Adalah ma berdassvkan nas keskes dmuan banawa dua esemen
yang dvpevlukan LIMHK memhukhkan pemilxkan man kawalan fizxkal dan
Lia mes\u1mm;ukxan bahawa
mengendahkannya seowarmnan Ia zdalah mum mereka Bag! unsurmerflal
.3
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«-um smm Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
axan msns rea puua Derlu fllbukhkan bahawa Cerludulrlevluduh Dermal
axan hemasral unmk bemrusan dengan dadah Iersebul (mlsndsd In deal
mm ma drugs) (vuiuk kes FF v Abdul Ranman Ah!/[2007] 5 ML! 237
(F0), Chan Pun Lana v PF [1955] 22 ML] 217 Inc); nalam em ksia
lam‘ kapeduan unsur fifikal dun menus! tersebul perm wuwd nan
dlhukbkan sehemm pem kzn dapzl dihukukan.
[AD] D. am has pendakwzan saya mendapzu bahawa keduadua
Ierluduh mempnnyai kawa\an dan ;agaan aana pengellhuan mengenm
dadah yang auumna. maka Ianya aaaxan dalam mmkan meleka semzsa
anangkap
[.41] vaaa penngkal nn szya menevima keterznqan sm bahawa
Tenuduh Kedua Ie\ah dutahan samasa mluar rumah berssma Amnul flan
kuncl karma Memfles yang dljumpaw flan semar Tennmm Kedna
mamaawa kepada penemuan barzng kes dadah Cannabis darn banal
helakang karara Tarluduh Panama pnva lelah bemndak malaflkan dm
dan dadah dljumpaw d:\:m selunr yang mpakaw auahm Fada peungkat
W, saya berparmangan naaa sebab urnuk merzg elerzngan sm dan
spz (mwk PP V. MnPI.lmIdAIi[19£2]18ML.I 257 um Shah Vrwm Ton
v. ;=P{2o13) 1 ms 377)
[421 Olah yang uennxnan, saya memmuskan aanawa aamaaaman
kapada Ke(erarI§an mg dlkemukakan‘ shaman permhkan dadah lelsehul
lelah flmukhkan seczva afivmam
Keduadua Temlduh man mengedardadah
[431 Bagi alaman psngedaran Imlnk pammnhan panama‘
memandangkan elemen pammxan Devan beqaya amnman maka saya
membual dapalan bahawa sa|u kes prfma ram pangedzvan umnknkan
bawah seks‘/En 130(4) Kn aenaan pemskauan angaspan bawah
u
N xacaaouux wwmavakn
Nuns s.nn nun nrwm be used m mm In: nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm a. .num Wm
sakswn 37(da) ADE (mmk kes Abdullah Man) berdasarkan berm dadah
Cannabis yang melamm wax rmmma znu gram (5 37(da)(vi))
[44] Cfleh yang aenukuan, kedua-dun lenuduh (emu mpanggu unmk
membela din dan mereka memllm uruuk mamben kstsvangan secara
hmumpan
xaa P-mbolun
[451 Kedua-due lenuduh |eIah membankan
hersumpah den memanggwl Ilma (5) bring Saks! awam yang melupakan
zhh keluarga mereka dan Amlm
kenerangan secara
[46] Pada malam 21 52020, keduadua lerluduh dan Amm-I sedan;
herkumpm din lepak dv nadapan rumah Na 94, mm Tenuduh Panama
Supasukan anggala polvs man membual serhuan pzda anggaran jam
11 an mz\zm aan semass han keiaman. negzva maivh dalam oempan
Parmlah Kawaxan Pergevakan Eevsyaval
[47] Semssa samuany Tenuduh Panama man me\ankan am can
beqsya mlangkap dan mbawa ke hadapan mmah lersahut. Pemanksaan
badan acaa kedua-dun ienuduh flan Armml max msmumpaw barang salsh
(slaw kemuduan merwmpaw dadah dahm poxecseluar Tsfluduh Fensma
[451 Pemenksann pana kenderzan WYR 125 yang berafla herdekman
dengan mereka juga tidzk menemul apa-spa harang sa\ah
[491 Pemenksaan a. da\am bmk Tenuduh Penama ax aauam vumahnya
‘ugz hdak manamui ape-apa barring salah sanammya SP1 membawa
kedua-dua |enuduh flan Amwul ke rumah Tanuaun Kedua ax Na 32, Jalzn
Sekunlum s, Tamzn amt Dahha Pnsv Gudang‘ (myuk Vzpman Pulvr 7025)
yang mana serhuan ml mam aleh spa sun Mohd Aznee bin AN Malek
(hapa Tenuduh Keauay dan sos, sm Nur Az\e\a mm. Mona Aznee (mm
.5
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«-ma saw Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm y.. mum am
Tarluduh Katina) mml berada m da\am rumah Terluduh Kedua pada
masa sevhuan kevana mavaka (Inggal :1: sum
[50] Femenksaan Dada wk Tenuduh Kedua lelah menemm 1 bag mm
beflulrsan KKEA flan 1 beg kenas hertuhsan Nike yang mana an dzlamnya
duumpal sejumlnh dadah msyakkl gznya salapas pemenman dawn
nmk Termduh Keaua, menglkul sm nan sns‘ sw amnax kaluar dari umu
nu memegang 1 bag mm henullsan IKEA man 1 beg kenas herlullszn
Nike
[51] sns .uga mengalakan bahawa nag hum berluhian IKEA dan beg
kenas berlullszn Nwke tersebut gmawa oleh rnkun Temmuh Kedua
hernama Hahm yang paga masa nu ads dalang ks lumah unmk naqumpa
Tarluduh Kedua Dlsebahkan sos makmmkan yang Tenuduh Kadua
naaa m rumah‘ Hallm man memmca um umuk masuk ke hmk Tenuduh
Kedua un|uk maletakkan dahum harang kelengkapan pevmaman
compu(erc1IbII\kTenuduh Kedua dan zkan kambah samma Dada mamm
nanh sns nampak Hahm bawa beg mm benuhs IKEA flan beg kenas
bsrlulis Nike masuk xe bmk Tenuduh Kedua sebalum memmla mri unmk
pmang lanpa mernegang heg—beg |eIsehut lagi
[52] Hanna Ideflah mkan Tsrluduh Kedua yang salam amnau datang ke
rumah hersama Amlrm untuk hermamin E-Spoil yang dlarwrkan hampw
aamap ma\am sn5 wga mngavaxan banawa Tenumm Kedua se\a!u
mangaruurkan pelmaman E-Sporl a|as lahan sevem Dma den PUBG aan
sememangnya kamasaannya Halvm akan aaxang ke Nmsh mereka
nenemh dahuhl unluk mewezaxkan perkakasan permainan darn makanzn
aaaemm memmakan pevmaman
[531 Talah jug: dlhlqahknn hahawa mjuan ymak pnlis mambual Iarhuan
ke mman Teduduh Kedua adalah kerana barang kes hdak pemeh
15
am xacaaouux wwuwavakq
«-ma am Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am
ayumpa. dalam kevela wvn <29 sehagawmana kelerangan saksx
pendakwaan
Analin dan Dapalan cfllkhlr kes Pembelaan
[54] Eevdavarkan kepada seksyen 182A KTJ, uka pendakwaan banaya
membukhksn kesnya melampaui saharang keraguan yang munasahah,
kedIIa—dua |enuduh nenaaman umapau bslsalah din msabnkan Namun
uka sananknya, Mahkamah hendmdah mmepas dzn membehaskan
cenumm uzuyuk kes Balzchandnn y. PP {zoos} 1 cu :5 aan
Monnmad Radhl um Yizcob y. PF (1991) 1 cu Rap 311)
[551 Mengenal anggapzn pengadarin dnhawah sama), beban akan
harpindah kepada kedua-dua lenuduh mm menyangkau anggapan
I/arsebul axas Imhangan kehavangkzhan yang mana bebarmya ada¥=h
new heva| dari memmbulkzn keraguan yang munasabah (Muk kes pp y.
vuyara/{ms} 1 ms 116)
[as] Mengwkul kes Liam Hung Boon y. up [2012] 1 LIVE 1455,
Mahksmah Rayuan memuluxskan
‘So me Ippeflanl had in renal m. npevlllve Dresumvfiun .71 Immcxmw uvdev a
many Mme am nu ma mam av pwbabtlwex mm xaya ui rebulm maaaa
a mghev emdarmary burden an ma anpe\lnn|'
[571 Dengan pemzkawzn anggapan dv bawan 5371637 Im jugs, e\emen
pengedaran Ievah dlanggap maka kaduama lanuduh mkanaxan
msngedar fladah (ersebm semnggz umukukan sebahknys (mm: the
canfraryls flmved) Tenuaun-canuauh flengan W peflu mengemukaksn
kelerangan yang mencukupv umuk mengakas anggzpan laysebut acaa
wubangan keharangkalmn (nquk Ny cnar Km y PP (1594; 2 cm 591
darn Manamad Radhi y PF(1992)1 so» 445;.
n
N xacaaouux wwm/am
ma saw Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. nrimnnflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
[59] Ds\am Dembalaan mereka. Iertuduh-(enuduh mengemukakan Iakla
mbawah szbagzw mm. sangganan (rabumz/evidence)
1 raaa dadah awnpaz semasa serbuzn dlbuat amaaapan rumah
Na 94
2 Dadah Cirmabss hanya auumusx ax ds\am mum Tertuduh Keduay
dmlmahnya d\ No 32, Jalan Sekunlum a
3. sakn panmaxaan sm dan sns mengeszhkan sm memegang
beg lkaa |urun uan mllk Terluduh Kadua.
4 Saks: sos ma mengalaksn meVma| Ham membawa Deg
ban-maan Ikea |erse|>u(na1k ks Tenuduh Kenna
5 sns (Am\ru¥) menaalaksn Dada ma\am xaaman, ma man
dxhanlar olsh nakmn ke mman renuaun Panama nan mereka
hevmain game Manna Legsnddmadapan mrnzhnya Amnrm [ugz
mengalakan saarang yang meraka pinggll sebagax -um datang
menghamar kereua Memedes yang dlgunakan oleh Temmuh
Kedua. pakw berdekatan dengzn mnan, menguncv kerata dan
malelakkan kuncw alas Iembok pager n-man Tenuduh Panama
flan beflam pelgw menallu kendevaan Vain (Araham puun)
Semasa pnhs dztang membua| serhuan‘ Terluduh Penama
melankan dm sus nampix Pohs ambvl kuncl dan atas lambvk
uan memenksa keuava Mercedes Seae\sh dflahan xeuga-uga
meveka caran dnhawa ke mmah Tenudun Kenna dan selelah
memenksaan dI|7ua| dw bllxk Tammun Kedua, sue mangarakan
mehha| pohs meluumpaw neg hewarna bvu benullsan Vkea flan
Sam beg kenas bellulisan Nike yang mana cam. dwlurqukkan men
pafis mengandungw gama
6. Usm Demenkssan uxama namau-p Amm mhax Panaakwaan
memahun (ankh lam unluk memenksa naxaa dan menyemak
beberapa an yang dmmbulkzn Manangnya Amwul hdak Vagi
in
am xacaaouux wwm/am
«-ma a.nn nun nrwm be used m mm ma nrW\nnU|:I mm: flan-mm VII nF\uNG Wm!
dapal mkesan aiei. pihak Pendakwaan pada |ankh henkumya
wz\aupun sapma lelih aixeiuai-kan Kegagalan serahan saplna
dlkalakan kerana Amiml cam. puiang xe Keiaman dan hdzk iagi
flupal mkeaan Maka xaeiangan spa lerhenh saiakac
pemenksazn mama lanpa dlwal bales olen pmax Pendskwsan
[591 Saya meneml dan mempemmbsngkan keseiunman pembaiaan
keduadua Ierluduh dan saks>-saksi pemneiaai. dan oeipemapan,
lemiduh-Iertuduh (elah mengemukakan versl yang berbeza dengan kas
pendnkwaan iaiapi selan darn dvsokong oxen xeiarangan sm, SD5 aai.
5D6(/lmirul)
[ea] Meruiuk kepada xeiemngan sud flan 505‘ darn pengamalan saya
dan segi demenaur dim kanslslsnsl kelerangan, saya berpendapal
merekatidak mermruukkzn ada herkemungklnan msmhenksn xexaiangan
urmik kapenlingan Terluduh Kedua semala-mafia zlau eeigaiang dengan
ielas saksi yang berkepenlmgan (mlemsted) alau yang mak man
mperzayal iunimsmimyi sagiiu iuga dengan xeieiangan sue
[61] Puma pelingkal mi, pemneiaan hanya peiiu menyangkal bllkh
pengedaran alas imnangan kebalangkallan dan se|emsnyanya
mammbulkan keraguan yang rmmasabah lerhadzp ks: Pendakwaan
xeauamia Ierluduh lidak sekadar manafikan ieiapi memhenkan sam
versl kejadian yang bane» dilenms nemvama lakls bahawa memang
|erdapa| beherapa semuan iam miaxuxan pada nan yang sama
bersangkm dengan panangkipan maieka
[521 Mahkamah Rayuan daiam supwimanu-nra/Lands nrrdsmveys
Kucliing Division v uaiianmi RAmblIK-M12014] 1 LNS m ada
mew/abut mengenai lahap pembu
n‘ szya pellk sehagai panduan
15
N iEE4EOUUx wwaiavam
ma Sum! Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly MIN: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
[53]
‘- Thu aavaaaa ul nmmbmes may he vwsuaflsed is a scale mm ma pmnm
plncmg ms zwdenue on nu: ma and ma aeterudam wamaa on ma am ma
cm waluavu ma wmanu aa In ma wugm .: clmes ov mun: mnvumbls
uvwaenbe names no wewhl nemana mmut ewdenw «a puxmy ma damn!
uxamaa can curvy nuwelwm am hence ma ram ‘bale aemar
Saya ‘uga mengamhll pandusn makwd -xenaguaa mIm:sahah‘dan
pehkln dalam kes PP v sauntn (1911 1 LNS 1 15 sepeni amawan.
[54]
-u \s ml maa possible «am, because everymmg mmmg tn human awaaa aaa
dlpandmq upvm mum aamam .a even to same posmbi: er vuauIna'Y flwbl
n V: IMI stale am-a case wmch ans! ma am. aamaamaa Ind aaaaamaaaa
at an mama was ma mmds av Mars In men conduun In a men! cenamly
M the am av me change
in ya. aaam am aam Hut -amaaaaua mum’ is me mm which mam
ywu n-silall as to ma comma. M m. cnncllulnn mun. yaa much. :4
unanr your aim: Ind upon your cnvuclenuu mar you um Vully
lnvueynnd ma wldcncv and complnd n m an n. aana, you a aa
ymnsifl n mm Mlle is gulhy, men 1: V: a maaaam. man u h a mum:
wman umu u. ynur judgmum am am: a rlslmy pnaaa mm or a
somehmzs smd Imus! b: aaam so mama am aaaazannax 2x to pmducem
ma mmdx «:1 ma |umrs aama uucanmnly us to ma man lo he given A
reasanalfle daum must be a aouhl ansmg Hum ma ewderme uv want av
nmdsrmq and c:mu7| be in wmawury duuhl or oanpeclwv unvedabw w
ev\denue'
-Penakanan mlambah
sexelah menflaw kembalx krsdxbllm SP1 din SP2 dan amammgkaa
dennan ketevangan pambexaan, saya aapan vets: pemaaxaan ada
kamungkvnan (probable) benar saya menquk kepzda pnnsm asaa da\am
kes Ma: v PP (1su)1 ms 32 yang mana pka lakla yang dlkemukakan
uleh pamxaaxaan In: men drpercays: maka keduadua (emmuh perm
anepaauan Jtkapun (am: yang
amukakan alall marvka mak
an
am xacaaouux wwm/am
ma. am nun nrwm a. a... a van; .. nrighvnflly MIMI dun-mm VII nF\uNG perm
[31 D\ am kes pendakwaan, saya memumskan hahawa pmak
pendakwaan benzya mamhukukan Xe: pnma Yams alas pemmuhan
kezlas mereka nan (anuduh-(enuduh mpanggu unluk memnaxa dun
[4]
saksx awam pembalaan yang Vzinlelah mpanggll D. akmrkas pemhelaany
saya menaapan xenuuumemaun bsrjaya mengakas anggavan an bawah
s 37 (Ga) den salemsnys benaya memmhulkan keraguan yang
Mereka lelah memmh member: katemngan bersumpah dan1imz(5)
mlmasabih tamadap kes penflakwaan Maka mpumakan bzhawa
pendakwaan Isiah gagal memnukmkan ks: mmampam keraguan
mlmasahzh
[5] owan yang darmkvany kedua-dua lenuduh |e\ah flflepaskan dzn
dibehatkan nan sauap penuduhan ks alas mevska.
[6] Pmak Pendakwaan |e\ah merayu ke Mahkamall Rayuan alas
kepumsan (ersebul, maka benkut adalah imam says
Nlrill kn Plndakwnn
[71 Bemndak a«as mzklumal keglatan daflah, pada 21 Jun 2:120‘ yam
lebm kurang 11 zu malam. lnsp Mahd Aflzwm Fairuz bin Ramlv (sum
hersama bebsrapa anggmanyz lelah bevgsrak ks Vokasn m No. 94‘ man
Sekunmm 14‘ Tzmzn sum Dahlm Fun Gudangy Juhov (mmnh Na. :4)
[31 Kerela apevasl mpamra. hadapan rumah Na 94 nan sm melmal
lerdapal M93 13) nrang max. Memyu seflang bemln den herkumpm dn
hadapan vumah (ersehut Persekn:-nan Vukasl kanka nu muarangi cahaya
lampu ]alan dzn pagar rumah dalam xeaaaan lerbuka Fads: masa yang
sama, sa\ah saarang anggom semuan‘ Sjn Mahd Fawzal bin Ra1aI|(SP2)
mehlwafi iebuah Kereva jams Mercedes Eenz parklr aw nauapan rumah
(elsebul
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
"Nuns saw Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. gummy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
mpamayai sekalipum saya max bcleh mensahllkan mereka memnkan
ada absan bahawa xlnya gagan memmhulkan keraguan yang munasabah
am Manama mum Yaacab I/PP (1921) 2 cu 2011)
[65] Says telah mermaw dengan |elm kes pembelaan aan man msmbual
dnpmnn sa<a:as dengan 5152A KTJ Sayapxga mermux xevaaa Dinduan
Radni m da\am kes Mahmud mam Yukon sapem berikut
-n m . wafl uuhluhed rmnm|2\e an Mnmysmn amnmax law max me genera!
mean ac pram hes Imroughuul ma Ina! on ma Dvusecmmn in mm bsynnd
rl snnihle duum me gum ar Ihe mum ran ma Lmervoe mn vmum na ..
durged were 1: no swmlzv human mined on me nursed m pnwe ms
mnuuarwee Ne up/esumad nnaaam unm woven gumy
Yo eam an aoqmflak ma cue, .; nmary in 12.“: relsunlme duuhl m Ihe
pvusacumm case \n ma mwse a~ me proeecuonn saw, me pmxecmmn may
clown: My on mnama Ihmlmy mmumphuns In Draw: aue armare M In
aaaamm Ingredients at In charge wnan «na« occurs «n. pamcmar um... ac
pron! as append In ma ganam burden shm m ma fleverwe to ram sum
presumpbans an we balance m pnanannmaa Much Imm ma amends Dam! av
vnew u haavmltun una burden ulcaslma araaaenaua mm, hunllwicuwnw
hyhnec man he bumon anna mammmn m wave beynnd reawrlnlzle mm
[66] Keslmpmannya‘ szya bsrpandaual hahawa xexevangnn bukv kes
pemhelazn ada kemungklnan Dena: Sehubungan dengan nu, walzupun
udak yak: saya jugs berpendapat keselmuhzn kas namnexaan man
benaya memmbmkan kavaguan yang munasabah (emadap kes
pendakwaan dan salerusnya memslahksn anggapan amawan s 37(fla)
a|as wrlbangan keharingkallan
Punilaian kumangan Pombalaan
[57] Dadah (perluduhan panama) ada ksmungkmzn lelah mjumpa. an
rumah Tenuduh Keduz we 1:) many saksx manganaxan xanyi «mam
11
am xacaaouux wwm/am
«ma am.‘ ...n nrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nr1g\nnHIy mm: dun-mm van mum am
mum oxen spa, (mime: uleh sm, sns dan sue) sa|u beg mm benuhsan
IKEA dan salu beg kenas hanullsan NIKE sns mangalakan bag nu
dxbawa nleh Halvm sebemm Tenuduh Kmua dwangkap Fakla ml yuga
mum web sue (Amlvw)
[ea] vem buhawn kenumgkman dadah sebenamya hdak duumpzw
damn kerela kerana pmak pulvs lelah membua| serbuzn m we (3) Inkasx
Iain, txfleh dilevima
[as] Padz han kqadian, Tenuduh Kadua pavw Nmah Tertuduh Penama
sslalah amanm alsh sD7 Fakla mi disoknng dengan kelevangan so:
(ayah Terluduh Perlama) yang nampak Terluduh Kedua datang (Idak
menawkl kendaraan Mengvkut sum semasa mum-mula sampm kerela
Mercedes (yang dlkalakan ads dadah flldmamnya) mad: :1! lempal parkvr
mluu mmah Yermduh Panama Vni menyokung kumungkman kere|a
Mercedes Ievsebul sebsnamya mm d\ (empal psklrpafls mas: Tenudun
Ksdua mma-mws sampaw m mmah Telluduh Pellama
[701 Kewujudan panama Hzhm‘ msem dalam kes pendakwaan Iagw
Dlsahkan uleh sps bahawa Tenuduh Kedua man sswakan karma
kepada Hahm pada harl kuaman ram ml mengxkat pmak Pendakwaan
kerana Ia dmmbulksn flan kelerangan saksl meveka — mink kes 1» v Ha
ha Kun (mu) 3 cm 71, on Mzka ada kemungkman walak Hllxm
bukan vekaan (finflousj
[71] Peguam te\ah hevhmah bahavwa ke|erangin SD4 uan sns nampak
SP1 membawa keluar dadah max dlpenksa ba\as aleh plhak
Penflakwaan Twdalquga amankan hahawa mhak pohs ads pelgw ks lumah
Tenudun Kedua kerana Pandakwlan hdak menamkan xewumaan Iaper.-n
Wlvs ms
22
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«-um smm Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
172] Saya dapzu. whak Pendakwaan ada mencadangkan kepuda
Terluduh Panama, sm mm 505 bahawa «am sw «mm: menjumpax
barsng kes m mmzh Tenuduh Kedua am vekaan kerana mengikut ms‘
uaaa barang sa\ah man duumpal semasa pemzviksazn mwat din
meveka udzk berxelujn Se|elah menyemak nn|a kelemngan‘ waapau
nmak Pendakwaan ndak meny:1a\ ba\as tau ml kepsda Tenuduh Kedua
Mengenal sue pula‘ pihak Pendikwun mink belpeluang mm menyoal
hams mm m. aias kegagalan unmk mengesannya
[13] Sungguhpun begnu‘ seya bevpendapal, huuan D25 dxkzmukakan
oxen pmak Pemnexaan adakah uniuk menyanggah ke|emngan sw yang
menguakan pasukan sevbuan Ie\ah (ems bavgerak balnk he IF-‘D Sen Mam
pads malam |alssbu| sedsngkan ada semuan lam dmuan
[74] Selerusnya, lakia bahawn sm, sns dan sns secsra kunsislen
mengaiakin ads mehha|SP1 membawa am having mg menyerupaw
beg yang fllrampas, mamamkau kreammu ss-1 semkimmaxarkama sm
Vangsung lvdak menyanmh Iakta benzwa hahau dan pasuksn ad: pergl ke
mmah Tertufluh Kedua Naratil mi pammg kerana susulan dan nu,
persoalan mg hmbm adzlall mengenal ramalan kelzvangan barana Keys
[75] Jwka pmak Fendzkwaan hdak menankan sevbnan lawn ad: dxbust
semeslmya penjelasan mengenaw keberadaan baring kes yang helum
dllandakan mmaxvumxan kapadz Mahkamah Tanya maK\uma| mengena.
kawa\an barang Res sebemm SP1 sampaw ke mu‘ saya (idak none»
menulup sebelah maca em memhua\ mlevan Ianya dalam jagaan SF1
[151 ms lalah dmux kepada spa dan bellau wga tebh mengesahkan
kewugudannya Fercanggahan kmevangan sm. swz flengnn D25 perm
duelasksn Saya menquk kepada s 91 Ana Kelemgan dan keg Ah M: v
N xacaaouux wwm/am
um smm Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
PP[1.v51)1 Mu 22:1, Namun begun, dalam kes ml. hada penmaian man
mbuax o\eh svc
rm wamaun sna (Amwrul) gagal maawa a\eh pmik Pendakwaan
semasa kes Pendakwaan, namun behau lelah benaya msapma \m|uk kes
pembelzan waxauaagamnapun, usal pemanksaan mama, kanamran
Amvm lehh gagal an umskan aleh plhzk Pendakwaan dan kmemngannya
Malt dapal dlperiksa balas men plhak Psudakwaan Fembelann bemmah
flan szya se|u]u bahawa kesdaan W cexan member! kesan kepada m\a|
keuennan Kerlersngannya yang mana zkan mamvrajudnskan xenuaun.
lertuduh ketana ke|erangzn sna menyokang pembelaan bahawa dadah
hdak duumpaw da\am karela mam cu mmah Terluduh Kedua uan bahawa
pada nan Kajaduan Halwm ada aacang menyerahkan kerala Mercedes
sehemm benam dalam sebuah kere1aAIphavfl puhh
[75] Mengenaw an kagagaxan pvhak Pendakwaan memasnkan kehadvran
saksl Amllm mu. aaya meruwk kepeda kes ‘n Cnuee Hizng v PP [1955]
2 ML./ 431,dm-zsna Mahkamah Agony ta\ah mamumsxan, amara Vain‘
‘WM: me vroseaunw ha: a cum;-Lat: aaamn .a in ma maybe at mmssas
in n. clued It me man. u msu nas the duty In an an necuury wwnesus
essenlm za the ufloldmg or in: natntive a! me pruseumou case to eslahflih
pmm .g..na¢ lhe necused beyond an mwnanne awn: Aum vury mm, m.
pmnecuwr should makn mum . ’ bl: Var cmsscximlnallon by an-
amna. n ma pmseculnun lafled In mm m my. ma Iuculed must he
newnes-
—Penekanan dvlambah
[79] Saya mga berpendspal bahawa Armrm aua>ah aaxa yang manna!
dan pemmg unluk mekangkapkan nzrahl kes pendakwian uan yugn
pamneman aexexan isu kamungkinan man duumpaw when m tempa|
kepdlan aanagannana dalam perluflnhan dmmbulkan Mungkin vanya
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«-ma am.‘ nun nrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mums dun-mm vu mum an.‘
max hegim penlmg semasa ken nendakwaan‘ namun se1e\ah dmmbmkan
lakva yang beycangganan, ketevangan Amm meruadl relevan dan
kagagaxan mengemukakannya msmmxenkan saya mengguna mm:
mcara unmk mengangnap kelerangan mum yang bakaldnkemukakin alsh
Amlml Udzk mamihak kepsda pmak Pendakwaan Say: dengan Im
mengguna pike! anggapan dmzwan s114(g)Ak(3 xewangan
[so] Dalam ks: Amrl Ibrahim A Anni. V‘ PP [1017] 1 cu 511‘
Mahkamah Pesekuluan |e|ah mamutunksn, anxnm lam
‘<2; The pnwer m 12-: own m draw an Idvane Wevunca undar 1 mm ov me
Ewdnrvce M: E dnscvsnnniry u dnpendx an me n:\n:ums(Inoes on me can and
pamzmarlyln casuwheveme mmedal wnlnossss an, um pruduczd -
[51] Adalall lugas an bahu pmak Pendakwaan unluk memnshkan saksi
yang dwawalkan Kapafla Pemhalaan dlkemukakan Saya meruwk kapada
ks: PP v Rasli bln ymomazv) 7 cu m, dipuluskan aleh Mahksmah
Paisekuluan yang telah mermuk kepada hulahan peguam (dalam kes
lelssbul) yang mm telah d\perse|u]uIsepeI1I benkur
1221 n suppofl at In: suhlmulun rehunce was mm an m. Enahsh Caun
Cnmmzl Anne]! use M R '4 Marine Henry Bryant s Ann\‘nsr{194E)31Cr App
x us‘ where the Cum rsaunmsu that me prosewnun ha: . du|y m max. a
pawn ma an we mama: mam. xv lble Ia dflencs w may dead: ml
m can mm
m} Leamad nnunsel msu menu us to the pve»Mnme«i ms: M van Lee Yang
V R [195s| 22 MLJ «:14 when: we Cami nan: that an witnesses mm
nataemanls have been laken ihntfld be bvaugm In Caurl by me mewuw‘
excem muse whoa: Ivmeme mu may and omwy mm rm hgm an me
pass, and any wwmess ml sn brought CD Cmm m\n| be made avaname to ma
nucused should he dulrem can such Mines;
[211 Yhnappmlinlveflsfl heavfly on lhadacmun uHmsCaumn n owe: many
vFF[1E95jJCLJ < Mlereln Ihscuulse own judgment Edglv mean J1 nu
25
sm maoum wwm/am
mm. smm nun nrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mn.u.y mm: mmn vu mum pans!
also wAh zppvlwil pessnfies rm». me Aumnan cue cl ammm V a mm
m cm Ha. wherein: m. nlex::evp|Ieads {:1 page 5; —
~ §IcDl\dVy,Il1IvI\xvuom for same dehale as In what .. mum :7, me npenmg
wum: an the sulemenl and n mum mu be mad as {nhwbmng me msaetmn
mm was pmsacmnr nus not m an \n the Cmwn can my eymmlness n he
wins m.unm.mmu.m.....mvw rwlcnmllfi hIm.=.s,lo1nx:mpLe,vmnr-
hr wnmwes man the wings: .s m : creams and trulhnd wxms m (ms mm
In: pmseculor wm arvsuva mnne .m.m .. grven ma oppanumly in 2:1! mg
wn1nau'[5Ie mm um Ymmg Sun Y mu: Prn1:culnr|19SA]2 sm 2571
[251 lumed amines! mm xubmnled out me cnnstquence at 1»:
vvveaounwvx fiawlura m mm mmme mm wntnlax-5 la the defence Vs a
mu mime aupeI\IM‘s ngmm . Immil and the ipyeflam had been dlpnvafl
an ovpnrlumly in wcseul Ms case m the run mnrmurn puuxble vmlh . mw
In aecunng an aaqunlal (See :2. Kwan Wan V PP[2W1| sou 53: Fe)‘
[B2] sememsnya a. muka macaw‘ 69: man 693
-ml Dug m mar Spec! me m amine! mm, mm pmsecumrs are under
mam weH-defined dune: mummy my duty vi msdosure (pea ; an at u.
cpc), 1u)dmymr.Il\ .ummmeanu rdavvwlwnnusas nm11M)dmylncunour.1
me me «my (See R v Eank:[I91e]2 xa an R V SugIlman(19E5)25 Cr
Ape R ms nu Mummm Kaaarm Anulhevv F'P[2D‘M]3S|.R1205)
(as; m mmw, :1 Is tamed Viw based an the aulhonlwuzwad In LA! by Veumed
mum Vanna lpveflinl \n W: Iuhrmslmu man he umsecunnn has dlvcvehnn
whether «a HH any plmcmlr wvlness‘ bu! such dlucvalmn u sumem to ma
hmlhbnns m my me dsuvaun musl be exerased mm dun ugam m
ccnsmetalwonx ulmmcxs and ma ram and my um wllnuniwho ma been
vmahqitnfl Ivy ma puke: um «um wnom me suhemants have men resumed
mus! ba mm nu ma neleme
sm mzrnuuuxunwwmuvakn
«mm. smm Illfl IVWW .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!
[451 n 15 mle law on. n u nu! ma dmy al ma ippsflanl w plvua ms mnnuenbe
av n can . pnmcmar Mines: Io iuppun nn aaoam (see Yun Foe Su V pp
[1967] 1 LNS17E,|1§s7]2 ML! 19 am Sandi: Margavel anm Prn577)1
ms 1 n 1197311 MLJ 721 The ‘aw mica: upcm me pvasecunonma bmdernu
pm gmll am. :ppeHin| beyand leasuname doublxnd nu| an ma nppeflanl
m pm ms mnnbence wauannannnaa .n gxmspludenne Is ma me man the
oanwchon mmlwveflinlmuslles|noIanl11ewa:kn:ssuHhe deiemnebmon
In: strength at me pvusecmwon ma an.-awe n the burner am av nu! annnnn
\:w'
[as] Mengenav nna. kelerangan Arnnm yang Kvflak mac a: scan balas
clan pmak Pandakwaan, saya msvuwk kepadn kes Kamalan Shtlk
Mohd v pp 12:21:14 cu m flan bersannu dengzn pandangan flan
kmian yang annwx men Ham mengenai kapantmgan seseamng saksi
unluk an soak Dams dengzn panun (compma) oleh pmamnnax dalam
sasuan. pmswdmg ,enayan Keadaan .n. menumukkan betapa penungnya
lngss Pendakwaan unluk memasukan kehadwan Amvul Oleh kerzna
kalerangan Amlvw not tested by wny av cross examfmarron, wanyi lelah
mempuanmuskan keduadul (enuduh kerana kelarangan Am\rul konswslen
dengan ketevangan sm am 505
[341 Dalam kas ml, says berpandzngan. say: maum bnleh menenmz
kelaangan A.-mun, wa\aup<m dnanaxan sehagaw sehahagian 1pamaY)
namun aengan aaanya kelerangan yang sama dari saksl lam, kelevangan
Annm: Ialap Ielevan den boleh dlmlaw seadanya.
[as] Sekzdar unmk mebngkapkan, saya mannux kepada kes
Thai/anamln En subramaniam v PP (1997; 3 cu 150 dzn memjuk
kepada pnnslp yang mpmnskan oleh Mahkzmah Persekuman sepem
dlbawah
17
an nacaaouux wwm/am
“Nuns snn nun IVWW be used m van; .. mn.ny mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
-n was :« ma aacuaaa In an. an mnaoem a>(p\an:nnn wmch me Conn
cnmmaveu male \|ke\yII1anm7l Dltnwlstme we unab:\anwnIpvnba|u\mu
ma mslapphed wn mu pmctedmgi PPV Vuvarap [1959] 2 Mu as Pc'
[as] Juga mermuk kepida kes Public Proucutor v Iskandar bin
Manamid Yu.:oI(ZWS] mu 559. lalah dlpuluskan behawa V
m 21 M ma aamsa M ma dshncl mp ma accused person nu. had Ifleged
man the bag wmch comamed ma drug: Wu awed by one Nzstan. a mum
wmu mu vnxanaa . nae Hum mm (ml mm TM: yam had manlqed In make
me ms uapa Gunny me aanvuuun, luvmg the managed person evenruafly
stunned Ind bemg hem Ieqpmmme lot I11: aaanaanaa mcnmmllmg Hem wxm
ma Auwwny m the muses pemun gwan under mun. ms awaanoa mu men!
saunas aansmananon lI| flan: 3| no sin: m ma Manna win he Impuached
The pzmnenl quesflon naawaa «a ma msarved thus was. was In pnssdfle man
the mystevwoux Nulanmfl praaaawexm, ann mu maqesnlncflml avananw
zlhmad In In mm as a pasxpan In escape in: charge’! AA mu slug: av me
aavanaa man. wax na man! demand that M m\mVn:1ulHy wove Nissan um
anal NI na naaaaa in an wu In mace», pevsuade ma pvummg wage of max
pmhibthly lmexucueeded mm en a aawanca avpnaaammy (hos: dmgl mum
we been Hassarfi. ma mexmalflyeycnelaung mn-
[371 saya belpendapal. din kesemmahan yang
dwkemukzkan da\am pamnaxaan, any: man hevsllat panaman den
penuxnan «erxemuman le|apI aanu mmnabwry)
Ksrrmngkman Im juga Ie\ah mmangkan kepada sakan pendakwaan lag:
keterangan
kemungkman
[ea] Puhak Pendakwaan bamwah memhawz kepada pemauan saya
mengenaw knaannlm saksn pemhelaan yang mkaxakan aemcnva dan
bevkepannngan Says dzpah, fakva bahawa sus max dapnl
menqasahkan Halim pevgw karumah Yenudnh Kedua menam kerela apa
max meruzdikan sns bukzm szksw yang kradxhelalau seomng saksuyang
berkepenflngan ann beta! sabe\ah Pads: pendzpal saya wga‘ soe
(Ammnl) lmak membenkan kelelangan yang saracms axau menuruukkan
as
am xacaaouux wwm/am
“Nana an.‘ ...n nrwm n. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum am
swa: bvas alau mempunyaw aganda lelsendln hanya kerana memhenkan
kelersngan yang mammax kepada |enuduh-larluduh m. aflmah kerana
ksmungkman vevsx meveka lpembalaan) ad: benamya dan telah
memhuat saya hearing as In me correctness 0/ me cone/us»on (umuk
sabitan) — ruwk kes Salmln yang dxruiuk dv atas nntuk maksud
‘reamnsbls daubf.
Kulmpulnn
[39] Say: helpendapal hanawa kewuwdan 025 flan ueaerangan sum
sus :13" we memadwkzn ramauan kalemngan baung ks: Ierpums
kevana max duelaskan kebsrauaan harang kes dadah yang fluampzs
damn lempah masa (arsehm Pevcanggahan qkexemngan sm, sns aan
snay dangan xexerangan SP1 dan spz sens tanpz peruelasan oleh
msrska‘ memmkan «am: Aersebul sa|u landa tanya flan memadlkan
pmomny hzhawa dadah dqumpal dwmah Tenuduh Ksdua
senagamana ueeemngan semua saksmksx pembexaan ad:
ksmungkman benzrwalaupun hdakmyaklnl kabanarinnyi Says memguk
kepada kes Ganapathy Renwasamy V PP mm; 2 cu 1, yang
menyehul
«n ma. |o n. nmcmband Inn hnwevtr w-Ik . dflumu mly be. um
1-aw Iulng juduu L11 bo1nlazunfl\xw:nou\d mrljusl mm. mann-
dllencn an mu hash um um nmsucufleu wimnun m m be bellevvcd
um not an m...;.. Where In: law «zit: the aims :24 gmng an axbtananun
upon In accused pawn, and me explanihun Ixgwun mm 15 msmn: wan
vrvuacgnca‘ m. mun a duly hmmd m wnsldcr wlmhnr n mm
VI scmhly :1. cm, allhuunh nvl carmncm of It: Innh. On In: Issue at
am calm‘: dulym cansldurmn .1 mu, ms nu old dnlnlnn 1.. MIN PP
new 1 ms 52 [\9s3| Mu 2631: sill! good Llw is u wu «mu. mu
lufluvmd uy m. supmm Enutl m Momymzd Rnam hm mm V PP [1951]
1€L.IR¢p 211, (199113 cu am, mm: ML1 159'
1-:
N xacaaouux wwm/am
um smm Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
—Penekanan dnambah
[so] Saya ulang, dlpenngkal pembexaan, hanya reasonable dnubl penu
mkemukakan Maksud rsaxurlab/s doubt (nuuk kes s-mun) udalah Sam
um: wmclv makes you hssviate as to me correctness, slteryou mm lu/Iy
Investigated ms swdsnce and compared :1 m all its part, you say 1.7
ynurselfl doubt n he .5 gum
Konumun
(911 Make, se(e\ah memmbang fakta kas Dambalaan dengin parsvekln
yang new snflzvas dengan kemrangan kes pendakwnan. saw no not
acwn! ar be/rave me accused‘: sxplamanon but nevertheless yr rursas In
my mm a reasoname doubts: m rm gull! (Mn v PF'I1953)15 MLJ m)
[92] men yang demvklan, unluk perluduhan panama‘ dlbawsh : 35(3),
kednauuz tenuduh hanaya mengskss anggapan pengedzran dlbawah s.
anua) afas Imhangan banayl
mennmbwkan kevaguan yang munasabah Aarhadap kes penflakwaan
renummanuuun dengan ml uuepasxsn din dlhshaskan dan permduhzn
panama
kebarzngkallan dan dengan nu
[93] Manganav pammuhnn kedua‘ mwaupun szya hevnuas nan‘ darn
panzuacan Terluduh Panama malankan dvn din didah duumpan
dwbadannya, pembelaan gagal menaflkan sebahnguan e\emen kesalahzn
dwbawah 512(2) namun‘ oxen «um [emu mpumskan dwalas bahawa
rinman kaerangan nmng kes |eVah lerpuhts. maka Vanya man
mevwlqudkan kalnmpangan da\am Kai pendakwaan Walaupun fakva
|evsebu( hanya mhuknkan semasa kes pembelazn (lakla percanggahan
D25 dangan kanemngan sm dzn nasn penahhan kelerangan smsmy
Maka Tenuduh Panama mg: dllepiskan dan dlbebaskan dari pemmuhan
kzdua
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«-um smm Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
[9] sm tumn dam kendevaan uperzsi flan marnnerkanaflxan am
sebagai anggma was Salah seorang dsrlpsda nga (ay saspek Velakx
Melayu mam mslunkan am ke alah mar ruman 51:1 belsama uga 43)
lagw inggora bemndak n.ange,ar le\zk| Iersebul dan mamben arahan
kepada SP2 dan um Laa An Shm agar herads dx nampac kejadmn unluk
manga».-ax dua 42) law saspek lemkl Mehyu yang lawn
[cu] SP1 lelah benaya mermngkap saspek Celsehux sanalan nyengqar
smauh nrak mo meter ke arah kamsan |aman pannainan kanakakanak
sm kenalkan mu kepada saspak aan haw pemenksaan lubuh naaannya
menjumpai salu 41) peKe( plasuk hnslrmr aiayam dadah syzbu (F123)
dalam poke: hadapan kanan seluav Imam (P143) yang mpeksv saspak
yang kemudlannya mcamkan sebagaw Muhamad Ran bin Rasflm mm;
Tenuduh Penama
[11] 5:21 kamnmannya mzmbawa Terlufluh Panama ke hadapan mmah
Na 94 aamula flan due (2) saspek Vain (elah d:kena\ paw ssbagsx
Muhammad Nanafi bin Mahd Aznes waxlu Terluduh Kedua flan saspek
keugz sehagai Annnn Aflan Fahrm hm msnarnmsmn (Am I)
[12] Pemeviksaan badan lemadap ran-mun Kedua dan Amwul max
manemuv aaa-apa harang sa\ah Namun, pemankaaan ke am Terluduh
Kedua nalan dwjumpaw sa|u kuncl elekhomk berlamhang Memedes(P15A)
dw paket naaapan sebalah kanan semar panpang kelabu mac; yang
dwpakaw alan man
(131 sm xexan mengarahkzn Tenuduh Kedua mengakmkan mm
Mevcedez Benz dengzn nombcr panaanaran wvmzs (P15) yang
mparkn wemn kuvang 5 kakl darlpafla mman review! 591 kemudlan
manmankan pamenksaan ke alas kenderaan terxebul din dw dalam banal
menjumpai 1 Deg karwas mm. mm (Pwxy yang an flnlamnya
4
an xacaaouux wwuwavakq
"Nuns a.nn nun nrwm be used m van; me mn.u.y mm; dun-mm vu mum am
[941 Vsu vamawan kalemngan baring kes wm wga lelah memban Kesan
kepada pambukuan mewampam karaguan munasabah umuk peflumman
kelxga yang man; hdak begun amen nemanan men keduadua beflah
pnhak flzkam Ilujahan maswngmavlng Sungguhpun beglhl, saya
herpem1apa|. Ianya |elap Ierkesan. Mm, keduz—dua tefluduh ]uga
mlepasxan aan dwbebaskan aan permduhan kulvga ml
Banankh s Novembev 2023
|NOOR HAVAYI a
Pesummayz Ks knman
Mahkarnah Tmgg Mzkayz
Jnhorflshm
Ferwakllan »
Ezgl plhak Pendakwaan
Fuan Sm uamza mm Abdmlah
nmbaxsn Fenflzkwz Raya
Pejzba| srenasmat Undang—Undang Negev: Jnhar
Ares 2, Bzngunan Data‘ Jaalar Muhammad
Kola xskanaav, lskandar Pmsn
Jahm
Bag: pmak Tenuduh Penama
Puan Lymanu h|n|| Mansov
Lydlana Law Chambers
AA‘ Ja\an Lembah 1
Taman Desa Jaya
81100 Jnhor Bahm
Jahnr
31
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«-um smm Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!
Bag! pmak renumm Kedua
Encwk mm Fazaly Ah bm Mam Ghazzly
The Law Chambers ol Filmy
No 24AJa\an caman
Taman Perhng
mun Tampal
Johov
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«ms smm Illfl nrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
mengandungw enam (5; kemlan mampzf bemalm pIastiklutsmar|P11B)
disyakw ganja Semmsnya pemenksaan IanMSP1 mm: manwmpan salu
Wag: beg kenas herwami cuklal henuhs mm on m (mm
mengandungw ma kemran mampa| belbalul plasuk \usinaI(P12C) juga
msyam ganja
m1 Pemenksaan a. daiam karma mun meruumpzw sekapmg mu
(FHA) lenulls name Tarluduh Kedua ylng hersrrnpan dw buhagwan ‘am!
ms!‘ sebalah Km pernanau Pemenksaan m hadapan mmah pula,
bevdekalan kellgz-:—uga meveka (keduz—dua lenuduh den Annnm
berkumpm, SP1 meruumpaw due halal plasnk Vulsmal yang mangandungr
cecarr d\syak|ukelum(P13A can mam
[<51 Pemsnksaan satamsnyn dwbuat m man as Temmun Penamn m
damm rumah Na 94‘ yang melupakan mman kemarnan kelnavga
Terluduh Panama balsam: mu bans dan vslennyn, hdsk menemu: aDa~
apa baung man 591 an spz kemudlarmya bersama—sama kadua—dua
lenudnh darn Annmn bevgerak rnanam Mamsdez Benz memuu ks Wu San
Nam uh ulah kandaraan unerasv.
[we] on M) 5enA1am‘D€ny9d\ain dokumen nan penanaean barang kes
flnbual oleh sw dan dakumewdakumen berkailan mseraman kepada
Pegnwai Penyiasay lnsp Mend Hafiz bin Human (spa; paua keasnkan
hannya, 225 mu jam mam kmang 7 malam
my spa menghantiv baring xss xe Jabalan Kmui din haul anshsa
menaesahkan twang kes yang mmmpas adalah dadah berbahzya saw
(a) cannams bevy! bersm 3942 15 gram
m Mllragymne beral bevsm 1950 ml
m Memamphemmme halal bersm 24 34 gram
5
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
mm smm nun IVWW be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dnpltnn mu keg Pendakwaan
[ta] D1 penngkavl akmv kes pendzkwaan, salu kes prlma facrs
sebagznmzna mperunlukkan dmam $13007 Karwn Talacsra Jenayah
(KN) perm uwmxan olah pmak pendakwaan flan kemrangan mm: mg
bo\eh dxpercaysn dan kredwbel yang mana uka hdzk disangkal akan
membalehkan saman dlhual (rwuks 150 («p KTJ flan ks; Abctullnn Ann
Iwn pp (mo) 9 cu 151)
[191 Ungkapzn “msngemukakan kelerangsn kukuh yang membukltkan
setup aazu Yak!orkesaIamin"da\am 5 mm) belmzksud hahawa plhak
permakwaan perm menmuknkan senip alemen kesalahan sama ada
dengan mengemukakan kelerangan yang mush mpamayau, membuzt
mieren Qemsdap ram alau menggunapakaw anggapan \mdang—undang
umm kes AbdulI.ahAmn dw muka suraI196)
[201 K95 puma Iacfe va\ah kes yang nuancukum un|nkIer1uduh4er(uduh
mpanggu unmk mamawab penuduhan kealas mereka dan ketevangan
yang wxemuxakan mencukupl melamkan wa d|szngka\ alau dnzkas malalm
ketelangan lam (hha| kes salaahandnn v PF [ms] 1 cu :5) Dalsm
kes Dug cmng Huang Mn PF mm) 4 cu ms, panflangan Vmcent
Mg. J |aIah mnnuk flan msahkan men Mahkamah Persekutuan da\am kas
Abdullah Ann mengenaw apa yang |erjum\ah sabagav satu kes pnma
fame sap-em benku|
< prim: lama wrflence 15 zvmsnce mu .5 §\M<:\em to eslibush a fact In ma
Absence at any evvwdetloe m the camrary nm a Hal <:an<:\u:lv: 1 wmld mum
mu mere shmnd he cn:¢m\e evwdenw on each and every mgvadvanl av ma
ellence Cv5d>b\e wmanca n cw/wdence wmch Ms been filtered and when nas
nan: mnmgn the pmcsss av zvaluannn Any ewdenoe which m not uh «n be
amsd upnn shank! be n.,aa».a-
n xacaaouux wwm/am
Nuns s.nn ...n nrwm be used m van; n. nnnnny mums dun-mm y.. mum puns!
[211 sew juga senagznnanz mpumskzn rfleh Mahkzmah Rayuan
dalam kes Loo! Kow char v. Public Pnmcuror 1200112 MLJ 55. yang
mengalakan sepem henkut
-u mererove «cum Irm mere ws onw one exams; ma| a was Imng mane
Lmdgv 5 wan aims are hush: umterulve alme muse anne umsecmmn use
He musl subleu me prosscufinn emdenoe to mzxlvvum wamanon and to ask
hlnvl-N Ins quesonn n : mm to can uwn (ha nwusau in enler ms defiance
and he e\u:Is ta mnan swarm am n pvepalad In cunmcl nnn an mu mm», at me
avmenne umm m we pmsecmlun mew w the answer .5 .n ma nwnlwz
than no puma line can has been made man and ma accused mum be enlmad
la an nequmm ‘
[221 Maka. daham menenmkan pembukuan kes prima /ame, salu
penllalan secava makzlma pm dxbual (erhadap kesahuuhan kaumngan
huklv yang mkanwkakan (armasuk menus: uraammu saksw-saksl am
manna! Inleren yang huleh dlbual dan keterangan mu kes pendakwaan
unmk memhuklwkan selian elemen kesalahan (nuuk kes PF V Mnhd
RldxIAbu smrlzaaal 1 CLJ 457)
KM Prim Facln
1231 Katavanqan wxn yang perm mkemukskan uncuk kesakahan
pengedavan flndah berbahayz dn umn 5 sea ( 1 (2; ADE zdalah
bahawa dadah yang dirampas adalah dadah berbahaya seperlv yang
dlsenarawkan aavam Jsdunl Panama ADE, In udalah dmam pemmkan
kedua-dun Ienuduh apabfla dmulnikan dadah zdalzh :1. bawah jzgaan,
kawalan dz-In pengeflalluan mereka uan setemsnya. meveka mengedar
dadzh l:rsuhu| Psngediran bo\eh omuknkan dengan kelerangan
langsung berdasarkan (alsvan pengedaran m bawzh seksyen ZADB alau
anggapan m nawan seksyen :7 (Ha)
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
mm smm ...n nrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII munc pm
Dsdah aaaran yangterssnaralA11./adus/Psnama man sepsmmsna
yang dkisfinastkan drbawah ADE
[24] Jems dan hava| dadzh lalah msaman dan d\'buk|vkan dan
kanarangan SP5 nan Laporan Kmua yam dwsedxskan‘ we sebauawmsna
dalam Denudnhnn Ianu Isms cannams aeran berslh 394216 gram,
Mllmgynme beral bevsm 1950 ml dan Melhamphetamme beral bevsih
2A.34 gram.
[251 Peguam kedua—dua |erIuduh bemulah nanawa vaMa\an xemnaan
harang Res lelah (emulus can wujud pevcanggahan xewangan sm
dengan Vapalarflzpcrzn polls yang dlkemukakan an Dzwza Paguam
mancadangkan bahawa pasnkan serbuan max (ems hergerik xe urn
Iatapl raven melakuxm use (3) semuan lam mlempm yang herasmgan
[251 Jug: mmuankan hanawa uaaa kelsrangan flan manadnana saksl
mengenm keberadzan dadah yang dlrampzs dan duamskan ianya da\am
kawaxan din ngaan sxapa pada mass serbuan ax Iakau lam auaxuxan,
[27] Oleh karana vsnandaan dan nmaangan masm bemm aubuan
semasa semusn amuan :1! ma Vokasl Lam mu, make mmalan kelerangan
barang kes man lerpmus Kegzgalan inn mewmudkan kelurnpangan
dalzm kas Fandakwaan dan mancalar kredvblw saksv pendskwaan
[23] Pzda penngk ' , m hadapall say: adalah kanamgan dan asks:
pandakwian yang mana max mauuukan Ida kemungkman mernpunyal
max yang Izaak havk alau mom unmk mengenakan mana—mana lenuduh
men an, saya menanma xeaevangan meveka sehagal hensr dsn
kcnsmen Cadangan Deguam fluengenaw kemungklnan lerpulusnya
ranman kelerangan harang kes semalamzla wmudnnya serbuan rain,
setakal ml mzsih Ixdak meflmaskan Dembukuan pad: |ah=p nrrma ram
syn xacaaouux wwm/am
«ma am nun nrwm be used m mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm vu .mm v-vrm
[221 Make selakat penllalan says hevdasarkan ke|erzngan szksi
pendakwaan. says dapzm selelah dadah dwampas aleh svu, (andaan
amuse dw pegabzu nalkulwk kemudlan dxserahkan kepada pegawai
penymsan, spa yang selarusnya menghamar hsrang kes unluk '
oleh arm kvma. svs,
ahia
[an] Barang kas yang same: man mswmpan a. star penywmpanan barang
us sahlngga dwkemukakan ke mahkamah pad: nan pemcman (nquk
kss Gunnlan Ramlchzndrln v PF (2004; 5 cm 551 — - the cham of
swdsnce IS mats rmponarvl for Ms penhd /mm ms hme afrecovety mm
me camprsoan nflhs analysis by the charms! ';
131} Make dengan nu, saya mandapan bahawa ranlalan kelerangan
barang kes max lerpulus dan pmax pendakwaan man heqaya
memhukukzn slemen jams dan beral dadzh sebagaimana ds\sm
psrluduhan (mmxan ma dmuzt menglkul kes smnnz-mmul Guam y.
FP[1u1l] 1 on N din Su Ah Ping 1/. pp [1579] 1 ms ma)
Permltkan tsmadap man
[321 Eerkail kepsrman memnuknxan rarmmn pemmkan, pmak
pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan ketevangan bahawa kedua-dua
Aemduh mempunyal kawa\an aiau .agaan sena psngelanuan (emang
dadah yang dwjumpav (hhal kss emu Fun Leon v. PP[1955] MLJ 231).
Mahkamah dalam kes Chan Pun Loan Augie man memuluskan bahawa
“ a person rs smd to be m possessrun :1! a (mug fl hs has the power an
den! wnn u as the owner :9 the axe/usmn ofell othel pursans -
[33] Maksud "cusmdy", "cnmrol" and “pos:essxon" Kelah mmncangkan
flalam kes Leaw Nghu Lrm v Red [1555] 1 mm, yang mane mpenx
swam benkul.
N xacaaouux wwm/am
um smm Illfl nrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
‘Custody means ha»/my car: ovguardwansmp‘ goods -n cuswdy an m m. cam
at me cusludmn and.|1y neressary <n\D‘Ica\\nu us xa new cars or mm on
hehill m wmnom aka Ya: mm um an m gums Imhsss ycm knmr were
they Ire and have me mans ovexatmima emu: war mm Cuflhw lhevefom
Imvhes knmdadgl um. .m...=. am wmvubmm -mus gmd: and pm-e<
nrcunlmr uvermam‘ nMamnun1m9 In Poisasnnn
comm muslbeprwedixa Vanaltdwlmuitavwsafirnmlhamhnun mmapaum
us me quads. Ineiflocnve er mm may am muluband
Fvabilflythe mos! mam demnmon any-uumn up
'Yhe|e1aIzcn at a peach he athmg mmmr. he nuyll N) p\Iuum axamue
nut‘)! mm: :5 me am my o! In: my «mus, nu ma axduslon at ulnev
verso... “
Ymxdafimnun dues n-1| expvess. Inn Man my mum meaning oflhewotfl
Include: sums .:.mm m knmdudga
A mm mun kmzw 9412‘: exwslence no . unmet ma have same men at us
vmereuboms were he can exams: my comm! mar m m mum wsxeqsmn
mmay. xmphu same knawtedwe hm nmnecessavfly mu orex:¢l><nu»Med9¢'
[:41 Mervsena. Dembukhan pengecanuan, Mahkamzh Pusekuluzn
dalam kes pm." bin Damn V Public Pruuculur (zoos) 1 cu 717
memuluskan bahawa e\amelI psngecanuan bow: «mm can mm Jan
kasimplflan vaxna Pallkan yang dwmjuk mm sapem benkm
-vmmmxmueagus very emu a mmmnnream The mmm ham wma»
llyl Waranna mkncw/ludge an be dniwn meumm use Incase Hwculfl us
suffirierfl for me alusanmon In wave lacks mm mu. m eumd Dmpeny be
mm lhzl mu anuned am he mamry krmw\ed9E'
[351 Rmgkasnya‘ mm
pemlhknya unluk bemmsan dengan dadah dsngan mengecuallkan akses
"pemwkan' menquk kepada keupayaan
m
sm muaouuxuuwwwuwuvakn
mm. smm Illfl IVWW .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
| 4,147 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
KB-12B-1-01/2021 | PERAYU ROSNIZA BINTI MOHAMAD RESPONDEN HALIJAH BINTI ABD MANSOR (Ibu yang sah mendakwa sebagai seorang tanggungan dan benefisiari harta pusaka Mohammad Hafizan Bin Abd Rahim (simati) dan mewakili semua orang tanggungan Hafizan Bin Abd Rahim (simati) iaitu Halijah Binti Abd Mansor) | Civil Appeal — Road accident — Liability and quantum — Sessions Court Judge held found parties equally liable for the accident and apportioned liability at 50% each. Awarded damages — general damages, pre and post trial nursing care and lost of income with 2.5% interest. Dismissed claim for loss of prospect of marriage. Whether trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ in decision on liability and quantum | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c1e3795b-e415-457d-9b22-30afa420f32e&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 10:06:33
KB-12B-1-01/2021 Kand. 77
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
xa—12a-1-01/2021 Kand. 77
:9/11/2023 mum:
muul MANKAMAN mam mun an suNaAI vsmu
mum usszm Kenna mam. mm, MALAYSIA
nvum am. no xa ma 1-m/2021
mum
Rusmu awn MONAMAD ..PERAvu
um
NALIJAH amn Aan muses:
am: my uh m...m.w. mu,;.. uoraug unwunuan
din nmnmn hm: pnsiki Mohimmld um... hm And mm. mmam
um mewnklln mm. arlnfi unggungxn Hallnn bln Al-n1 fiahlm mm-m
mm naman nnm Ann Mania!) .. xasvounsu
um
mum MAMKAMAH mean uuuu or suucm vs-um
unwa ususm KEDAH DARUL mm, muvsu
mvum sum NO. Ks-as-2.n1r2n21
mum
mum awn Aan Mmsok
mm yum uh mumlxkwn nhagxl uorinq langgungan
.1.» n....mma nan: pusaka Menammnd mun" bln Alzd Rzhlm ¢..m.m
am mevukin mm. mung Alnggungln Hanan an AM Rahml (simuhl
um. Halljah mml Ab! Manson ...wsmwu
mu
Rosulu awn MOHAMAD ..RE5PONDEN
§)3oUNns or JUDGEMENT
lnlmduclion
1
rev cenvenlence, pames WIII be referved I0 is may were In the
Kullm Sessions Cour!
Muhammad l-lallxan bln Abd Ramm (Plalnm) wmmarlced a
chill sul| agalrlst Rusnlza bmu Mohamad (Defendant) in me
Kullm Sesslarls coun was Sun Nd ASSKJ-93-05/2017
On 18122020‘ aller careful consldereuan dl ma evlderlce
adduced m we lull trial, lne learned Sessions Conn Judge (SCJ)
found me Plalnlflf and Delendanl equally llable for ma accldenl
and appunlanad llabllfly al sm/, each The reamed SCJ
awarded damages lun 100% Iiablllfy) lncludmg ~
(i) general damages —
(a) skull lrac1ure~lefl lempmal bone RM§0,l)Ofl no,
0)) brim Injury lsevere lraumalld
hraln lnjurylstludural lnlunesl RM12D,GDO on.
14:; eremeclamy, cranloplasly as
lvacneuslomy RMSQODU on
(d) malor neurccognnme dlsmdel
wlm behavinural dlslurbance Rmauoco on
less 10% «or uverlapplng
Total M :leo.ouo.n0l
The Defendant’: sunmluionx
33 The callnsels submlssmrls can be sllmlnanzed as lallmvs The
counsel look lsslle wilrl ma apporllonmanl or hablmy an me
gmunds man the Defendant‘: VEISIDVI ol the acclllenl was
inherenw more probable lnal me Plalnmfs
34 Fllmlerane challenged lne learned SCJ's declslan on me awavd
val lass ol eamlngs as he lallea In splll lna award an actual pre—
lnal less and lulllre loss |n|er=s| al 2 5-/. Shuuld only anacn lo
plelnal loss and nol lulllla less and lelenecl ma calm la
Mlllladza hm Mghgmgg Hassarl v Chang Sweep Plan 1950 1
Mu N64 Hnaenl Zcserl Rohln Dockyald me Ltd v Lee Pul
Keng 5 Anal 1933 2 MLJ 413 and Jaafar sllaan ll. slll Jame
Haamln v. Tan LIQ Pang 8. Anor 1997 4 CL ggg
as The callnsel clled several aulhnlllies lo suppan nev conlenllan
mall the award lor general damages was exoeaslue In 7lgh| 01
me lam lnal me Plalnlm passed away to years and 2 months
alter ma aclzldenl, llle Delendam asks lor me genelal damages
|o be reduced by 80%
Privlcinlu govomlng Ippuls
:5 ll ls lnle man we Court, as an zppeHa|e calm, uughl nut to
llllewene wi|h me llial calm‘: cnncluslorl on pmnary lads
unless ll I3 sihsfiefl [he lllal judge was plalnly wrung Based on
lnls ‘plainly wvorlg Ies|‘. an appellale court IS anlllled la examlne
37
me Droness at evaluanan 01 emenoe by me mar noun and may
se( asme any demsmn an we ma: caun mm no or msummem
Judlmal apprecuamon ol the ewdenoe
m Gan Yuck chm P 3 Ana: v Lee mg Chm @ Lee Teak sang
& Ors 2005 2 MLJ 1. Steve Shim CJSS held aI1fl—
‘V71 nurvzw‘ on Cam auppea: m cmng mm cases has demy bum: m
mind um um: «um-aovappexnane mlewenuon. lam delemwv: whrlhuv
av mu 0:: mil wun nan amved at uls deusmn nr lmdlng cnnv:1\y an 015
pm ov me re‘:-vanl Law and/at me .:1.nm.a wwdeiwe m so uomq. lhe
cmm aupmmas pmcny svlllllad In mrammeme pmessevemuauon
M m. amdsnw Iry (nu ma wun Cleany, me Muse ‘insumdenl ,u.max
awvaclallmi ac evwdenee‘ merely velmed m such 1 Drama This m
Mfecled m the Dunn of Aanenrs lesmemenl mac . mag. who was
requhe-1 Ia um-mama noun . amt. must amve al ms «mm on n»
mus ul ml by usssulng, wwghlng and‘ IN gm veawns. enher
accaplmg urlupwlw ms move or any pen name evrdence pllued mm.
mm TheConnorfiapealmrlherlellzmled(henrmuu\:uenInI1oappel\a(e
mlarvsnllun‘ we man a aemsm amved n by . mar cmm mm: mama!
apnvecnalmn at m. Evidence mlnm n. m me. on appeal. ms Vs
nmmsleniwim m. uhbllxhad plawmy menu new
(559 UEM Group ahg v Qgnisfi Imgransu Englneevs F'|e Ltd
4. Mar 2010 MLJU 2225‘ Ng Hgu 5 ug Anov v Wendy Tan
L§§ Eeng admmislmrrx [or me estate of Tan Ewe Kwang
Plamtm A on 2020 12 MLJ s7 a| at mg Hao Kim, 2
ZuWendibmAnuarv Mohd Shalvllbln Abdurkanman 2022 4
ML! 592 at 900,731; Se an sun Bhd v. Penoaumr Tanah
33
39
AD
Daerah Hulu Langat 5. Andr And AnalherA2gea| m2: 3 M
795 at 502 2023 ecu 269)
This coun must be mindM mac me mal .udge would have had
me denem and advantage olseeing and neanng me wnnesses
and had me uvhonumly to assess men demezrmur espemally
during class examina|ion The max Judge is enlrusled with me
(ask av svimatmg and appvawslng meneuidenoe as a whwe
Tm: caun \s only caHed upon to examme one meal courrs
prncess a! evaluanon ol evidence and appneenun dc waw m
arriving al me decision
The ma n ssues my this court‘: flelermmalmn m these appeals
are —
(9 on me issue of Mammy, wnemev me scu mad sumcwenl
iudmlal appvecxandn oi the evudenoe adduced behxrz her
when she concluded lha| the P\aInW and Defendanl were
equauy name lor the aocudenc, and
my on me Issue at quannum, whemev the so: was guided by
was guuded by me rewssd compendium lar personal irwry
awards and me trend in awarding damages
Analysls ma findings
uabillly
41. In llls gmllnds or judgment, the learned sc.l evalualed me
evidence MSPI, llle Plalnml allalrle nelellaam abuutlhslramc
llgllls He also examlned |he sketch plan and the pulse leporls
lndaed by both names.
42 ll was NS nmllllg lllal mere were 2 cnnfllcfing mslarls 0! how
|he accldenttock Place ln llls gwullas aljuagmam, ms lealllea
SCJ nela lllal llle vlalllml and the Delelldalll were equally liable
lol me accluelll holdmg lllal —
'MlhkArI\-lh IVVI leml mane“! his urlfllflg-Llflfllriy btvkznin al ma-la
lnmapfl all. vim yig bameza call rrlihkamih mal lnellelllllxan
irapikarl my lawn cual dalam m Mg Alk Klin 5 Anal V sla Lnh 513
ml 2 cu sllgg 213 dl mm Abdul Millk lshak J (and: mus: lull u.
dalam membual keplmlsln mellymlml seperll bIVIkuI—
nl. vanld VIVSIDIVI um. icclderll flwen by lhe Dimes HENHI have
waived Inch doum me: "Hi oourl ls Unable la aelemlllle ml:
Nspefllve muse M DIIIVIEWDVIMVIEII ol. me hula‘ Ind fill lll.
bnlanne Mnvahnbllmes. l I! lllsl lllllmumle m Ippurllbll ms nlanle
Th: bellvu the use, (he Chufl can only now lnal both ale equally |o
hlzma
Oleh yam flemlklill llu Mahknmah llll lreleluslwl lmllllllmll am
lmlmlgml xemmgllallall bihlwi mllnl kamlllflglll ml aloanamka-l
ml. ml. al lnlim l>l.lmalu.ll uala..llal.-
sm wz~wlzxl.luwallcwcu.l»;
-ml. s.ll.l ...m.l MU ». um law may m. mlfllnlflly MW; a...l..l «. AFVLING NM!
43
ms Cmm was mwndful ov Ihal m Ng Hoo Km (supm)w11ere\n
me Federal cuun exwalned M117
‘me’ ly wmna‘ «an n upousea m dssmeni M We mun shauld be
mmn-d as . Nnxlbk gmuaaav appeuaue cams Aslmu 31 me ml |udge‘x
conduslnn can be supponed an 1 VI n.u bum: m mew M «n. Malina!
ewdenue. the vm lhal me ivnelhla wullilslx Mk: n rmyhl have semen
dflaranfly n. mI\wIn| ‘H 90:51 words, a lmdmg Miacl Ihal would ncl be
mpuulunt m summon ssnn mm not In be mslurhed we mu! Judy:
should be awovded a margin 0! awvecmmn when hr: Ilaallmsm m we
evidence Vs eummed by lhe ivneflirg cam‘: -
ms Cowl finds that the learned su adapted the nghl
appmacn In aexarnumng Mammy Fvom the ewuenoe presemed
by mm parlies, n ‘S clear |haI me SCJ had caremuy cnnsmrsa
their lsslrmony and mac nflhe sllenlevidenoe adduced m own
He drew me proper conclusions and was correct to non: that me
pames were equaHyl1able (or me acumen:
mun mm of damigt
A6
For an appea\ on quantum‘ il Is Ins|mclNe to reiev m the
fouowing cases —
(u Lmmana Really sun and QUOS 1 MLJ 675013 Cowl (by
refernng ca me case aiTan Kuan Vau v
Suhmdnmam 1985 1cLJ42a), I1e|d—
'rn- prmmpln ma: cumd gmde «ms mun Vn delevmmma whe1hevv|
smmm Intaeneve wnn me uuanmn. eldammes is crysul clear Whal
ls
sm wzrvwnxnvuwaucvvtuxva
-we sum ruvmnv Mu e. um he may he .ngn.n-y mm; annnmnl «. muus bum
\s also clear Vs Iml much depend: nu ma uvcumsfizncls av 5:57:
an, m pllllculll lhu amounl av (ht mm m a pimculav use
ltvevsiovs n Vs my the awsm mm cu EnlE1fleYWhe1HeVInlh91I9NM
me cvvwmslinues annax case Iheve Vs an evranews eslimme elm:
amnunl at me damage in mm am. menu was In urmssmn on my
nan M ma Judge In mnam sun: rewvzm malnvms av he had
admlllld Var purpucu u! mm-nam some melevanl <>ens\deraHons
w Ina oaun Vs simfrad or convinced lhal lhe mine has med upcn
wrenv nnmmes Mlaw than u 3 jusimed wn lzverxmg, maaaa n u ma
may Io vmvse me «name at In Iml Judge -, and
Pang Ah Ghee v Chong Kwee Sang was 1 MLJ
m wherein Naslum Venn Sam FJ (Ia|erCJ (Malayan held
-n vs howevev um been sellied um wherz . max mdgu rm Had m
me “d\ne.(\an av hem! ma generous‘ mu wnuld nm by Ilsaflmnslllma
n rnnngv m be -navel! hum (Pllung um Smng mm Co a Anor v
Cnumvu Swan Kim &Anor) m wnwma a. sawmm ua v Lack um
Lot Gm FJ (as he man was» exmamea me pnndme aleany when he
saw
me fienem nnmnie a Im an Ippwate cnun can only
wmedele win In ...a......m .1 u 15 mnsmamd muvdlnalely law
a. movdmilely man as |o make the court e><cIa\m_ ‘emu
swam we man the sum wma. has been awar\1ed—IIu|sum
must be auaraaz or n a In much am :11 Vmuwnh m.a..a.n..a».,
trendav paaam mam. ‘.. reunnably campanma causihal
:1 must he reglldnd .. . man, :m:nawsetlImale'
m ind! uslssmenl lmmn ienernfly an-we mum luv mamauan
chmce |o anwe a| a nu am masanablg «we am! (he eppeuane com
.5 arms s\ow m revels: me ma! wages decmon on such
asseeemem unless there In sum gvmmds lor uuenereuea The
Fedalal Cmm mKak Kee Lenu v Yams: am Nguk Chm a.
Amv lnuamng Lord Wnghfs Judgmenl m Powell numyu Ame-euea
cameuee ma at page: $1b~E17:g:wulrvssedll1aln not encuah max
lhevelnn bamnce uvuuuuen mwalavence -rneseaxe muslaodawn
helvflylgllrlsl me «we enema me anpeflne euun u lnmlarhm
meme. on ma gmuna av excess or Vnsulhcwency “
(a) Nvad miuriu
47 For me memmre head uuuries (skim fracture‘ brain uuury,
cvamedamy and cmuoplisly uacneesmmy mam
neurocngnmve disorder), me learned so; conemerea me
vaviuus medical venom me quantum Mdamages awarded m
me aumunnes cued by me pemee am me Rewsed
compenmum of Personal Injury Awards 2015 He alee
considered me e\emen( ui uvenappung
as He uemiseu the quamum ov damages vm each head av mjury
and sumraaeu ma/um euenapping. The award Mdamageslur
me Plavnmrs head Imury was RM aammo no
49 m me pvesem appeax, the "wry susuamea Dy me Plamm
emanated «mm me Iruury lo the head. The trial judge was
cunect no make an auowanee var cverlappmg.
em wzrvwnxmuwaucvvtnxva
-mu. sum rumhnv Mu e. um law may he ungmuly MW; dnunvmnl «. muue mm
50
(pl
52.
53
This court is not persuaded by Ihe Defendanfs argument man
me award was excessive or that VI snouid be reduced by 80%
because me Plaintifl‘ died wixnin 7 rnanms or me dale o1
iuagrnerri
The evldanee cieariy shows that Piainim iwea with the lriuma
and ailer euecrs at me accident ior over 10 years and mar rris
everyday me was impacted tn a iarge exrerri There is no valid
reason to reduee xrris amnunt and raid that me sum awarded
iergenerai damzg be maintained wiinaui deducnen iordeam
of me Pierniifl.
Prospecu onnarrrage
The Piainmr was amund 21 years old around me nme or me
accident Born me Piainmrs parents Ieslmed that me Plainflfl
had a girirnend named syannaz nui that she no iongerinsiied
rum siier me aocldenl No ewdence was led «rum rne Piarnmi
an dns issue
The learned scu disaiiawed me eiaim rar loss 0! prospeci of
marriage because me ciairn was unsubstantiated by any pmol
er the Piarniirrs grrirnend named syarrnaz
55
It I3 leasonahle lei an awaid under (hls head dl damages IO be
made The accident impacled the Plainiilrs social me and his
pmspeds dlnhdiiig a parlner This cduii awards RM 15,000 on
lor lliis Van Mung Kuah Kay v. Rnhalxad oihiiiaii 5. Aiioi
Malls Perbandafan midi aahiu Terlgah a Anni Thiiu gay 3
Aiioi case 2011 MLJU1S4fl
lh resped oi the claim ldr less or eamlrlgs, lhe leamed SCJ
awarded the ehiiie salary dl RM seo no per month willioui and
ueduclioiis oi ihe Plainziirs own upkeep and personal
expenses He did hm ieduee ihe amduiii to lake mid
cahsiaeialioh ihe possinilily oi marriage and «he subsequent
ieduaiaii iii Suppml lai ihe paieiiis/depeiidaiiis He also
amxed llie iiiuniplier al 16 years.
The counsel‘; arguiiieril lhai lhis awam should be iiiaiiilairiea
ioime period oi is years is irialiohal and would carlsIlIu|e uhlusl
enrichment This awaid should be varied id lake ihio account
his aealh and remain lei me Plaihlivrs lilelima posl-acciaehl
which IS 122 mdnihs
(c) Pu-m-1 nursing em.
57 For pls-ma! nursmg care‘ the learned SCJ awarded RM sou no
Der mon(hior|15 months
5: The Plemnm was physically ebleco care Oor mmaerr alben ne was
smrwer He was under ms parenl’5 care urml nis umimely
dermse The amount Is rsasonal-Me and «ms Cami Vs not
Darsuaded Ina: me reamed SCJ erred In this award r
59. As agreed by pamasr nms award Is mm nursmg care and
wmpuxed var a lurmer 7 monms
(-1) /nltruts
so me learned SCJ affixed InI.eres1 on (he award 0! damages var
nuvsmg cave and loss or luluve eavmngs at 25% on me
relsomng man —
'M:hkimlh .m tzernendnnn mu (izdah . .a.:.n m bawlh hudlbmlla
Manxaman umuk menentukan baramkadavlaedah yana Delludnetapkan
am. mam: any: ndak me\eb<m 5-/. saw meruluk Kenafla Avahan
Amman Kenn Hmm Negam an r Ynhun2012 Amman Peueumnn Kidir
Bung: a. hlwlh Knednrv~K.ned:n Mahkzmih 2:712 a. mm: pad: 1
panflapat fly: zmhan lzrxabm rm... marmapkzn mum ram kanuar
«man semeiurlyi nada kadav 5% telapx ra mamben saw panduan
1Eu\de\me) bahawa sekwinya Mahkamah mm menelankln sesunu 1
kadar «man. mawma kadar yam hams dnbeflkan admah mink Vebm
dznpada 5%‘ lm .a.:.r. kemnl aeaamm xdany: mm Max." Kain:
2::
sm wzrvwfixmuwaucvvtuxw
"Mane sum rumhnv Mu e. um a may he nflmnnuly mm dnauvmnl «. muus mm
4.
my pve—Iria\ nuusmg care at RM son on per monm (or 115
manlhs m the sum at RM 57.500 00 win mxerest 212 5%
[mm da|e nl acmdenx xo date anuagmenn
nu) pasnnal musing care sl RM 2500 on pev mum» far 515
months m Ihe sum 01 RM 1 29 mflllcn wllhuut Interest
(xv) Vcss ulmcnme a( RM 9eu.vJu pev mnnlh lav ts years wuh
mares: at 2 5% «mm da|e cl awaent to date onudgmem
The clam hr lass nl prospect a! mimage was dwsmxssed
The Flamml appeaxed against the whale M the demslon vlde
Appeal No KB—12B—2—D1/2021 (F/Appeal) whereas the
Detenaam cvossed-appealed on me Issue :7! nammy [D/Crass
Appeau The Delendanl also appealed against me same
decision on quantum me Appeal No K5425!-1-01/2021
[D/Appeal)
The Plamlifl passed away on 7 1 2m lrom dvssemwnated
pulmonary I-mercmasus and me cause papers m me Pmppeal
weve amended on 25.4.2023 to reuen man ms mnlher stepped
mm ms shoes m carry on me appeax.
Ham Negava Iersebm, kadar mm mm. Max semis din
kebanyikannya melsunm 5-/. (nan: uamnya wa dnelzpkan paamaams
mam. many. Amun Amman mumxu
Sun: xemwnmya, sly: berpendapll Mihkamah mamplmyzv
hudlblcala unluk m-nlmukan kzdav «mar. Iehgl man: warvyi wax
me\ebIm 5% dan -fleh nu kadav z 5-» my lelan dwelapkan m dalam kes
ms .u.x.>. wlmdnn munnhah “
61 The Practice Dwremo ' quesnon is as vollaws —
AIANADA uuuuq uswmmu usmu -nu mun mm
mm» psuacrum um»: auum
:2: man ousnuuusnm ummuw am
and mm». ..,....u..-. my «mum mm: -y- m h-an
Mm-1 M In-dun am An... 42‘ us.» 12. mm. «a mm
«mm 424‘ 4.. mm «. mm. x.a.m<..m. mm
2n12‘IIy--suvvinlninmbirmlmtun-vlmmu uw.nm..m...
pm-xu.a...an.am.p.a...a.ms..«.n.4..
2. Aaunmuvutmbibumummamnilonn-2012,
mu. ..
52 The wardmg 91 me Practise mrecmon ls dear - wnn ewea «am
1 5 2012‘ vmevesi is amxea at 5% pev annum The sea was
wrong In mm max me Practice Dwecnon gave mm me dlscvelmn
Io amx me mleresl me on damages as Vang as in am nun exeeea
5%
sm wzmwfixwwawycvvtuxw
-W. sum IHIHDIV wm be um law may m. mwgmuly mm anuumnl m mm wvm
Docixion
53
The touawmg IS thus Courfs daemon —
(U
(mi
(N)
VI PlAppea|(KB-12Br2rU1l2021), the Ptamtnrs appear and
the D/Crass Appeat on liahtltly are msmtssea and me
leavned SCJ's decistun dated 18122021 an ' htlfly is
z"‘""m1
in P/Appeat (KBa12B—2—U1/2021)‘ the Ptatnmrs appeat on
quantum ta iHuwed H1 Dan and the teamed SCJ's deciston
on quantum daled 13 12 2020 rs varied as tattuws —
(I) toss ai praspeus cl msmage— RM ts,aoo,oa;
tn) interest on mtrsmg care and loss 0! Mute earmngs ts
affixsd at 5% per annum tram aate at accment to date
ciludmrtenlt
m P/Aweal (KE—I2B—2—D1/2021), the Ptamms appeat on
quantum for pretnat numng care at RM son on It
atsmtaeeu but the penod at compumian 0! this award IS
vaned lo 122 mantns by cnnsenl al parties‘
in D/Aapeal(KE—12E1fi1l2fl21),(he Defendant‘: appeat
on quanlum for general damages ts dlslmssed and me
learned SCJ‘s dectston dated 13 12 2020 ts a'filVVIBdt
22
lvl m nlAppeal (l<a—12a—1—oll2a2l7, me De(endan|‘s appeal
an qllanlum for posnnal nurslng care ls alluwed by
consenl and me whole swam ls sea iildfil
(w) In D/Appeal (K3423-1101/2021)‘ ma Defendanfs appeal
on one qllamum (hr loss ol lulure eammgs pl RM 950 no
per month for 16 years IS allawaa VI pan and me learned
SCJ‘s declllon ls varled so lhal me camplnanon lot less
nHu|uIe ea 5 IS limlled In 122 months‘ and
(vu) «ms Caun makes nu order as lo costs
Dated 7 November 2023
Narkunavalh u zlesun
Juulalal cammisslonev
Hlgh calm Malaya at Sungal Felanl
For me Appellant
Kamalawam alp Ravychindrm
Messrs P R Manescbsha & Assocledes
Legal 3, Tamallns House‘ No Axe‘ Weld Quay, lnauo Geovge Town,
Panann
23
For the Respondenl
Nur Fadmlah mnu Aztlan ‘
Messrs Jega Kumar 4; Farmers
Na 15 s. 20, Ja\an Se\al, Taman SeIa(. 12000 Buuerwonn Pmau
Pinany
2»
Dunng lne course ol Ina hearing cl all ma appeals‘ panles
agreed lnal lne award lar posl-lnal nuralng care al RM 2.500 00
per nmnln lor 516 munms in ma sum al lwl 1 29 mlllldn wllhoul
lnlerasl be $91 aalde In place, pallles agveed lhal ma post
judgment perlud ol 1 months altar whlch ma Plalnlm passed
away he lakmg ln|a apcdum VI lna award tar prs«lna| rlurslllg
care
Afler carelul donalderallon anne cause papels and me wnllen
and ural submlssions al counsel‘ [ms Court declded Ia —
(il in resped pl P/Appeal — dlsmlss Plamlilfs appeal and
Delandanrs cmssappeal on llablllly, and allow ln pan
Plalnlllra appaal an quanhml and dlsmlss lne alher
grnunds‘ and
(ii) in respect at D/Appeal — allow pan dl ma appeal on
quanlum by consent and dlsmlss lne others grounds on
appeal on quantum
(a) allow Appeals la and 11 an lizblhry
The lellowlng are me gmunds in! the declslon
The appeal:
10
in
H
In lne amended memorandum clappeal, lne Plalnllfl laok issue
with me SCJ‘s declslan an the grounds lnal he erred in «am and
law in —
(i) apponlonlng equal Ilabllily for me accident;
(HI lailing la award damages ior loss 01 prdspeal oi mamagc,
(nu) allowing a law quanlunr or damages «or pre—lrial nursing
cater and
(iv) only allawlng an 2 5% mlenssl on prelrlal nursing care
and loss of Mule mccme
The lzelendanrs cnallengelc inc sews decision on Ilabllily was
lnal ne erred in lacl and law In appcmnnlng liability He lalled
to curlsuier lne enurety di lne evidence adduced and conclude
lnal zne Plainilii lalled lo prove his claim on a balance oi
oronanliluea
The Deiendam also took issue mm lne computancn ol
damages lol loss oi lncdme and conlended lnal me 50.1‘:
award lor damages was manllestly excesslve and nor in line
with ma dlscelnlble lrend :2! awards In reasonably comparable
cases
Proceedings in me sessions Conn
Lrnmmy
12
13
14
15
The Plarrmvrs Meaded case was (hat me acmdenl wmoh luck
mace on 175.2011 at eon am ar me Tamar: Merak cross
gunman wmcn had nremc ngms The Plamlm was nding
momrcyde beanng vegvstvauon nu PJP e457 (Mmorcyde) and
meDefendanIwasdnvmg carbeanng regrsnrauon nu FJH e795
(Car) They came from apposite mrecnons
when |he Plawnwcamelu(helra1l1cl|gMs,me|rghIs were gveen
and ed he turned nghl The uevendam who came from me
oppusne arrecmdn and not pay heed |D me traffic Irgms and
knocked mm As a Iesuh e1 me a<:c1dsnl,|he Plamlm srmered
sennus Inyunss and wodees
The Prarnm was only awe to cesury me: me (ram: ngms were
green when he (urned ngh( and met me Defendanl was dommg
vrem me dppasne dlrezmnn He could not rememner much else
The Defendant‘: pleaded demos and draw ewdende was man
me Iraffic lights were green in her lavcuv She could nut avmd
me Plamlm we came from me oppasrre drreenan and suddemy
mmed ngm
we
17.
15
SP1 was nne invesllgaflng nmcer. He confirmed that me tram:
ligms were workmg and than when are rrgms were green (av one
d1rec||L7n, the hghts were red «or me remammg Ihree due Inns
That meant when me hgms were green nremc Ham that
uireczrorr could go srmgnc or turn lefi or right aceorerngry
He a\so connrnrea me: the hgms cuuld not be green cor xramc
«mm 2 dmerem dwec Ions bur he was unabve to aesrsnne cam
as Io In whose lavuur me tram: lights were green at me ume oi
me acudenr
There were nu other mdependenl wrtnesses ro me accmenl.
OI:-Imum orderneges
19.
2o
The Prarrrwr. case consis|ed or 17 erherwnnessee on «he reeue
cl damages The Prarrmrre parents‘ nelghbmns and menus
teslmed enem me P\airmff's cenarrion and eermy In work post
the awdanl
To suhslanllate me dawn (or damages. evraence wee wee tram
5 medntal provessionele had examined rne Wainnfl and
prepared med|ca\ repmls on his condmon
The Defendant oounrerea wrrn evmenee «ram 4 nreaiear
prmeeerenere who rrxewrse had erernmed me F\a|nml and
prepared vepmls
22 There was a dnverenee .n npiman regarding me sevenly of me
P¥a|nIWf's neurucogniuve dxsordsr. II was cnnlended |hzI u was
rnapr «hue requiring me P\aimIW k: be maced In a payemamc
many.
23 The madman wnneaeea lor the P|am|iflIes1medlhifhe aunered
lmm pasuvaumauc amnesxa aa a resuu of being unconscious
for 10 days muawung me acmdenl ms caused cagnmve and
memory umnawnem and reduced ms auermun and
cnnoentvalmn He was a\so slum In reasonmg and verbal
fluency skulls
24. The oevendanrs wllnesses lestrfied that me P\aIntM's cognmve
unpanrnems mvalved mgner cogmuve «unenan abumy bu! he
could am: carry um daily ng scnvinea rney pointed in ms
abmly to carry and umme dnmeslu: aewuea and co nde a
mommyde ms huwever. dud not mvmve mm returning «u we
iormer empmymem as a Valmmer In a chicken pracesslng
famnry
25 Each Dames a\so led evidence about me cast 01 en-pwoymg a
lureign caregwer and me costs mvuwefl m renammauon from
pnvals and gavemmenn teams and PERKESO.
am wzrvwnxmuwaucvvtnxva
-mu. sum rumhnv wm ». um e may he nun.“-y wnwa flnumnnl m muws Mn
Proceeding: In the High court
rne Plaintiff’: submissions
23
27
25
The z:nunse|'s snbmissmns can be summanzefl as kmaws The
Plamm took Issue wun me zppumnnmenl nl liahnlny an me
gmunds |hal me leamed sou {sued to consider that -
0) ma Walntxfl cenusxenuy mamlalned that me name lights
were green in ms favour,
(ii) the discvelaanci in me nevenaanrs evmenoe;
om ner demeinour wmsl gwlng evidence‘ and
my me execcn wan and me damages cu me Defendant‘; ca!
On me Issue of quantum nu loss :2! pmspea ol mamage, the
counsel relelred lo sevem nutnonnas wherem the quanlum
undev this head was beiween RM 10,000 on — RM 30000 00
on me wssue of quanhlm lo! me-«nan nursmg care‘ the caunsel
argued |ha| u was low and .e1ened cu aulhnri|ies wherewn lhe
quantum undev this head was neuween RM <‘5uo.no » RM
moo on pev manm
29
30.
32
The counsel also argued max me awald lur loss of lulura
eammgs should be relalrlefl desplle lne Plalnms death
‘ma counsel relerred lo me clueuusllde cl Ma|aysia‘5 Praalee
Dlreclien Mel el 2012 uetermlnanen dl lnlenasl Rale under
Order 42 Rule 12 al lne Rules el Cmlrl zmz (Circular No.
1s5r2m2) max avllxed me lmarasl rale «or damages at 5% per
annum wulr eifed lmm 1 32012. He argued mal lna learned
50¢ larled to comply wllh lne sald dlIel:|iL7n wilh he awarded
lnleresl lnr lne pre—lnal rlulslrlg care and loss arlulure earnmgs
at 2.5%
The daunsel argued lnal me Delendanvs appeal lo raduca ma
general damages by 50% was nel ralsed m me memorandum
el appeal and lnerelore should be releclad by me Court He
clled me lollowlng eases [<7 euppan NE argumenl —
U) Malaysla Land Progemes sdn Bhd v waldnms wmdosor
JcirltManagemenl Body mm 5 Cu 621 alaas, and
(ill Jon sang Tradlrlg Co v Cnmmeraal lmguners and
Dismbulars Sdn BM 2007 7:2 CLJZS alzs.
The counsel also clled cases In sudpon ms argumenl llral |he
general damage: should mu be reduoed anly because me
Plamml nassed away wllmn 7 monlns dl lne rudgrnenl
| 3,153 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
KB-12B-1-01/2021 | PERAYU ROSNIZA BINTI MOHAMAD RESPONDEN HALIJAH BINTI ABD MANSOR (Ibu yang sah mendakwa sebagai seorang tanggungan dan benefisiari harta pusaka Mohammad Hafizan Bin Abd Rahim (simati) dan mewakili semua orang tanggungan Hafizan Bin Abd Rahim (simati) iaitu Halijah Binti Abd Mansor) | Civil Appeal — Road accident — Liability and quantum — Sessions Court Judge held found parties equally liable for the accident and apportioned liability at 50% each. Awarded damages — general damages, pre and post trial nursing care and lost of income with 2.5% interest. Dismissed claim for loss of prospect of marriage. Whether trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ in decision on liability and quantum | 09/11/2023 | YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c1e3795b-e415-457d-9b22-30afa420f32e&Inline=true |
09/11/2023 10:06:33
KB-12B-1-01/2021 Kand. 77
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N W3njwRXkfUWbIjCvpCDzLg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
xa—12a-1-01/2021 Kand. 77
:9/11/2023 mum:
muul MANKAMAN mam mun an suNaAI vsmu
mum usszm Kenna mam. mm, MALAYSIA
nvum am. no xa ma 1-m/2021
mum
Rusmu awn MONAMAD ..PERAvu
um
NALIJAH amn Aan muses:
am: my uh m...m.w. mu,;.. uoraug unwunuan
din nmnmn hm: pnsiki Mohimmld um... hm And mm. mmam
um mewnklln mm. arlnfi unggungxn Hallnn bln Al-n1 fiahlm mm-m
mm naman nnm Ann Mania!) .. xasvounsu
um
mum MAMKAMAH mean uuuu or suucm vs-um
unwa ususm KEDAH DARUL mm, muvsu
mvum sum NO. Ks-as-2.n1r2n21
mum
mum awn Aan Mmsok
mm yum uh mumlxkwn nhagxl uorinq langgungan
.1.» n....mma nan: pusaka Menammnd mun" bln Alzd Rzhlm ¢..m.m
am mevukin mm. mung Alnggungln Hanan an AM Rahml (simuhl
um. Halljah mml Ab! Manson ...wsmwu
mu
Rosulu awn MOHAMAD ..RE5PONDEN
§)3oUNns or JUDGEMENT
lnlmduclion
1
rev cenvenlence, pames WIII be referved I0 is may were In the
Kullm Sessions Cour!
Muhammad l-lallxan bln Abd Ramm (Plalnm) wmmarlced a
chill sul| agalrlst Rusnlza bmu Mohamad (Defendant) in me
Kullm Sesslarls coun was Sun Nd ASSKJ-93-05/2017
On 18122020‘ aller careful consldereuan dl ma evlderlce
adduced m we lull trial, lne learned Sessions Conn Judge (SCJ)
found me Plalnlflf and Delendanl equally llable for ma accldenl
and appunlanad llabllfly al sm/, each The reamed SCJ
awarded damages lun 100% Iiablllfy) lncludmg ~
(i) general damages —
(a) skull lrac1ure~lefl lempmal bone RM§0,l)Ofl no,
0)) brim Injury lsevere lraumalld
hraln lnjurylstludural lnlunesl RM12D,GDO on.
14:; eremeclamy, cranloplasly as
lvacneuslomy RMSQODU on
(d) malor neurccognnme dlsmdel
wlm behavinural dlslurbance Rmauoco on
less 10% «or uverlapplng
Total M :leo.ouo.n0l
The Defendant’: sunmluionx
33 The callnsels submlssmrls can be sllmlnanzed as lallmvs The
counsel look lsslle wilrl ma apporllonmanl or hablmy an me
gmunds man the Defendant‘: VEISIDVI ol the acclllenl was
inherenw more probable lnal me Plalnmfs
34 Fllmlerane challenged lne learned SCJ's declslan on me awavd
val lass ol eamlngs as he lallea In splll lna award an actual pre—
lnal less and lulllre loss |n|er=s| al 2 5-/. Shuuld only anacn lo
plelnal loss and nol lulllla less and lelenecl ma calm la
Mlllladza hm Mghgmgg Hassarl v Chang Sweep Plan 1950 1
Mu N64 Hnaenl Zcserl Rohln Dockyald me Ltd v Lee Pul
Keng 5 Anal 1933 2 MLJ 413 and Jaafar sllaan ll. slll Jame
Haamln v. Tan LIQ Pang 8. Anor 1997 4 CL ggg
as The callnsel clled several aulhnlllies lo suppan nev conlenllan
mall the award lor general damages was exoeaslue In 7lgh| 01
me lam lnal me Plalnlm passed away to years and 2 months
alter ma aclzldenl, llle Delendam asks lor me genelal damages
|o be reduced by 80%
Privlcinlu govomlng Ippuls
:5 ll ls lnle man we Court, as an zppeHa|e calm, uughl nut to
llllewene wi|h me llial calm‘: cnncluslorl on pmnary lads
unless ll I3 sihsfiefl [he lllal judge was plalnly wrung Based on
lnls ‘plainly wvorlg Ies|‘. an appellale court IS anlllled la examlne
37
me Droness at evaluanan 01 emenoe by me mar noun and may
se( asme any demsmn an we ma: caun mm no or msummem
Judlmal apprecuamon ol the ewdenoe
m Gan Yuck chm P 3 Ana: v Lee mg Chm @ Lee Teak sang
& Ors 2005 2 MLJ 1. Steve Shim CJSS held aI1fl—
‘V71 nurvzw‘ on Cam auppea: m cmng mm cases has demy bum: m
mind um um: «um-aovappexnane mlewenuon. lam delemwv: whrlhuv
av mu 0:: mil wun nan amved at uls deusmn nr lmdlng cnnv:1\y an 015
pm ov me re‘:-vanl Law and/at me .:1.nm.a wwdeiwe m so uomq. lhe
cmm aupmmas pmcny svlllllad In mrammeme pmessevemuauon
M m. amdsnw Iry (nu ma wun Cleany, me Muse ‘insumdenl ,u.max
awvaclallmi ac evwdenee‘ merely velmed m such 1 Drama This m
Mfecled m the Dunn of Aanenrs lesmemenl mac . mag. who was
requhe-1 Ia um-mama noun . amt. must amve al ms «mm on n»
mus ul ml by usssulng, wwghlng and‘ IN gm veawns. enher
accaplmg urlupwlw ms move or any pen name evrdence pllued mm.
mm TheConnorfiapealmrlherlellzmled(henrmuu\:uenInI1oappel\a(e
mlarvsnllun‘ we man a aemsm amved n by . mar cmm mm: mama!
apnvecnalmn at m. Evidence mlnm n. m me. on appeal. ms Vs
nmmsleniwim m. uhbllxhad plawmy menu new
(559 UEM Group ahg v Qgnisfi Imgransu Englneevs F'|e Ltd
4. Mar 2010 MLJU 2225‘ Ng Hgu 5 ug Anov v Wendy Tan
L§§ Eeng admmislmrrx [or me estate of Tan Ewe Kwang
Plamtm A on 2020 12 MLJ s7 a| at mg Hao Kim, 2
ZuWendibmAnuarv Mohd Shalvllbln Abdurkanman 2022 4
ML! 592 at 900,731; Se an sun Bhd v. Penoaumr Tanah
33
39
AD
Daerah Hulu Langat 5. Andr And AnalherA2gea| m2: 3 M
795 at 502 2023 ecu 269)
This coun must be mindM mac me mal .udge would have had
me denem and advantage olseeing and neanng me wnnesses
and had me uvhonumly to assess men demezrmur espemally
during class examina|ion The max Judge is enlrusled with me
(ask av svimatmg and appvawslng meneuidenoe as a whwe
Tm: caun \s only caHed upon to examme one meal courrs
prncess a! evaluanon ol evidence and appneenun dc waw m
arriving al me decision
The ma n ssues my this court‘: flelermmalmn m these appeals
are —
(9 on me issue of Mammy, wnemev me scu mad sumcwenl
iudmlal appvecxandn oi the evudenoe adduced behxrz her
when she concluded lha| the P\aInW and Defendanl were
equauy name lor the aocudenc, and
my on me Issue at quannum, whemev the so: was guided by
was guuded by me rewssd compendium lar personal irwry
awards and me trend in awarding damages
Analysls ma findings
uabillly
41. In llls gmllnds or judgment, the learned sc.l evalualed me
evidence MSPI, llle Plalnml allalrle nelellaam abuutlhslramc
llgllls He also examlned |he sketch plan and the pulse leporls
lndaed by both names.
42 ll was NS nmllllg lllal mere were 2 cnnfllcfing mslarls 0! how
|he accldenttock Place ln llls gwullas aljuagmam, ms lealllea
SCJ nela lllal llle vlalllml and the Delelldalll were equally liable
lol me accluelll holdmg lllal —
'MlhkArI\-lh IVVI leml mane“! his urlfllflg-Llflfllriy btvkznin al ma-la
lnmapfl all. vim yig bameza call rrlihkamih mal lnellelllllxan
irapikarl my lawn cual dalam m Mg Alk Klin 5 Anal V sla Lnh 513
ml 2 cu sllgg 213 dl mm Abdul Millk lshak J (and: mus: lull u.
dalam membual keplmlsln mellymlml seperll bIVIkuI—
nl. vanld VIVSIDIVI um. icclderll flwen by lhe Dimes HENHI have
waived Inch doum me: "Hi oourl ls Unable la aelemlllle ml:
Nspefllve muse M DIIIVIEWDVIMVIEII ol. me hula‘ Ind fill lll.
bnlanne Mnvahnbllmes. l I! lllsl lllllmumle m Ippurllbll ms nlanle
Th: bellvu the use, (he Chufl can only now lnal both ale equally |o
hlzma
Oleh yam flemlklill llu Mahknmah llll lreleluslwl lmllllllmll am
lmlmlgml xemmgllallall bihlwi mllnl kamlllflglll ml aloanamka-l
ml. ml. al lnlim l>l.lmalu.ll uala..llal.-
sm wz~wlzxl.luwallcwcu.l»;
-ml. s.ll.l ...m.l MU ». um law may m. mlfllnlflly MW; a...l..l «. AFVLING NM!
43
ms Cmm was mwndful ov Ihal m Ng Hoo Km (supm)w11ere\n
me Federal cuun exwalned M117
‘me’ ly wmna‘ «an n upousea m dssmeni M We mun shauld be
mmn-d as . Nnxlbk gmuaaav appeuaue cams Aslmu 31 me ml |udge‘x
conduslnn can be supponed an 1 VI n.u bum: m mew M «n. Malina!
ewdenue. the vm lhal me ivnelhla wullilslx Mk: n rmyhl have semen
dflaranfly n. mI\wIn| ‘H 90:51 words, a lmdmg Miacl Ihal would ncl be
mpuulunt m summon ssnn mm not In be mslurhed we mu! Judy:
should be awovded a margin 0! awvecmmn when hr: Ilaallmsm m we
evidence Vs eummed by lhe ivneflirg cam‘: -
ms Cowl finds that the learned su adapted the nghl
appmacn In aexarnumng Mammy Fvom the ewuenoe presemed
by mm parlies, n ‘S clear |haI me SCJ had caremuy cnnsmrsa
their lsslrmony and mac nflhe sllenlevidenoe adduced m own
He drew me proper conclusions and was correct to non: that me
pames were equaHyl1able (or me acumen:
mun mm of damigt
A6
For an appea\ on quantum‘ il Is Ins|mclNe to reiev m the
fouowing cases —
(u Lmmana Really sun and QUOS 1 MLJ 675013 Cowl (by
refernng ca me case aiTan Kuan Vau v
Suhmdnmam 1985 1cLJ42a), I1e|d—
'rn- prmmpln ma: cumd gmde «ms mun Vn delevmmma whe1hevv|
smmm Intaeneve wnn me uuanmn. eldammes is crysul clear Whal
ls
sm wzrvwnxnvuwaucvvtuxva
-we sum ruvmnv Mu e. um he may he .ngn.n-y mm; annnmnl «. muus bum
\s also clear Vs Iml much depend: nu ma uvcumsfizncls av 5:57:
an, m pllllculll lhu amounl av (ht mm m a pimculav use
ltvevsiovs n Vs my the awsm mm cu EnlE1fleYWhe1HeVInlh91I9NM
me cvvwmslinues annax case Iheve Vs an evranews eslimme elm:
amnunl at me damage in mm am. menu was In urmssmn on my
nan M ma Judge In mnam sun: rewvzm malnvms av he had
admlllld Var purpucu u! mm-nam some melevanl <>ens\deraHons
w Ina oaun Vs simfrad or convinced lhal lhe mine has med upcn
wrenv nnmmes Mlaw than u 3 jusimed wn lzverxmg, maaaa n u ma
may Io vmvse me «name at In Iml Judge -, and
Pang Ah Ghee v Chong Kwee Sang was 1 MLJ
m wherein Naslum Venn Sam FJ (Ia|erCJ (Malayan held
-n vs howevev um been sellied um wherz . max mdgu rm Had m
me “d\ne.(\an av hem! ma generous‘ mu wnuld nm by Ilsaflmnslllma
n rnnngv m be -navel! hum (Pllung um Smng mm Co a Anor v
Cnumvu Swan Kim &Anor) m wnwma a. sawmm ua v Lack um
Lot Gm FJ (as he man was» exmamea me pnndme aleany when he
saw
me fienem nnmnie a Im an Ippwate cnun can only
wmedele win In ...a......m .1 u 15 mnsmamd muvdlnalely law
a. movdmilely man as |o make the court e><cIa\m_ ‘emu
swam we man the sum wma. has been awar\1ed—IIu|sum
must be auaraaz or n a In much am :11 Vmuwnh m.a..a.n..a».,
trendav paaam mam. ‘.. reunnably campanma causihal
:1 must he reglldnd .. . man, :m:nawsetlImale'
m ind! uslssmenl lmmn ienernfly an-we mum luv mamauan
chmce |o anwe a| a nu am masanablg «we am! (he eppeuane com
.5 arms s\ow m revels: me ma! wages decmon on such
asseeemem unless there In sum gvmmds lor uuenereuea The
Fedalal Cmm mKak Kee Lenu v Yams: am Nguk Chm a.
Amv lnuamng Lord Wnghfs Judgmenl m Powell numyu Ame-euea
cameuee ma at page: $1b~E17:g:wulrvssedll1aln not encuah max
lhevelnn bamnce uvuuuuen mwalavence -rneseaxe muslaodawn
helvflylgllrlsl me «we enema me anpeflne euun u lnmlarhm
meme. on ma gmuna av excess or Vnsulhcwency “
(a) Nvad miuriu
47 For me memmre head uuuries (skim fracture‘ brain uuury,
cvamedamy and cmuoplisly uacneesmmy mam
neurocngnmve disorder), me learned so; conemerea me
vaviuus medical venom me quantum Mdamages awarded m
me aumunnes cued by me pemee am me Rewsed
compenmum of Personal Injury Awards 2015 He alee
considered me e\emen( ui uvenappung
as He uemiseu the quamum ov damages vm each head av mjury
and sumraaeu ma/um euenapping. The award Mdamageslur
me Plavnmrs head Imury was RM aammo no
49 m me pvesem appeax, the "wry susuamea Dy me Plamm
emanated «mm me Iruury lo the head. The trial judge was
cunect no make an auowanee var cverlappmg.
em wzrvwnxmuwaucvvtnxva
-mu. sum rumhnv Mu e. um law may he ungmuly MW; dnunvmnl «. muue mm
50
(pl
52.
53
This court is not persuaded by Ihe Defendanfs argument man
me award was excessive or that VI snouid be reduced by 80%
because me Plaintifl‘ died wixnin 7 rnanms or me dale o1
iuagrnerri
The evldanee cieariy shows that Piainim iwea with the lriuma
and ailer euecrs at me accident ior over 10 years and mar rris
everyday me was impacted tn a iarge exrerri There is no valid
reason to reduee xrris amnunt and raid that me sum awarded
iergenerai damzg be maintained wiinaui deducnen iordeam
of me Pierniifl.
Prospecu onnarrrage
The Piainmr was amund 21 years old around me nme or me
accident Born me Piainmrs parents Ieslmed that me Plainflfl
had a girirnend named syannaz nui that she no iongerinsiied
rum siier me aocldenl No ewdence was led «rum rne Piarnmi
an dns issue
The learned scu disaiiawed me eiaim rar loss 0! prospeci of
marriage because me ciairn was unsubstantiated by any pmol
er the Piarniirrs grrirnend named syarrnaz
55
It I3 leasonahle lei an awaid under (hls head dl damages IO be
made The accident impacled the Plainiilrs social me and his
pmspeds dlnhdiiig a parlner This cduii awards RM 15,000 on
lor lliis Van Mung Kuah Kay v. Rnhalxad oihiiiaii 5. Aiioi
Malls Perbandafan midi aahiu Terlgah a Anni Thiiu gay 3
Aiioi case 2011 MLJU1S4fl
lh resped oi the claim ldr less or eamlrlgs, lhe leamed SCJ
awarded the ehiiie salary dl RM seo no per month willioui and
ueduclioiis oi ihe Plainziirs own upkeep and personal
expenses He did hm ieduee ihe amduiii to lake mid
cahsiaeialioh ihe possinilily oi marriage and «he subsequent
ieduaiaii iii Suppml lai ihe paieiiis/depeiidaiiis He also
amxed llie iiiuniplier al 16 years.
The counsel‘; arguiiieril lhai lhis awam should be iiiaiiilairiea
ioime period oi is years is irialiohal and would carlsIlIu|e uhlusl
enrichment This awaid should be varied id lake ihio account
his aealh and remain lei me Plaihlivrs lilelima posl-acciaehl
which IS 122 mdnihs
(c) Pu-m-1 nursing em.
57 For pls-ma! nursmg care‘ the learned SCJ awarded RM sou no
Der mon(hior|15 months
5: The Plemnm was physically ebleco care Oor mmaerr alben ne was
smrwer He was under ms parenl’5 care urml nis umimely
dermse The amount Is rsasonal-Me and «ms Cami Vs not
Darsuaded Ina: me reamed SCJ erred In this award r
59. As agreed by pamasr nms award Is mm nursmg care and
wmpuxed var a lurmer 7 monms
(-1) /nltruts
so me learned SCJ affixed InI.eres1 on (he award 0! damages var
nuvsmg cave and loss or luluve eavmngs at 25% on me
relsomng man —
'M:hkimlh .m tzernendnnn mu (izdah . .a.:.n m bawlh hudlbmlla
Manxaman umuk menentukan baramkadavlaedah yana Delludnetapkan
am. mam: any: ndak me\eb<m 5-/. saw meruluk Kenafla Avahan
Amman Kenn Hmm Negam an r Ynhun2012 Amman Peueumnn Kidir
Bung: a. hlwlh Knednrv~K.ned:n Mahkzmih 2:712 a. mm: pad: 1
panflapat fly: zmhan lzrxabm rm... marmapkzn mum ram kanuar
«man semeiurlyi nada kadav 5% telapx ra mamben saw panduan
1Eu\de\me) bahawa sekwinya Mahkamah mm menelankln sesunu 1
kadar «man. mawma kadar yam hams dnbeflkan admah mink Vebm
dznpada 5%‘ lm .a.:.r. kemnl aeaamm xdany: mm Max." Kain:
2::
sm wzrvwfixmuwaucvvtuxw
"Mane sum rumhnv Mu e. um a may he nflmnnuly mm dnauvmnl «. muus mm
4.
my pve—Iria\ nuusmg care at RM son on per monm (or 115
manlhs m the sum at RM 57.500 00 win mxerest 212 5%
[mm da|e nl acmdenx xo date anuagmenn
nu) pasnnal musing care sl RM 2500 on pev mum» far 515
months m Ihe sum 01 RM 1 29 mflllcn wllhuut Interest
(xv) Vcss ulmcnme a( RM 9eu.vJu pev mnnlh lav ts years wuh
mares: at 2 5% «mm da|e cl awaent to date onudgmem
The clam hr lass nl prospect a! mimage was dwsmxssed
The Flamml appeaxed against the whale M the demslon vlde
Appeal No KB—12B—2—D1/2021 (F/Appeal) whereas the
Detenaam cvossed-appealed on me Issue :7! nammy [D/Crass
Appeau The Delendanl also appealed against me same
decision on quantum me Appeal No K5425!-1-01/2021
[D/Appeal)
The Plamlifl passed away on 7 1 2m lrom dvssemwnated
pulmonary I-mercmasus and me cause papers m me Pmppeal
weve amended on 25.4.2023 to reuen man ms mnlher stepped
mm ms shoes m carry on me appeax.
Ham Negava Iersebm, kadar mm mm. Max semis din
kebanyikannya melsunm 5-/. (nan: uamnya wa dnelzpkan paamaams
mam. many. Amun Amman mumxu
Sun: xemwnmya, sly: berpendapll Mihkamah mamplmyzv
hudlblcala unluk m-nlmukan kzdav «mar. Iehgl man: warvyi wax
me\ebIm 5% dan -fleh nu kadav z 5-» my lelan dwelapkan m dalam kes
ms .u.x.>. wlmdnn munnhah “
61 The Practice Dwremo ' quesnon is as vollaws —
AIANADA uuuuq uswmmu usmu -nu mun mm
mm» psuacrum um»: auum
:2: man ousnuuusnm ummuw am
and mm». ..,....u..-. my «mum mm: -y- m h-an
Mm-1 M In-dun am An... 42‘ us.» 12. mm. «a mm
«mm 424‘ 4.. mm «. mm. x.a.m<..m. mm
2n12‘IIy--suvvinlninmbirmlmtun-vlmmu uw.nm..m...
pm-xu.a...an.am.p.a...a.ms..«.n.4..
2. Aaunmuvutmbibumummamnilonn-2012,
mu. ..
52 The wardmg 91 me Practise mrecmon ls dear - wnn ewea «am
1 5 2012‘ vmevesi is amxea at 5% pev annum The sea was
wrong In mm max me Practice Dwecnon gave mm me dlscvelmn
Io amx me mleresl me on damages as Vang as in am nun exeeea
5%
sm wzmwfixwwawycvvtuxw
-W. sum IHIHDIV wm be um law may m. mwgmuly mm anuumnl m mm wvm
Docixion
53
The touawmg IS thus Courfs daemon —
(U
(mi
(N)
VI PlAppea|(KB-12Br2rU1l2021), the Ptamtnrs appear and
the D/Crass Appeat on liahtltly are msmtssea and me
leavned SCJ's decistun dated 18122021 an ' htlfly is
z"‘""m1
in P/Appeat (KBa12B—2—U1/2021)‘ the Ptatnmrs appeat on
quantum ta iHuwed H1 Dan and the teamed SCJ's deciston
on quantum daled 13 12 2020 rs varied as tattuws —
(I) toss ai praspeus cl msmage— RM ts,aoo,oa;
tn) interest on mtrsmg care and loss 0! Mute earmngs ts
affixsd at 5% per annum tram aate at accment to date
ciludmrtenlt
m P/Aweal (KE—I2B—2—D1/2021), the Ptamms appeat on
quantum for pretnat numng care at RM son on It
atsmtaeeu but the penod at compumian 0! this award IS
vaned lo 122 mantns by cnnsenl al parties‘
in D/Aapeal(KE—12E1fi1l2fl21),(he Defendant‘: appeat
on quanlum for general damages ts dlslmssed and me
learned SCJ‘s dectston dated 13 12 2020 ts a'filVVIBdt
22
lvl m nlAppeal (l<a—12a—1—oll2a2l7, me De(endan|‘s appeal
an qllanlum for posnnal nurslng care ls alluwed by
consenl and me whole swam ls sea iildfil
(w) In D/Appeal (K3423-1101/2021)‘ ma Defendanfs appeal
on one qllamum (hr loss ol lulure eammgs pl RM 950 no
per month for 16 years IS allawaa VI pan and me learned
SCJ‘s declllon ls varled so lhal me camplnanon lot less
nHu|uIe ea 5 IS limlled In 122 months‘ and
(vu) «ms Caun makes nu order as lo costs
Dated 7 November 2023
Narkunavalh u zlesun
Juulalal cammisslonev
Hlgh calm Malaya at Sungal Felanl
For me Appellant
Kamalawam alp Ravychindrm
Messrs P R Manescbsha & Assocledes
Legal 3, Tamallns House‘ No Axe‘ Weld Quay, lnauo Geovge Town,
Panann
23
For the Respondenl
Nur Fadmlah mnu Aztlan ‘
Messrs Jega Kumar 4; Farmers
Na 15 s. 20, Ja\an Se\al, Taman SeIa(. 12000 Buuerwonn Pmau
Pinany
2»
Dunng lne course ol Ina hearing cl all ma appeals‘ panles
agreed lnal lne award lar posl-lnal nuralng care al RM 2.500 00
per nmnln lor 516 munms in ma sum al lwl 1 29 mlllldn wllhoul
lnlerasl be $91 aalde In place, pallles agveed lhal ma post
judgment perlud ol 1 months altar whlch ma Plalnlm passed
away he lakmg ln|a apcdum VI lna award tar prs«lna| rlurslllg
care
Afler carelul donalderallon anne cause papels and me wnllen
and ural submlssions al counsel‘ [ms Court declded Ia —
(il in resped pl P/Appeal — dlsmlss Plamlilfs appeal and
Delandanrs cmssappeal on llablllly, and allow ln pan
Plalnlllra appaal an quanhml and dlsmlss lne alher
grnunds‘ and
(ii) in respect at D/Appeal — allow pan dl ma appeal on
quanlum by consent and dlsmlss lne others grounds on
appeal on quantum
(a) allow Appeals la and 11 an lizblhry
The lellowlng are me gmunds in! the declslon
The appeal:
10
in
H
In lne amended memorandum clappeal, lne Plalnllfl laok issue
with me SCJ‘s declslan an the grounds lnal he erred in «am and
law in —
(i) apponlonlng equal Ilabllily for me accident;
(HI lailing la award damages ior loss 01 prdspeal oi mamagc,
(nu) allowing a law quanlunr or damages «or pre—lrial nursing
cater and
(iv) only allawlng an 2 5% mlenssl on prelrlal nursing care
and loss of Mule mccme
The lzelendanrs cnallengelc inc sews decision on Ilabllily was
lnal ne erred in lacl and law In appcmnnlng liability He lalled
to curlsuier lne enurety di lne evidence adduced and conclude
lnal zne Plainilii lalled lo prove his claim on a balance oi
oronanliluea
The Deiendam also took issue mm lne computancn ol
damages lol loss oi lncdme and conlended lnal me 50.1‘:
award lor damages was manllestly excesslve and nor in line
with ma dlscelnlble lrend :2! awards In reasonably comparable
cases
Proceedings in me sessions Conn
Lrnmmy
12
13
14
15
The Plarrmvrs Meaded case was (hat me acmdenl wmoh luck
mace on 175.2011 at eon am ar me Tamar: Merak cross
gunman wmcn had nremc ngms The Plamlm was nding
momrcyde beanng vegvstvauon nu PJP e457 (Mmorcyde) and
meDefendanIwasdnvmg carbeanng regrsnrauon nu FJH e795
(Car) They came from apposite mrecnons
when |he Plawnwcamelu(helra1l1cl|gMs,me|rghIs were gveen
and ed he turned nghl The uevendam who came from me
oppusne arrecmdn and not pay heed |D me traffic Irgms and
knocked mm As a Iesuh e1 me a<:c1dsnl,|he Plamlm srmered
sennus Inyunss and wodees
The Prarnm was only awe to cesury me: me (ram: ngms were
green when he (urned ngh( and met me Defendanl was dommg
vrem me dppasne dlrezmnn He could not rememner much else
The Defendant‘: pleaded demos and draw ewdende was man
me Iraffic lights were green in her lavcuv She could nut avmd
me Plamlm we came from me oppasrre drreenan and suddemy
mmed ngm
we
17.
15
SP1 was nne invesllgaflng nmcer. He confirmed that me tram:
ligms were workmg and than when are rrgms were green (av one
d1rec||L7n, the hghts were red «or me remammg Ihree due Inns
That meant when me hgms were green nremc Ham that
uireczrorr could go srmgnc or turn lefi or right aceorerngry
He a\so connrnrea me: the hgms cuuld not be green cor xramc
«mm 2 dmerem dwec Ions bur he was unabve to aesrsnne cam
as Io In whose lavuur me tram: lights were green at me ume oi
me acudenr
There were nu other mdependenl wrtnesses ro me accmenl.
OI:-Imum orderneges
19.
2o
The Prarrrwr. case consis|ed or 17 erherwnnessee on «he reeue
cl damages The Prarrmrre parents‘ nelghbmns and menus
teslmed enem me P\airmff's cenarrion and eermy In work post
the awdanl
To suhslanllate me dawn (or damages. evraence wee wee tram
5 medntal provessionele had examined rne Wainnfl and
prepared med|ca\ repmls on his condmon
The Defendant oounrerea wrrn evmenee «ram 4 nreaiear
prmeeerenere who rrxewrse had erernmed me F\a|nml and
prepared vepmls
22 There was a dnverenee .n npiman regarding me sevenly of me
P¥a|nIWf's neurucogniuve dxsordsr. II was cnnlended |hzI u was
rnapr «hue requiring me P\aimIW k: be maced In a payemamc
many.
23 The madman wnneaeea lor the P|am|iflIes1medlhifhe aunered
lmm pasuvaumauc amnesxa aa a resuu of being unconscious
for 10 days muawung me acmdenl ms caused cagnmve and
memory umnawnem and reduced ms auermun and
cnnoentvalmn He was a\so slum In reasonmg and verbal
fluency skulls
24. The oevendanrs wllnesses lestrfied that me P\aIntM's cognmve
unpanrnems mvalved mgner cogmuve «unenan abumy bu! he
could am: carry um daily ng scnvinea rney pointed in ms
abmly to carry and umme dnmeslu: aewuea and co nde a
mommyde ms huwever. dud not mvmve mm returning «u we
iormer empmymem as a Valmmer In a chicken pracesslng
famnry
25 Each Dames a\so led evidence about me cast 01 en-pwoymg a
lureign caregwer and me costs mvuwefl m renammauon from
pnvals and gavemmenn teams and PERKESO.
am wzrvwnxmuwaucvvtnxva
-mu. sum rumhnv wm ». um e may he nun.“-y wnwa flnumnnl m muws Mn
Proceeding: In the High court
rne Plaintiff’: submissions
23
27
25
The z:nunse|'s snbmissmns can be summanzefl as kmaws The
Plamm took Issue wun me zppumnnmenl nl liahnlny an me
gmunds |hal me leamed sou {sued to consider that -
0) ma Walntxfl cenusxenuy mamlalned that me name lights
were green in ms favour,
(ii) the discvelaanci in me nevenaanrs evmenoe;
om ner demeinour wmsl gwlng evidence‘ and
my me execcn wan and me damages cu me Defendant‘; ca!
On me Issue of quantum nu loss :2! pmspea ol mamage, the
counsel relelred lo sevem nutnonnas wherem the quanlum
undev this head was beiween RM 10,000 on — RM 30000 00
on me wssue of quanhlm lo! me-«nan nursmg care‘ the caunsel
argued |ha| u was low and .e1ened cu aulhnri|ies wherewn lhe
quantum undev this head was neuween RM <‘5uo.no » RM
moo on pev manm
29
30.
32
The counsel also argued max me awald lur loss of lulura
eammgs should be relalrlefl desplle lne Plalnms death
‘ma counsel relerred lo me clueuusllde cl Ma|aysia‘5 Praalee
Dlreclien Mel el 2012 uetermlnanen dl lnlenasl Rale under
Order 42 Rule 12 al lne Rules el Cmlrl zmz (Circular No.
1s5r2m2) max avllxed me lmarasl rale «or damages at 5% per
annum wulr eifed lmm 1 32012. He argued mal lna learned
50¢ larled to comply wllh lne sald dlIel:|iL7n wilh he awarded
lnleresl lnr lne pre—lnal rlulslrlg care and loss arlulure earnmgs
at 2.5%
The daunsel argued lnal me Delendanvs appeal lo raduca ma
general damages by 50% was nel ralsed m me memorandum
el appeal and lnerelore should be releclad by me Court He
clled me lollowlng eases [<7 euppan NE argumenl —
U) Malaysla Land Progemes sdn Bhd v waldnms wmdosor
JcirltManagemenl Body mm 5 Cu 621 alaas, and
(ill Jon sang Tradlrlg Co v Cnmmeraal lmguners and
Dismbulars Sdn BM 2007 7:2 CLJZS alzs.
The counsel also clled cases In sudpon ms argumenl llral |he
general damage: should mu be reduoed anly because me
Plamml nassed away wllmn 7 monlns dl lne rudgrnenl
| 3,153 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-21NCVC-49-04/2017 | PLAINTIF BUSINESS LEAP (M) BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) PESURUHJAYA TANAH PERSEKUTUAN 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia | (i) The plaintiff is seeking a declaration over an alleged concluded SPA, that has not been executed by the parties over the sale of a parcel of land belonging to the Federal Government of Malaysia, registered under the Federal Land Commissioner (D1) name. (ii) No SPA was executed(iii) The defendants pleaded that there is no legal basis or cause of action. (iv) On 29.08.2023, after trial, I find no merits in the plaintiff's case and dismissed it with costs of RM40,000.00 to be paid within 30 days and the earnest deposit is forfeited. | 08/11/2023 | YA Puan Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=db459450-1743-48ca-af40-49f281747b87&Inline=true |
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR 5
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA
CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-21NCVC-49-04/2017
BETWEEN
10
BUSINESS LEAP (M) SDN BHD
(Company No.: 358283 -K) …PLAINTIF
AND
1 FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER 15
2 MINISTER OF FINANCE MALAYSIA
3 GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA … DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT 20
(Enclosure 1)
INTRODUCTION
[1] The parties in this suit are as follows:
(i) The Plaintiff (P) is a duly incorporated Malaysian company. 25
(ii) The First Defendant is the Federal Land Commissioner (D1), a
statutory body incorporated under the Federal Land Commissioner
Act 1957 that has been trusted with managing lands belonging to
the Government of Malaysia.
(iii) The Second Defendant (D2) is the Minister of Finance (MOF). 30
(iv) The Third Defendant (D3) is the Government of Malaysia
(Government).
The defendants will be collectively referred to as the defendants (the Ds).
35
08/11/2023 16:15:20
WA-21NCVC-49-04/2017 Kand. 132
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
2
[2] This action was taken:
2.1 By the plaintiff seeking a declaration over an alleged concluded Sale
and Purchase Agreement (SPA) that has not been executed by the
parties over the sale and purchase of a parcel of land belonging to 40
the Federal Government of Malaysia held under Grant 28935,
28935, Lot 523, Section 9, Kuala Lumpur, which was registered
under the D1’s name.
2.2 Without a contract (formal or otherwise) between the parties, the 45
defendants deny the claim grounded on the premise that there is no
legal basis or cause of action as a foundation for the action.
2.3 On 29.08.2023, after considering the facts, the totality of the
evidence adduced at the trial, and the parties' respective arguments, 50
I find no merits in the plaintiff's suit against the defendants and the
issue of damages do not arise from these facts. I dismissed it with a
cost of RM40,000.00 to be paid within 30 days. The Ds lawfully
forfeited the earnest deposit by the P.
55
2.4 Aggrieved, the P filed this appeal against my decision, and these
are my reasons:
BRIEF FACTS:
[3] Parties have filed agreed facts, and in narrating the brief facts, I will 60
also refer to a series of correspondences and documents available before
me. In examining the evidence at the trial for the P and the Ds, I found as
follows:
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
3
3.1 An allegation of a concluded SPA between the parties over a parcel 65
of leasehold land (Geran 28935, Lot 523, Section 9, Kuala Lumpur, 1.1
acres, with a restriction in interest: Tanah boleh dipajak atau digadai setelah
mendapat kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri) owned by the D3.
3.2 On 29.12.2011, the First Offer Letter (L.35, bundle B1, pg.1) for the 70
parcel of land by the Ds was formerly issued to the P subject to
agreed terms and conditions for a monetary consideration of
RM32,032m. It was decided that:
(a) A 2% earnest deposit of RM640,640.00 was required.
(b) 8% balance (RM2,562,560.00) to be paid upon executing the 75
Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA).
(c) 90% of the purchase price (RM28,828,800.00) is to be paid
before Form 14A NLC is executed by D1.
3.3 On 26.03.2012 (L.38, bundle B2, pp.3-4): 80
(a) P paid the 2% deposit (RM640,640.00) with the balance
purchase price to be paid by 15.12.2013, which was
acknowledged as an earnest deposit in a letter by D2 on
27.12.2012 and instructed that a SPA be drawn up for
execution. 85
(b) An extension of time (EOT) to pay the balance purchase price
was granted to 30.06.2014 at the P's insistence.
3.4 On 12.07.2013 (L.39, bundle B3, pp.26-27), D2, by letter, did not
object to the P’s conducting a soil investigation, survey plan and 90
permission to apply for a development order concerning the said
land at no cost to the Ds.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
4
3.5 Thereafter, the P discovered that the said land had been
encroached on by trespassers. In a meeting on 13.09.2013, the Ds 95
confirmed that necessary action would be taken to resolve it while
the agreed terms and conditions for the proposed SPA were being
ironed out.
3.6 The P agreed to terms imposed in the first letter of offer but wanted 100
the finalisation of the transaction to be completed only upon the
removal of the encroached concrete structure on the land. A
banker’s cheque for RM2,562,560 (8% of the balance deposit sum)
was drawn up and brought to a meeting on 5.5.2015 but was
declined by the Ds (Bundle B1, pg.296, para 2.1.4). 105
3.7 On 21.04.2012, the Ds asked the P to execute the SPA and were
reminded on 10.7.2014. The P was informed on 30.7.2015 that in
the event of failure by the P to conclude the transaction by
15.9.2015, the offer to purchase would be withdrawn automatically. 110
At the P’s request, a further EOT was granted to 15.12.2015.
3.8 On 20.04.2015 and 16.06.2015, P was informed that the sale of the
parcel of land was conditioned on an as-is-where-is basis.
115
3.9 On 22.4.2016, the Ds retracted the first offer letter and issued a
Second Offer Letter (L.35, bundle B1, pg.308) with the following
revised terms and conditions of sale for the said land:
(a) The purchase price is revised to RM50,336,000.00 based on
the current market valuation by Jabatan Penilaian dan 120
Perkhidmatan (JPPH).
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
5
(b) The P is given a six-month EOT beginning 15.12.2015 and
expiring on 14.06.2016 to conclude the transaction.
(c) The P is to make an additional payment of RM366,080.00 to
top up the 2% earnest deposit. 125
(d) The balance of the deposit (8%) amounting to RM4,026,880.00
upon the execution of the SPA.
(e) The balance purchase price of RM45,302,400.00 (90%) will be
made on or before 14.06.2016.
130
3.10 The P accepted the Second Offer Letter and paid the additional
2% earnest deposit on 11.05.2016. An EOT for paying the balance
purchase price of 90% was granted to 14.12.2016 (BL.35, bundle
B1, pg.311).
135
3.11 Throughout the period, the P kept asking for a further EOT to
conclude the transaction and also pleaded for the restoration of the
first offer price of RM32.032M, as reflected in the First Offer Letter
of 29.12.2011, which the Ds rejected.
140
3.12 The Ds continued to press the P to execute the SPA on (06.10.2016,
11.10.2016, 08.12.2016, 13.12.2016), but the plaintiff failed.
3.13 According to the P, the delay in concluding the SPA was occasioned
by the issue of the encroachment upon the said land. On 24.2.2014, 145
D2 confirmed the encroachment and agreed to assist the P to
resolve the issue (L.35, bundle B1, pg.222). On 10.07.2014, D2
confirmed that the encroachment had been removed (L.35, bundle
B1, pg.224).
150
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
6
3.14 On 14.07.2014 (L.35, bundle B1, pg.227), P informed D2 that steel
and fences had been removed, but the concrete structure remained
and requested a joint inspection of the said land:
(a) On 23.07.2014 (L.35, bundle B1, pg.229), D2 requested the P
to appoint a licensed surveyor to confirm the position of the 155
alleged concrete structure.
(b) On 06.02.2015, P wrote to D1 informing them that the SPA
cannot be finalised due to the encroachment issue and, at the
same time, requested D1 to execute the planning permission.
(c) On 20.04.2015 (L.35, bundle B1, pg.189), Ds informed the land 160
is sold on an as-is-where-is basis.
3.15 On 15.12.2016, the Ds unilaterally terminated the offer for the sale
of the said land on the basis that the P failed to execute the SPA
relating to the second offer letter and the failure to pay the 90% 165
balance purchase price (RM49,329,280.00) on or before
14.12.2016. The Ds forfeited the earnest deposit of
RM1,006,720.00.
3.16 On 28.04.2017, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the Ds for 170
a declaration that SPA between the parties was concluded and other
related prayers. In brief:
(a) A declaration that an agreement has been concluded between
the P and the Ds in which the Ds agreed to alienate and/or sell
a piece of land held under Grant 28935, Lot 523, Section 19, 175
Kuala Lumpur, to the P and the P had agreed to purchase the
said Land.
(b) A declaration that the letter dated 15.12.2016 issued by D2
informing that the Ds have withdrawn the offer is void and shall
not be applicable. 180
(c) A declaration that the first letter of offer issued by D2 is still valid
and in force.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
7
(d) A declaration that the offer by the Ds to the P for the sale of the
said Land does not contain any encroachment and/or any
foreign structures erected thereon. 185
(e) In the alternative, an order to demolish and/or remove any
encroachments remaining on the said Lan.
(f) The Ds is liable to pay the P a sum of RM7,627,255.42, being
the cost of expenses, damages and/or losses within 30 days
from the date of judgment. 190
(g) That the Ds do jointly and severally pay the P general damages
to be assessed by the Court.
(h) That the Ds shall bear the costs of this action.
(i) Interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing of
this action until full settlement, and 195
(j) Any further or other relief this Honourable Court deems fit and
proper.
3.17 The list of witnesses at the trial is as follows: -
(a) Plaintiff’s witnesses: 200
(i) PW1 Pang Yeow Choy (Solicitor for UOB Bank Berhad)
(ii) PW2 Choy Wai Cheong (P’s director)
(b) Defendants’ witnesses:
(i) SD1 Dato’ Romli bin Dai (Setiausaha Bahagian Pengurusan Aset 205
Awan Kerajaan)
(ii) SD2 Dato’ Sri Dr. Mohd Isa Hussain (Timbalan Ketua Setiausaha
Perbendaharan)
(iii) SD3 Dato’ Zainal Abidin bin Mat Nor
(Timbalan Setiausaha Bahagian Pengurusan Aset) 210
(iv) SD4 Sharifah Hamidah binti Syed Harun
(Ketua Penolong Setiausaha, Bahagian Pengurusan Aset Awam)
THE PLAINTIFF’s SUBMISSIONS
[4] I observed the P’s arguments in canvassing and ventilating their 215
position as follows:
4.1 The P argued that:
(a) There is already a concluded contract between the parties.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
8
(b) The SPA could not be finalised due to the unreasonable
conduct of the Ds. 220
(c) The P is seeking an order for specific performance of the
alleged concluded SPA and for damages.
4.2 The P argued that there is already a concluded contract based on
the first letter of offer where a 2% earnest deposit had been paid. 225
D2 had acknowledged receipt of the said earnest deposit on
27.12.2012 and agreed to sell the said land at the 1st purchase price
of RM32,032m. The P also argued that the P had also accepted the
second offer letter, where the additional earnest deposit was paid on
11.05.2016. 230
4.3 The P cited Sarah Sayeed Majangah (t/a a sole proprietor under
the name and style of Sayfol International School) & Anor v
Lembaga Getah Malaysia & Anor [2016] 3 MLJ, CA that the Court
will not permit a party who had subscribed to the terms to evade to 235
conclude the agreement for circuitous reasons. The P further argued
that it is a concluded contract or an open contract because of the
following circumstances:
(a) The SPA had been identified.
(b) The subject matter land had been identified. 240
(c) The 2% earnest deposit had been paid and received.
(d) The transaction is not subject to the execution of a formal SPA
and is enforceable by the P.
The P cited the Federal Court in Charles Grenier Sdn Bhd v Lau 245
Wing Hong [1996] 3 MLJ 327, FC, that the Court is in favour of
upholding bargains and not striking them down willy-nilly. The Court
of Appeal’s ruling in Emas Kiara Sdn Bhd v Michael Joseph
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
9
Monteiro & Ors [2018] 5 MLJ 54, CA that where the subject matter
and the terms had been identified, with the payment of the deposit, 250
it evinced an intention to create a legal intention by the parties.
4.4 The conduct of the D2 in allowing the P to submit for planning
approval, carry out the soil investigation and carry out a land survey,
as well as the P having already procured a conditional development 255
order for DBKL and having applied for financing from UOB Bank
Berhad for the purchase of the said land are testament to a
concluded bargain between the parties. The P cited Boustead
Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank
Berhad [1995] 3 MLJ 331, FC law on promissory estoppel is 260
applicable in the circumstances.
4.5 The P denies any alleged breach on its part, and the unilateral
termination by the Ds was unlawful:
(a) There is no evidence from the Ds that the P had agreed to pay 265
the increased purchase price stated in the second offer letter.
(b) The Ds unilaterally impose the revised purchase price in the
second offer letter.
(c) The second offer letter makes no provisions for the purported
termination of the said offer and cited Akitek Tenggara Sdn 270
Bhd v Mid Valley City Sdn Bhd [2007] 5 MLJ 687, FC that
found that the agreement between the parties did not provide
any express right to terminate. Therefore, it can only be
terminated on the grounds of breach or for just cause.
(d) Time was no longer the essence of the agreement, and there 275
are no provisions to make time the essence by the parties and
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
10
cited Damansara Realty Bhd v Bangsar Hill Holdings Sdn
Bhd & Anor [2011] 6 MLJ 464.
(e) Section 56(2) Contracts Act is clear that when time is no longer
essential, the contract does not become voidable by failure to 280
do things on or before the appointed time. The P cited Berjaya
Times Squares Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ
597, FC that found that the respondent’s conduct certainly
points to the conclusion that even if time was of the essence
when the contract was made, it ceased to be the essence. 285
(f) The Ds knew that the P requires financing to fund the purchase
of the said land. For that purpose, it requires consent from the
Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala
Lumpur for the said land to be charged to the financing bank.
D2 had never indicated its objection to charging the said land 290
to secure the financing for the purchase. D2 intends this for the
P to fail to conclude the SPA.
(g) The Ds have no lawful basis to issue the termination letter.
4.6 In the circumstances, it was asserted that: 295
(a) P is entitled to an order for specific performance under section
11 Specific Relief Act, 1950, and cited Zaibun Sa Binti Syed
Ahmad v Loh Koon Moy & Anor [1982] 2 MLJ 92 in support
where the Privy Council in addressing section 11 of the Specific
Relief Act, commented that it is plain in the instant case is one 300
which required the exercise of the discretionary powers of the
Court to order specific performance of the purchaser’s suit: not
only was there the requirement of a contract of sale of
immovable property leading to a presumption by the Court,
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
11
“unless and until the contrary is proved, that section 11(a)(c) 305
was applicable”.
(b) If the Court denies the order for specific performance, then it
should order the return of the 2% earnest deposit
(RM1,006,720.00) and damages (RM7,627,255.42).
310
In the circumstances, the P prays for an order in terms of its prayers in the
Statement of Claim with costs.
THE DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS 315
[5] I observed the Ds in canvassing and ventilating for their defence as
follows:
5.1 That, via the First Letter of Offer (29.12.2011), had indeed offered
the P to purchase the said land subject to the terms as dictated
therein (L.35, bundle B1, pp.8-9): 320
(a) Paragraph 5 of the said first letter of offer also stipulates that
D2 will not be held responsible for any expenses and costs
incurred by P for the transaction.
(b) There is no ambiguity that the first letter of offer provides that
the balance deposit of 8% (RM2,563,560.00) was to be paid 325
upon executing the SPA. At the same time, the balance of 90%
of the purchase price (RM28,828,800.00) was to be honoured
before the execution of the Memorandum of Transfer (Form 14A
NLC).
(c) The Ds tabulated the essential facts on the chronology of 330
events concerning the transaction in paragraph 5, pp.3-8,
enclosure 119. Though the P claims that the tabulation missed
out on certain alleged critical documents, as raised in enclosure
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
12
126, but upon examination, I find the missing items were
inconsequential to the outcome of the completion of the SPA. It 335
relates to the role of the P in intending to and taking the
preliminary steps to develop the said land. The Ds’ position is
evident in that, as the vendor, they were only interested in
completing the SPA and receiving the total purchase
consideration, which the P had failed to do after several EOTs 340
lasting five years after the first offer letter was issued. The draft
SPA remains unsigned by the parties.
5.2 The Statement of Issues to be Tried can be found in enclosure 64:
(a) Whether there exists a valid and enforceable SPA between
the parties: 345
(i) The Ds argued that there had been no executed SPA
between the parties since the first offer letter was issued
in 2011, all the way to the revocation of the offer in the
second offer letter in 2016.
(ii) The offer letter is specific for the need for an executed and 350
concluded SPA between the parties. Without it, there can
be no concluded contract, as argued by the P. The Ds cited
the Court of Appeal in Proton Edar Sdn Bhd v Multioto
Assist Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 745, CA, which found that
it was a condition precedent of the heads of agreement for 355
the need for a concluded contract. In such circumstances,
the Court is not at liberty to rewrite the agreement between
the parties (Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan
Hor Teng & Anor [1995] 3 CLJ 520, CA was cited, and a
plethora of other authorities to support that legal position 360
taken by the Ds).
(iii) PW2 confirmed at trial that no SPA was executed for the
first offer letter or the second offer letter, as required by the
offer.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
13
(iv) After seven drafts of SPA between the parties, it could not 365
be finalised and remained a draft SPA for that five-year wait
(with several EOTs granted).
(v) In the premise, there could never be any concluded
agreement as argued by the P.
370
(b) Whether the Plaintiff is the legally beneficial owner of the
Land.
(i) Throughout that period of five years, there is no existence
of a concluded SPA and/or the creation of a trust in favour
of the P over the said land. 375
(ii) Undoubtedly, there is no legal basis to give the P any
beneficial interest in the said government land.
(iii) PW2, during the trial, confirmed that when the P appointed
all the consultants, they were not yet the landowner. They
had to apply for permission from the Ds to commence 380
preliminary work for the intended development of that land.
(iv) The Ds cited Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kedah
& Anor v Emico Development Sdn Bhd [2000] 1 MLJ
257, CA, which found that the only thing that existed was
the sale and purchase agreement with the deposit paid. 385
On that date, the respondent was not the registered
proprietor of the said land nor was he the occupier; IB
Capital Sdn Bhd v Ivory Indah Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 MLJ
860, CA which ruled that without the payment of the total
purchase price, the plaintiff did not acquire any beneficial 390
interest in the land.
(c) Whether the termination notice issued by the Defendants
is valid and enforceable.
(i) The offer letter provides for pre-conditions that must be 395
satisfied by the P, (1) payment of the 2% earnest deposit,
(2) payment of the balance 8% of the deposit sum upon the
signing of the SPA, (3) payment of the 90% balance
purchase price to effect the execution of Form 14A.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
14
(ii) The offer letter stipulates that the SPA must be finalised and 400
executed within three months from the issuance of the offer
letter.
(iii) Default/failure by the P to execute the SPA and fulfil all the
preconditions after five years (EOTs), it is just for the Ds to
withdraw and revoke the offer. 405
(iv) The Ds had cautioned the P several times in writing to
satisfy the preconditions, or the offer would be revoked.
(v) See letter dated 30.07.2015 (pg.309 (PDF), enclosure 35);
letter dated 18.08.2015 (pg.313 (PDF), enclosure 35),
letter dated 14.06.2016, pg.315 (PDF), enclosure 35), 410
letter dated 14.12.2016 (pg.242 (PDF), enclosure 35).
(vi) Having agreed to the new purchase price and paying the
additional earnest money for the amount of RM 366,
080.00, the P insisted on resuscitating the first purchase
price as contained in the first offer letter. But it was denied 415
by MOF in letters dated 4.10.2016, 30.10.2016 and
31.10.2016 (see pg.3-4 (PDF), enclosure 38; see also
pp.342, 339, 346 (PDF), enclosure 35).
(vii) To negate the P’s insistence that the SPA cannot be
finalised due to the outstanding issue of encroachment 420
(structures) on the land:
(1) The Ds informed the P that the sale was on an as-is-where-is
basis (letter dated 20.04.2015, pg.237 (PDF), enclosure 35).
(2) This position was accepted by PW2 in his evidence at the trial 425
(see NOP, pp.39-40, enclosure 114).
(3) The Ds issued a letter on 16.06.2015 to clarify that the P will
purchase the land as it is and can remove whatever structure
there is after the land is transferred to them by the Ds.
(4) In a letter dated 02.09.2016 (pg.257 (PDF), enclosure 35), the 430
Ds requested to agree to the execution of the SPA and to name
the authorised signatory for the P. The P did not respond to this
letter.
(5) By a letter dated 30.09.2016, the Ds again requested to
execute the SPA on 27.10.2016. The P did not commit to the 435
date.
(6) The Ds invited the P for a meeting by email on 09.1.2.2016
(pp.253-255 (PDF), enclosure 35) to discuss concluding the
SPA on 13.12.2016. The P did not reciprocate.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
15
(7) In the circumstances, the Ds concluded that the P was no 440
longer interested in purchasing the said land. Consequently, a
formal termination notice was issued on 15.12.2016
(pg.351(PDF), enclosure 35).
(8) The argument by P that the reason they could not attend the
proposed meeting was that it was a public holiday in Selangor 445
on the proposed date is untenable since the meeting was
scheduled in Putrajaya, which was on a working day. See the
evidence of PW2 in the NOP, pg.120, 20 (PDF), enclosures 115
and 114, respectively.
450
(d) Whether the termination of the agreement by the Ds was
made mala fide.
(i) Since it is the P that is in default, it is lawful for the Ds to
revoke the letter of offer.
(ii) In the foregoing circumstances, the issue of bad faith in the 455
termination/revocation of the offer by the Ds does not arise.
5.3 There is no compelling evidence produced by the P to support their
claim for damages (RM7,627,255.42). At the trial, only one invoice
(RM5,500.00) was produced. It is the Ds’ submission that this 460
evidence concerns a claim in special damages that had not been
specifically pleaded.
5.4 The Ds cited Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983] CLJ (Rep)
300, which held that it is a well-established principle that special 465
damages, in contrast to general damages, must be specifically
pleaded and strictly proved. They are recoverable only when they
can be included in the proper measure of damages and are not too
remote.
470
5.5 The Court of Appeal ruled in Bekalan Sains P&C Sdn Bhd v Bank
Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad [2011] 5 MLJ 1, CA, that the duty to
prove the damages rests on the plaintiff.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
16
5.6 Also cited was Popular Industries Ltd v The Eastern Garment
Manufacturing Co Sdn Bhd [1990] 2 CLJ Rep 635, which said that 475
it is given that the plaintiff seeking substantial damage has the
burden of proving both the fact and the amount of damages before
he can recover. If he proves neither, the action will fail, or he may
only be awarded nominal damages upon proof of the infringement
of the right. 480
5.7 Whatever expenses the P incurred do not concern the Ds. It is about
their proposed development (SOHO/OFFICE) of the said land
undertaken by them when the SPA has not yet been concluded and
the land transferred to them. It has nothing to do with the Ds or the 485
SPA.
5.8 The Ds argued that there is no concluded contract between the
parties. Premised on the default of the P to satisfy the conditions of
the offer letter, revoking it is lawful without any bad faith. The P fails 490
to establish its alleged losses and is not entitled to any damages.
In the circumstances, the P failed to discharge its burden, and their action
must be dismissed with costs.
495
THE LAW
[6] It is trite in law that all cases are decided on the legal burden of proof
being discharged. It is the acid test applied in any particular case.
6.1 Lord Brandon in Rhesa Shipping Co.SA v Edmunds [1985] 1
WLR 948 at 955 said: 500
“No judge likes to decide cases on the burden of proof if he can legitimately
avoid having to do so. There are cases, however, in which, owing to the
unsatisfactory state of the evidence or otherwise, deciding on the burden of
proof is the only just course to take.”
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
17
6.2 In Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd [2007] 505
4 SLR(R) 855 it was said that:
“The Court’s decision in every case will depend on whether the party concerned
has satisfied the particular burden and standard of proof imposed on him. Since
the terms ‘proved’, ‘disproved’, and ‘not proved’ are statutory definitions
contained in the Evidence Act (Cap 9), 1997 Rev Ed), the term ‘proof’. 510
Wherever it appears in the Evidence Act and unless the context otherwise
suggests, means the burden to satisfy the Court of the existence or non-
existence of some fact, that is, the legal burden of proof”.
6.3 The burden of proof in establishing its case is on the plaintiff. It is 515
not the Ds' duty to disprove it. The evidentiary burden is trite that
those who allege a fact are duty-bound to prove it (see s.101, 102,
and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950).
6.4 Selvaduray v Chinniah [1939] 1 MLJ 253, 254 (CA) held: 520
"The burden of proof under section 102 of the Evidence Enactment is upon the
person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side, and
accordingly, the plaintiff must establish his case. If he fails to do so, it will not
avail him to turn around and say that the defendant has not established his. The
defendant can say it is wholly immaterial whether I prove my case or not. You 525
have not proved yours".
6.5 Johara Bi bt. Abdul Kadir Marican v. Lawrence Lam Kwok Fou
& Anor [1981] 1 MLJ 139, (FC) held:
"It was all a matter of proof and that until and unless the plaintiff has discharged 530
the onus on her to prove her case on a balance of probabilities, the burden did
not shift to the defendant, and no matter if the defendant's case was completely
unbelievable, the claim against him must in these circumstances be dismissed.
With respect, we agree with this judicial approach."
535
[7] Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1
CLJ 269, FC. The distilled principles, among others, are:
7.1 Where an agreement is not regulated by statute, parties are at
complete liberty, under the doctrine of freedom of Contract, to agree 540
on any terms they think fit.
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
18
7.2 The role of the Court is to interpret the Contract sensibly (a
commercially sensible construction). See Loh Wai Lian v SEA
Housing Corporation Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 LNS 37, PC. 545
7.3 The starting point is for the Court to recognise that in an action for a
breach of Contract, it is for the Court to determine who is the
innocent party and who is the guilty party.
550
7.4 A contract breaker must pay damages to the innocent party.
However, if he has made any payment under a contract (not being
a true deposit for the purchase of movable or immovable property),
the contract breaker is entitled to have that payment set off against
the damages he has to pay. However, he cannot seek to recover 555
any benefit he may have conferred upon the innocent party where
he is guilty of breach of Contract. Were it otherwise, a contract
breaker would be in a position to take advantage of his own wrong.
This is against the principle and the policy of the law.
560
7.5 The FC cited Attorney General of Belize v. Belize Telecom
Limited [2009] UKPC 11, where when delivering the Advice of the
Board, Lord Hoffmann said:
“The Court has no power to improve upon the instrument which it is called upon
to construe, whether it be a contract, a statute or articles of association. It 565
cannot introduce terms to make it fairer or more reasonable. It is concerned
only to discover what the instrument means. However, that meaning is not
necessarily or always what the authors or parties to the document would have
intended. It is the meaning which the instrument would convey to a reasonable
person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably be 570
available to the audience to whom the instrument is addressed: see Investors
Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1
WLR 896, 912-913. It is this objective meaning which is conventionally called
the intention of the parties, or the intention of Parliament, or the intention of
whatever person or body was or is deemed to have been the author of the 575
instrument.”
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
19
7.6 A contract is to be interpreted in accordance with the following
guidelines:
(a) A Court interpreting a private contract is not confined to the four 580
corners of the document. It is entitled to look at the factual
matrix forming the background of the transaction.
(b) The factual matrix that forms the background to the transaction
includes all material that was reasonably available to the
parties. 585
(c) The interpreting Court must disregard any part of the
background that is declaratory of subjective intent only and
(d) The Court should adopt an objective approach when
interpreting a private contract.
See Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich 590
Building Society [1998] 1 All ER 98. As Lord Clyde said in
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar
Ali [2001] 2 WLR 735:
“The knowledge reasonably available to them (that is to say, the parties 595
to the Contract) must include matters of law as well as matters of fact. The
problem is not resolved by asking the parties what they thought they
intended. It is the imputed intention of the parties that the Court is
concerned to ascertain…. The meaning of the agreement is to be
discovered from the words which they have used and read in the context 600
of the circumstances in which they made the agreement. The exercise is
not one where there are strict rules but one where the solution is to be
found by considering the language used by the parties against the
background of the surrounding circumstances”.
605
[8] The Federal Court in Michael C. Solle v United Malayan Banking
Corporation [1986] 1 MLJ 45, FC observed that the principles of
construction to be applied are that the parties' intentions are gathered from
the language used. They are presumed to have intended what they say.
The common universal principle is that an agreement ought to receive that 610
construction which its language will admit, which will best effectuate the
parties' intention to be collected from the whole agreement. The Courts
are to give effect to the terms of the Contract (if any).
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
20
FINDINGS 615
[9] In the circumstances of the facts of the case, I have examined all
evidence adduced at trial by the parties and, all-cause papers and a
bundle of documents. The respective submissions of the parties
(paragraphs [4] and [5] hereof)] have been duly examined. I hold for the 620
Ds. It is my findings that:
9.1 There is no concluded SPA between the parties.
9.2 The evidence before me does not support the P’s claim.
9.3 There is clear evidence that an executed SPA between the parties 625
is a fundamental requirement of the transaction, which the P had
failed to do: Michael C. Solle v United Malayan Banking
Corporation [1986] 1 MLJ 45, FC (supra).
9.4 It is irrefutable that the P had clearly failed to fully comply with the
terms and conditions of the second offer letter that had superseded 630
the first offer letter over the same parcel of land.
9.5 The second offer letter had been accepted and acted upon by the P
by making payment of the additional earnest deposit. Even the P's
witness agreed they had accepted the second offer letter. The terms
in the second offer letter are unambiguous, which requires 635
compliance by the P.
9.6 There is no evidence produced that P had protested or objected to
the issuance of the second offer letter.
9.7 The issue of resuscitating the first offer letter (reinstating the initial
purchase price) by the P cannot arise. The Ds appropriately denied 640
it.
9.8 A draft SPA is immaterial if it fails to be duly executed as required
by the subsisting offer. There is ample evidence that the seven
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
21
drafts of SPA were never finalised for execution. The offer by the Ds
requires that the SPA be executed. 645
9.9 Consequently, it is irrefutable that legal and beneficial ownership
does not arise in favour of the P. The allegation of a concluded
contract between the parties by the P is untenable.
9.10 Consequently, therefore, in light of the apparent breach by the P in
failing to honour the terms of the second offer letter, the revocation 650
of the second offer letter that follows is in place for failure by the P
to perform accordingly. It is the lawful exercise of discretion to
revoke the offer by the Ds.
9.11 On the facts argued at the trial, there is no tenable or sustainable
evidence by the P to establish its allegation of malice on the part of 655
the Ds in the said termination.
9.12 Without evidential materials, it remains merely a speculative
argument lacking merit. The Court will not consider it. Bare
assertions have no evidential value to be considered.
9.13 The 2% earnest deposit is allowed to be forfeited due to the wilful 660
breach by the P. It is a reasonable amount considering the facts of
the case in totality.
I am guided by the Federal Court in Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v
M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 269, FC that it is trite in law that a 665
breach of Contract is said to occur when a party to a Contract expressly
or impliedly fails or refuses to perform or fails to perform satisfactorily one
or more of his contractual obligations. As was said by the FC in Berjaya
Times Square (supra), the starting point is for the Court to recognise that
in an action for a breach of Contract, it is for the Court to determine who 670
is the innocent party and who is the guilty party. I am in no doubt and
inclined from the evidence to hold against the P for its wilful failure to
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
22
execute in a five-year period (several EOTs) right from the first offer letter
all the way to the second offer letter.
675
[10] By and large, it is my considered judgment the plaintiff has failed to
discharge its burden of proof to establish the claim set out in its SoC under
ss 101-103 Evidence Act 1950. As I had observed, other than
unsupported arguments, the plaintiff had failed to adduce the required
compelling evidence to tilt the scale of evidence in its favour. In clearly 680
failing to prove its claim, I refer to the following cases:
10.1 The Court of Appeal in Selvaduray v Chinniah [1939] 1 MLJ 253,
254, CA that where the plaintiff fails to prove his case, it will not avail
him to turn around and say that the defendant has not established
his. The defendant can say it is wholly immaterial whether I prove 685
my case or not. You have not proved yours.
10.2 In Johara Bi bt. Abdul Kadir Marican v Lawrence Lam Kwok Fou
& Anor [1981] 1 MLJ 139, that it was all a matter of proof and that
until and unless the plaintiff has discharged the onus to prove his
case on a balance of probabilities, the burden did not shift to the 690
defendant, no matter how unbelievable the defence might be. The
claim against the defendant must, in these circumstances, be
dismissed.
10.3 The legal burden lies on the plaintiff throughout the proceedings to
prove its case, in which case the plaintiff herein had failed: Yui Chin 695
Song & Ors v Lee Ming Chai & Ors [2019] 6 MLJ 417. It is not for
the Ds to establish their defence in such a circumstance:
Selvaduray v Chinniah [1939] 1 MLJ 253.
700
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
WA-21NCvC-49-04/2017
23
CONCLUSION
[11] All things considered:
11.1 After appraising the evidence, all the relevant cause- papers and the
written submissions by the respective parties, I find that the plaintiff 705
had failed to discharge its burden on a balance of probabilities.
11.2 By a greater weight of evidence, I find for the Ds’ and find this suit
by the P against the Ds is without a reasonable basis and untenable;
consequently, there is no legitimate cause of action to support it. 710
11.3 Therefore, the P’s claim is dismissed against the Ds with costs of
RM40,000.00 (global) to be paid within 30 days from the date of this
order. The 2% earnest deposit is forfeited.
715
Dated 08.11.2023.
HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ
JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF MALAYA 720
KUALA LUMPUR
Counsels:
Mr Rajesh Kumar Sharma, together with Ms Chew Jia Ying 725
Messrs. Rajesh, Chew & Ho
Counsels for the plaintiff
Ms. Nurhafizza Binti Azizan (SFC), together with Ms Ng Wee Li (FC)
Attorney-General’s Chambers 730
For the defendants
Mr Mohd Razif
Federal Counsel
Ministry of Finance 735
S/N UJRF20MXykivQEnygXR7hw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 42,921 | Tika 2.6.0 |
W-01(IM)-393-07/2021 | PERAYU LFL SDN BHD RESPONDEN Kerajaan Malaysia | striking out application - method of execution of the death penalty in Singapore was unlawful and brutal (‘the 16th Article”) - Correction Direction - section 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (‘POFMA’) - statutory powers - Article10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution - extra-territorial jurisdiction - a declaration that the appellant could not be subjected to any process within Malaysia in furtherance of the Singapore – injunction- leave to intervene in OS 51- immunity to a foreign state from being sued in another state in respect of its sovereign or governmental acts. The second principle limits the applicability of a country’s laws to its own territory and its citizen within that territory - immunity to a foreign state - restricted’ sovereign immunity - Absolute immunity - acta jure imperil - acta jure gestionis - Summons and Warrants (Special Provisions) Act 1971. | 08/11/2023 | YA Datuk Yaacob Bin Haji Md SamKorumYA Datuk Yaacob Bin Haji Md SamYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2b8e9663-9bad-46ca-a824-e38a25cf72f1&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA
(BIDANG KUASA SIVIL)
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-01(IM)-390-07/2021
ANTARA
LFL SDN BHD … PERAYU
DAN
JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA … RESPONDEN
DIDENGAR BERSAMA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA
(BIDANG KUASA SIVIL)
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-01(IM)-393-07/2021
ANTARA
LFL SDN BHD … PERAYU
DAN
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN
08/11/2023 12:04:20
W-01(IM)-393-07/2021 Kand. 31
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur
(Bahagian Kuasa-Kuasa Khas)
Saman Pemula No. WA-24-51-10/2021
Dalam perkara Arahan Pembetulan
bertarikh 22.1.2020 yang dikeluarkan di
bawah seksyen 11 “Singapore Protection
from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation
Act 2019”
Dan
Dalam perkara Perkara 5, 8 dan 10
Perlembagaan Persekutuan
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 15 Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012
Dan
Dalam perkara seksyen-seksyen 50 dan 51
Akta Relief Spesifik
Antara
LFL Sdn Bhd
(No. Syarikat 923866 – A) … Plaintif
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Dan
K. Shanmugam, Menteri Dalam Negeri Singapura … Defendan
Dan
Peguam Negara Malaysia … Pencelah]
DAN
[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur
(Bahagian Kuasa-Kuasa Khas)
Saman Pemula No. WA-24-46-09/2020
Dalam perkara Arahan Pembetulan
bertarikh 22.1.2020 yang dikeluarkan di
bawah seksyen 11 “Singapore Protection
from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation
Act 2019”
Dan
Dalam perkara Perkara 5, 8 dan 10
Perlembagaan Persekutuan
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 15 Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
Dan
Dalam perkara seksyen-seksyen 50 dan 51
Akta Relief Spesifik
Antara
LFL Sdn Bhd
(No. Syarikat 923866 – A) … Plaintif
Dan
Kerajaan Malaysia … Defendan]
CORUM
YAACOB HAJI MD SAM, JCA
VAZEER ALAM BIN MYDIN MEERA, JCA
MOHD NAZLAN BIN MOHD GHAZALI, JCA
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There are two (2) related appeals before us which are as follows :
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
i. Civil Appeal No. W-01(IM) - 390 - 07/2021 (“Appeal
390”); and
ii. Civil Appeal No. W-01(IM) - 393 - 07/2021 (“Appeal
393” )
Appeal 390 is the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the High Court
in Kuala Lumpur allowing the Attorney General Malaysia’s striking out
application of the appellant’s Originating Summons No. WA-24-51-
10/2020 dated 2.10.2020 (‘OS 51’) against K. Shanmugam, Minister of
Home Affairs, Singapore.
The appellant’s appeal in 393 is against the decision of the High Court in
Kuala Lumpur allowing the Respondent’s striking out application of the
appellant’s Originating Summons No. WA-24-46-09/2020 dated
18.9.2020 (‘OS 46’) against the Government of Malaysia (‘GOM’). Both
the striking out applications were heard together (collectively herein as
“the Appeals”).
[2] This is our unanimous decision. After considering
counsels’ full submission, both oral and written, we allowed both
the appeals.
[3] We provide our reasons herein below.
Background facts
[4] On 16.1.2020, the appellant published a press statement on their
website https://www.lawyersforliberty.org/2020/16/18875 in which they
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
alleged that the method of execution of the death penalty in Singapore
was unlawful and brutal (‘the 16th Article”).
[5] The Government of Singapore directed the issuance of a Correction
Direction dated 22.1.2020 (“the Correction Direction”) to the appellant
under section 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act 2019 (‘POFMA’), and notified the appellant that:
(i) the 16th Article contained false statements of fact;
(ii) Singapore’s Minister of Home Affairs (‘defendant’), in exercise of
his statutory powers under POFMA, directed the
plaintiff/appellant to insert a correction notice (‘correction notice’)
not later than 23.1.2020 and failure to comply with the correction
direction, without reasonable excuse, would amount to an
offence under s. 15 of the POFMA;
(iii) the plaintiff could apply to the defendant to vary or cancel the
correction direction; and
(iv) in the event the application for variation or cancellation was
refused, the plaintiff could appeal to the High Court of Singapore
to set aside the correction direction.
[6] However, the plaintiff did not comply with the correction direction
and, instead proceeded to file the two applications in the High Court, by
way of Originating Summonses (OS), namely OS 46 and OS 51.
[7] In OS 46 against GOM, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs -
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(i) a declaration that the appellant has the rights to express their
opinion in Malaysia with regard to any matters, pursuant to
Article10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution;
(ii) a declaration that the appellant’s rights could not be impaired by
a law in Singapore, namely the POFMA, which purports to extend
beyond Singapore, that is assuming extra-territorial jurisdiction;
and
(iii) a declaration that the appellant could not be subjected to any
process within Malaysia in furtherance of the Singapore law.
[8] In OS 51, against the Singapore Home Affairs Minister, the appellant
sought the following reliefs-
(a) a declaration that the direction issued by the defendant could not
be enforced against the appellant in Malaysia;
(b) a declaration that the defendant, or anyone acting under his
authority, could not take any action to enforce any provision of the
POFMA against the appellant within Malaysia; and
(c) an injunction to restrain the defendant, his servant or agents or
anyone acting under his direction from enforcing Singapore’s
laws, in particular the POFMA, or taking any action related
thereto, within Malaysia against the appellant.
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
[9] Vide order dated 23.12.2020, the Attorney General of Malaysia was
granted leave to intervene in OS 51. The Government of Malaysia, as the
defendant in OS 46, and the Attorney General of Malaysia, as the
intervener in OS 51, applied to strike out the plaintiff’s OS on the grounds
that they were scandalous, vexatious and frivolous and otherwise an
abuse of the process of court.
[10] In brief, the GOM and AG’s applications to strike out the appellant’s
OS 46 and OS 51 are premised on the following grounds-
(a) the High Court in Malaysia has no jurisdiction to determine the
validity of foreign legislation;
(b) Malaysia recognises Singapore as a foreign sovereign and
therefore Singapore enjoys immunity;
(c) the appellant is seeking to use the process of the court in
Malaysia to evade and escape from the enforcement of
Singapore laws in Singapore.
High Court’s decision and reasons
[11] Both the applications were heard together. The learned High Court
Judge has allowed the Government of Malaysia’s application (encl. 7) and
the Attorney General of Malaysia’s application (encl. 29) to strike out both
the appellant’s OS 46 and OS 51 with no order as to costs.
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[12] According to the Grounds of Judgment (GOJ) of the learned High
Court Judge, inter alia -
(a) Section 60 of the POFMA provides that, when an offence is
committed by a person outside Singapore, that person may be
dealt with in respect of that offence as if it had been committed
within Singapore. Section 233 of the Communication and
Multimedia Act 1988 (‘CMA’) makes it an offence, inter alia, for a
person to use a network facility or network services to initiate the
transmission of any false communication with the intent to annoy,
abuse, threaten or harass another person. Section 4(1) of the
CMA stipulates that the CMA applies to both within and outside
Malaysia.
(b) Both OS 46 and OS 51 called for the court to determine the validity
of the defendant’s action against the plaintiff under the provision
of the POFMA. However, the court was not seized with the
jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the POFMA. The law as
to jurisdiction had to be strictly observed by the court, as set out
in s. 23 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 which explicitly set out
the general civil jurisdiction of the High Court. Both OS 46 and OS
51 were frivolous and vexatious and abuse of the process of the
court, with no prospect to succeed.
(c) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong recognized Singapore as a foreign
sovereign. A certificate to this effect was issued by the Secretary
General of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With the
issuance of the certificate, (i) Singapore is clothed with sovereign
immunity from the jurisdiction of this court; and (ii) this court was
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
barred from exercising its jurisdiction to further inquire into the
plaintiff’s complaints in the OS.
(d) Furthermore, the defendant, in issuing the correction direction
pursuant to the provisions of the POFMA, was an act undertaken
by the authority of sovereign State of Singapore. This was clearly
a government act and therefore protected by sovereign immunity.
(e) The present case comes within the category of plain and obvious
case as envisaged in the case of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd for the
reason that both the OS are frivolous and vexatious and abuse of
the process of the court.
[13] Aggrieved by the learned High Court’s decision, the
Appellant filed appeal 390 against the AG and Appeal 393
against GOM.
Appellant’s submission
[14] Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are serious
questions that need to be tried as the OS involved a consideration and
resolution of applicability of two principles grounded in the international
law of comity of nations, in the context of this case. The first principle
grants immunity to a foreign state from being sued in another state in
respect of its sovereign or governmental acts. The second principle limits
the applicability of a country’s laws to its own territory and its citizen within
that territory.
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[15] The issue that arises in the OS filed in respect of Appeal 390 is:
whether and to what extent the court in one sovereign state has the
jurisdiction to consider whether or not relief can be given to a person who
complains that he could be affected adversely by a law of another
sovereign state acting possibly in violation of the second principle. In other
words, is the immunity granted under the first principle absolute such as
to oust entirely the applicability of the second principle. And as such that
the citizen will be denied access to justice in this country. Thus, this
requires a full and mature consideration of the applicability and scope of
an extra-territorial law in the context of the principle of comity between
nations. It was further contended that based on this principle, a foreign
state cannot rely on the principle of absolute immunity to oust the
jurisdiction of the local court. It was also submitted that there is no reason
why local courts are deprived of the jurisdiction to also consider this issue
as to whether or not a law has extra-territorial effect; and the concomitant
issue of its possible consideration as in this case to balance against or
oust the immunity of sovereign nations. To allow extra-territorial effect of
laws outright would result in an impairment of the appellant’s guarantee of
fundamental rights to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Federal
Constitution. It was also contended that any person who genuinely
perceives a threat to his freedom or adverse consequence is entitled to
seek a declaration from our court to protect himself from the threatened
action. The case of Datuk Syed Kecik v Government of Malaysia &
Anor [1979] 2 MLJ 101 was cited in support of the proposition. It was
submitted that the High Court Judge in allowing the striking out
applications had failed altogether to address on point of law – of
applicability of this principle of comity of nations as regards extra-territorial
effect of a national law.
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
[16] Learned counsel further contended that the immunity to a foreign
state may be denied if it violates two important principles, namely,
fundamental rights, and access to justice. The case of Benkharbouceh v
Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2019] AC 777 was cited in support
of the argument. The principle in Benkharbouceh was applied by the
Federal Court in Subramaniam a/l Letchumanan v The United State of
America and another appeal and The United States of America v
Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia and Ors [2022] 1 LNS 1253. It was
further submitted that the appellant is not questioning the validity of the
Singapore law. Just that any such law should not be extended to citizens
in Malaysia exercising their right to free speech. That is the thrust of the
remedy that the appellant seeks from the court.
[17] It was also contended by the appellant that the Attorney General of
Malaysia as intervener has no locus standi to object the OS at this stage
of the proceedings when OS 51 in Appeal 390 has yet to be served on the
defendant (Minister of Home Affairs Singapore). Thus, the AG has no right
to strike out this action when the defendant has not been served and not
taken any such course of action. Several cases were cited to support the
argument : Commonwealth of Australia v Midford (M) Sdn Bhd [1990]
1 MLJCJ (Rep) 77 [SC]; Hii Yii Ann v Deputy Commissioner of
Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2018] 7 MLJ 393;
Subramaniam a/l Letchumanan v The United States of America and
another appeal [2021] 5 MLJ 612.
Respondents’ submission
[18] Learned Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) for the respondents
submitted that in both cases jurisdiction is a fundamental and threshold
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
issue. Making reference to section 23 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964,
the SFC contended that the general civil jurisdiction of the High Court
provides that its limited within the local jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction
therefore is a limiting factor to the power of the High Court to deal with a
subject matter. SFC further contended that there is a significant difference
between “jurisdiction” and “power”. Jurisdiction relates to the type of such
matter which the court may deal with, whereas its powers may be
exercised only in relation to that jurisdiction. The case of Tan Keat Seng
Kitson v Kerajaan Malaysia [1996] 1 MLJ 454; Hap Seng Plantations
(River Estates) Sdn Bhd v Excess Interpoint Sdn Bhd & Anor [2016]
3 MLJ 553; Abdul Ghafar bin Md. Amin v Ibrahim b. Yusoff and Anor
[2008] 3 MLJ 771 were cited to support the argument.
[19] On point of sovereign immunity, SFC submitted that in Malaysia the
courts have adopted the theory of ‘restricted’ sovereign immunity rather
than absolute immunity. Absolute immunity would mean that any
proceedings against a foreign state are inadmissible unless that state
expressly agrees to waive such immunity, whereas restrictive immunity
would mean that the immunity is only available in respect of sovereign
activities or governmental acts (acta jure imperil) and not acts of a
commercial nature (acta jure gestionis). The case of Commonwealth of
Australia Commissioner of Taxation v Mildford (M) Sdn Bhd [1990] 1
CLJ (Rep) 77 and Hii Yii Ann v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of
the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2018] 7 MLJ 393 were cited to
support the argument. It was further submitted that the certificate issued
by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong vide the Secretary General of Malaysia
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Wisma Putra) had recognized Singapore as a
foreign sovereign. As such, Singapore is clothed with sovereign immunity
from the jurisdiction of courts in Malaysia exercising jurisdiction to inquire
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
into the appellant’s complaints in the two OS. SFC further submitted that
the act of Singapore Home Affairs Minister in issuing the correction
direction pursuant to the provisions of POFMA was an act undertaken by
the authority of sovereign state of Singapore that is governmental act
(acta jure imperil) and therefore protected by foreign immunity.
Our decision
[20] These appeals are against the decision of the High Court allowing
the striking out application made by the respondents pursuant to O. 18 r.
19 of the Rules of Court 2012.
[21] Since we are concerned here with the question of striking out
pleadings under O. 18 r.19, we do not propose to go into the facts and
documents in any more detail than is necessary.
[22] With regard to the principles for striking out pleadings, there are well
explained and expounded by the Federal Court in Seruan Gemilang
Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor
[2016] 3 MLJ 1 where Ramly Ali FCJ stated that:
“[25] The principles for striking out pleadings pursuant to O. 18 r 19
of the ROC are well settled. It is only in a plain and obvious case
that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule;
and this summary process can only be adopted when it can clearly
be seen that a claim on the face of it is obviously unsustainable (see
Bandar Builder, Hubbuck & Sons v Wilkinson, Heywood and
Clark [1999] 1 QB 86; AG of Duchy of Lancaster v London and
North Western Rly Co [1892] 3 Ch 274).
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
[26] The tests for 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:
(a) it is only in plain and obvious case 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’ (Emphasis added);
(c) it cannot b exercised by a minute examination of the document
and facts in order to see whether the party has a cause of action
or defence; and
(d) if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an
objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set
down for argument under O 33 r 33 of the ROC; and
(e) the court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of
action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the
defence raised are not arguable.
[27] The Court of Appeal, in Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v Che
Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors [2012] 1 MLJ 473, had adopted the well
settled principle of striking out in the following passage:
A striking out should not be made summarily by the court if
there is issue of law that requires lengthy argument and
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
mature consideration. It should also not be made if there is
issue of facts 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 (Federal Court)…
[28] 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 claim without having
to go into lengthy and mature consideration in detail. If one has to
go into lengthy and mature consideration in detail of the issue of law
and/or fact, then the matter is not appropriate to be struck out
summarily. It must be determined at trial.
[29] The established rule on this point is that the court should not
examine the evidence in this summary proceedings in such a 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 in
American Cynamid 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 not to
decide difficult question of law which call for detailed argument
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
and mature consideration. These are matters to be dealt with
at the trial…
This passage was cited with approval by Privy Council in a
Malaysian case of Eng Mee Yong & Ors v Letchumanan [1979] 2
MLJ 212.”
[23] Coming back to the instant appeals. From the OS 46 and OS 51, it
is clear to us that the appellant’s application for various reliefs and
declarations concern the issue of extra-territorial enforcement of certain
Singapore laws in Malaysia i.e. POFMA. On that account, it means that
the issue of extra-territorial enforcement of a foreign law in Malaysia and
the jurisdiction of Malaysian courts vis a vis that foreign law would have
to be dealt with following mature discussion and consideration by the
court. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Federal
Constitution protects the appellant’s rights to freedom of expression and
it is unfair to penalise the appellant in favour of a foreign law, the
application of which is unsettled in Malaysia. It is our view that the issue
raised by the appellant merits full and mature consideration. We agree
that there are serious questions to be tried in both Originating Summons.
In particular the two principles of comity of nations raised by the appellant
was not considered at all by the learned High Court Judge. The first
principle grants immunity of a sovereign state from being sued in another
state in respect of its sovereign or government acts; and the second
principle limits applicability of a country’s law to its own territory. In this
regard, it is useful to refer to Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 7th edn,
p. 118:
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
“In general, the principle of comity between nations requires that
each sovereign state should be exclusively allowed to govern its
own territory. So an Act does not usually apply to acts or omissions
taking place outside its territory, whether they involve foreigners or
Britons.”
[24] We agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
that there are serious issues raised in both the OS that requires further
serious argument. The primary issue raised by the appellant in both
appeals is whether and to what extent the courts in Malaysia have
jurisdiction to consider whether or not relief can be given to a person who
complains that he could be affected adversely by a law of another
sovereign state acting possibly in violation of the second principle, i.e. the
extra-territorial application of Singapore’s law in Malaysia in the context of
the principle of comity between nations.
[25] The learned High Court Judge decided that the appellant was
seeking the court’s pronouncement on the validity of a Singapore law, i.e.
POFMA, and in this regard the learned judge stated as follows:
“[16] Based on the above, I am of the considered opinion that this
court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of
the POFMA.”
[26] However, with respect, this is not the crux of the appellant’s case.
The appellant is not seeking the assistance of the High Court to adjudicate
on the validity of a foreign law, i.e. the POFMA. The appellant’s challenge
was instead on the extent of application of Singapore law to a citizen or
entity of this country, lawfully exercising within Malaysia his rights to
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
freedom of speech as enshrined and guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution. In other words, the question is to what extent, if any, may the
laws of one sovereign state have extra-territorial effect in another
sovereign states in the context of comity among nations. We believe that
this is the first time such a question has been brought to our courts and it
is an important enough issue to be given in-depth consideration by the
court. This is even more so when considering the potential legal
consequences to the appellant arising from non-compliance to the
Correction Direction. Under section 15(1) of the POFMA a person can be
imprisoned or fined (or both) for non-compliance of a Correction Direction.
Hence, it is clear that the appellant faces potential criminal sanction and
penalty for any alleged breach of POFMA, and the Singapore authorities
may have recourse to the Summons and Warrants (Special Provisions)
Act 1971 to enforce the appearance of the appellant in Singapore in
respect of the alleged offence. Pursuant to section 3 of the Act, a
Magistrate in Malaysia is empowered to issue a summons for a person to
appear in a Singapore Court if satisfied that it is a valid summons issued
by a Singapore Court requiring the appearance of that person.
[27] The situation is very unique. The appellant is a Malaysian entity. The
offending publication by the appellant, i.e. the 16th Article, was published
by the appellant in its website in Malaysia. The Correction Direction was
served on the appellant in Malaysia, directing the appellant to insert a
correction notice before the stipulated date. The appellant failed and/or
refused to do as directed. This is an offence under POFMA in Singapore.
The appellant can be summoned to appear in a Singapore Court through
the assistance of the Malaysian courts pursuant to the Summons and
Warrants (Special Provisions) Act 1971. In such a situation, where
Malaysia has some treaty obligations to render assistance to the
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
Singapore authorities, it becomes even more imperative for the issue
raised the appellant in both OS be given the consideration that they
deserve, instead of being summarily struck out. In coming to the decision
to strike out both the OS, the High Court Judge had failed altogether to
address this very crucial and important point of law – i.e. of the applicability
of the principle of comity of nations as regards extra-territorial effect of a
national law.
[28] Thus, upon the facts and allegations pleaded in the pleadings, which
we have highlighted above, can it be said that the OS applications
disclose no reasonable cause of action, for the High Court to exercise its
power to strike out the pleadings under O. 18 r.19(1)? Secondly based
on the conflicting affidavits in support of the applications, can the High
Court court exercise its power under the said Order or under its inherent
jurisdiction to strike out the same pleadings on the ground that they are
frivolous or vexatious or may prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of
the action or these pleadings are otherwise an abuse of the process of the
court under r.19(1)(b), (c) or (d) of O.18? [see Bandar Builder (supra)].
[29] Bearing in mind the established principles stated above, we say that
this is not a plain and obvious case for striking out the pleading as
disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Nor can we say that they are
frivolous, vexatious or may prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of
the action or that these pleadings are otherwise an abuse of process of
the court. To that extent we find that the learned High Court had erred.
[30] It has been said that so long as the pleadings disclose some cause
of action or raise some questions fit to be decided by the judge, the mere
fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed at the trial is no ground
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
for the pleadings to be struck out. The court should only strike out a suit
sparingly and only when it is bound to fail at trial. We are of the considered
view that there are serious questions to be tried in the OS of both Appeal
390 and Appeal 393 as the cases involved a consideration and resolution
of applicability of two principles grounded in the international law of comity
of nations and extra-territorial jurisdiction. The authorities further show
that if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an
objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for
argument under O. 33 r. 3 of the Rules of Court 2012.
Conclusion
[31] In view of the reasons as discussed above, we hold that both the
decisions of the High Court allowing the striking out applications of the
respondents is plainly wrong, which therefore warrants appellate
intervention.
[32] As such, both appeals are allowed and we set aside the orders of
the High Court. Both matters are remitted to the High Court. We made no
order as to costs.
t.t.
(YAACOB HAJI MD SAM)
Judge
Court of Appeal
Malaysia
Dated 11 October 2023
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
Solicitors :
Counsels for the Appellant:
Dato’ Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar
Latheefa Koya
Kamarudin Abraham
Au Tian Hui
Messrs Daim & Gamany
Solicitors & Advocates
Unit A-1-1, Block A, 8 Avenue, Jalan Sungai Jernih 8/1
46050 Petaling Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Counsels for the Respondents:
Suzana binti Atan (Senior Federal Counsel)
Atiqah binti Zainal Abidin (Federal Counsel)
Attorney General’s Chambers
(Civil Division),
No.45, Persiaran Perdana,
Precint 4,
62100 Putrajaya.
S/N Y5aOK62bykaoJOOKJc9y8Q
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 33,476 | Tika 2.6.0 |
TA-A53KJ-10-01/2019 | PLAINTIF 1. ) muhammad hafiy hilman bin sharul nazri 2. ) sharul nazri bin harun 3. ) noormarznita binti mohd tajudin 4. ) harun bin taib 5. ) helimah binti ngah DEFENDAN 1. ) gan kong eng 2. ) engku amilla binti engku jaafar | Kanak-kanak dihantar oleh ibubapa kepada datuk dan nenek untuk dijaga. Adakah datuk dan nenek boleh dikatakan menyumbang cuai apabila kanak-kanak terlibat dalam kemalangan di luar kawasan rumah. | 08/11/2023 | Tuan Mohd Azhar Bin Othman | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a4d9c1d-b71c-4d62-95cc-bd561300cbda&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 11:56:20
TA-A53KJ-10-01/2019 Kand. 165
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N HZxNShy3Yk2VzL1WEwDL2g
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 7,123 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-22NCvC-177-04/2022 | PLAINTIF IDEAL PRINCIPLES SDN BHD DEFENDAN CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD | Summary Judgment – Construction of document – Whether suitable for determination without the full trial of the action – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14A and Order 33 rule 2.Sale and purchase agreement – Vacant possession – Water reticulation system – Contracts Act 1950, ss.47 and 56(1) and (2). | 08/11/2023 | YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fbf3dc8f-ecc2-44b4-9fa2-e0a872770830&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: BA-22NCvC-177-04/2022
ANTARA
IDEAL PRINCIPLES SDN BHD
[No. Syarikat: 201301017662 (1047495-W)] … PLAINTIF
DAN
CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD
[No. Syarikat: 198901005831 (183136-D)] … DEFENDAN
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The case for the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has failed to deliver
vacant possession as agreed under the terms of a sale and purchase
agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and is
thus entitled to damages. The Defendant, unsurprisingly, contends
otherwise.
[2] What is significant is the contention by the Plaintiff that it is entitled
to the reliefs sought without a plenary trial of the action. Predictably, the
Defendant takes the opposing view and argues that the matters or issues
raised in this action can only be resolved after a full trial.
08/11/2023 15:02:25
BA-22NCvC-177-04/2022 Kand. 27
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
[3] The Plaintiff has couched its Notice of Application pursuant to Order
14A and/or Order 33 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Plaintiff seeks
a determination of the following issues and/or questions, namely:
(a) In view of the Plaintiff Purchaser’s email dated 27 August, 2021
and the Defendant Vendor’s response emails dated 4
September, 2021 and 18 February, 2022, as well as the
Defence affirming that the Defendant is still in the process to
deliver the water Reticulation System, has the Defendant failed
to deliver vacant possession of the said Lot 19, phase 3A in
accordance to clauses 10.1 and 13.1 of the Sale and Purchase
Agreement dated 26 September, 2013; and
(b) If the above question is answered in the affirmative, whether the
Plaintiff is entitled for the liquidated damages pursuant to clause
13.2 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 26 September,
2013, or in the alternative, directions be given by this
Honourable Court for damages to be assessed, as prayed in
the Statement of Claim.
The Prevailing Issues
[4] The principal issues in this case are thus:
(a) whether the Plaintiff is correct in invoking Order 33 rule 2 of the
Rules of Court 2012 at this stage of proceedings; and
(b) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment pursuant
to Order 14A of the Rules Court 2012.
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
The Invocation of Order 33 rule 2
[5] Order 33 rule 2 provides as follows:
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.
[6] It is evident that a court is permitted to order any question or issue
arising in a cause or matter to be tried before, at or after the trial of the
cause of matter.
[7] In the matter before this Court, what the Plaintiff is seeking from the
Court is for it to order that the questions raised be tried before the trial.
The plaintiff is amply entitled to seek such an order. In this regard, the
answer to the first issue is in the affirmative.
The Application of Order 14A
[8] The issue relating to the application of Order 14A of the Rules of
Court 2012 requires more in-depth scrutiny.
[9] The relevant provisions in Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012
read as follows:
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
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.
(3) The Court shall not determine any question under this
Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being
heard on the question.
[10] As for the mandate in Order 14A rule 1(3) of the Rules of Court 2012,
I have afforded the parties the right to be heard.
[11] It is clear from the provision in Order 14A rule 1(1) of the Rules of
Court 2012 that a Court may construe the provisions or terms in any
document arising in any cause of matter. In the present application, this
would include the sale and purchase agreement and the correspondences
between the parties.
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[12] However, it is imperative that the exercise of the above discretionary
power is subject to the following superseding riders, that is, (a) the
construction of the documents concerned “is suitable for determination
without the full trial of the action” and “such determination will finally
determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein”. Both
these provisos are to be read conjunctively.
[13] The consequential and crucial issue for determination in this matter
before this Court is whether this Court is able to construe the terms and
provisions of the documents before it and arrive at a decision without the
need to call for witnesses to testify at the trial.
The Salient Facts and the Decision of This Court
[14] The undisputed facts were that the Plaintiff in this action had entered
into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Defendant as vendor and
the Plaintiff as purchaser of a lot of land, whereby, according to the
Plaintiff, it was agreed that under Clause 10, on Basic Infrastructure, the
parties have agreed at Sub-Clause 10.1 that:
“The Vendor shall at its own cost and expenses, construct or cause
to be constructed the Basic Infrastructure more particularly specified
in the Fourth Schedule hereto in accordance with the requirements
and standards of the relevant authorities.”.
The scopes of works are as set out in the Fourth Schedule.
[15] Pursuant to Clause 13 on Delivery of Vacant Possession, it has
been provided in Sub-Clauses 13.1 and 13.2 that:
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
“The Vendor shall deliver vacant possession of the Lot to the
Purchaser upon completion of the Basic Infrastructure provided in
The Fourth Schedule herein. The vacant possession of the Lot shall
be delivered to the Purchaser within thirty-six (36) months from the
date of this Agreement.”; and
“If the Vendor fails to deliver vacant possession of the Lot with the
time stipulated in Clause 13.1 hereof, the Vendor shall be liable to
pay to the-Purchaser liquidated damages calculated from the day to
day at the rate of ten per centum (10%) per annum of the purchase
price from the expiry of the time of vacant possession as in Clause
13.1 until the date the Purchaser is deem to have taken vacant
possession of the Lot.”
[16] The Fourth Schedule which set out the Basic Infrastructure to be
Provided for the Lot includes “Water reticulation mains to the vicinity of
the Lot.”.
[17] According to the Plaintiff, pursuant to Clauses 10.1, 13.1 and 13.2
of the said Sale & Purchase Agreement, the delivery of vacant possession
to the Plaintiff was upon completion of the basic infrastructure as provided
in the Fourth Schedule under the said Sale & Purchase Agreement. The
Plaintiff further underscored the point that the manner of delivery of vacant
possession amongst others included in the basic infrastructure and the
completion of water reticulation mains forms part of this basic
infrastructure.
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
[18] Henceforth, according to the Plaintiff, upon a reading of Clause 13.1,
the date for delivery of vacant possession should be on or before 26
September, 2016.
[19] The Defendant, via its Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession
dated 28 April 2017, had informed the Plaintiff that the basic infrastructure
provided in the Fourth Schedule of the said Sale & Purchase Agreement
had been completed, and the vacant possession of the said Lot were
ready to be delivered to the Plaintiff.
[20] It is also pertinent to point out that on or around 12 May, 2017, the
Plaintiff had fully paid the Purchase Price to the Defendant.
[21] Following the Plaintiff’s email dated 27 August, 2021 to the
Defendant questioning the permanent water supply for Phase 3A that was
not ready, the Defendant had by email dated 4 September, 2021 had
amongst others, informed that the modification and rectification works as
approved by AIR Selangor had tentatively been targeted to be completed
by the end of October 2021.
[22] Upon additional enquiries by the Plaintiff on the incomplete work and
readiness of the permanent water supply to Phase 3A, the Defendant had
again confirmed by email dated 18 February, 2022 on the continuous
delay, in which the Defendant’s contractor was still in the final stage of the
rectification works.
[23] Based on the above, it was submitted by the Plaintiff that this was a
straightforward case whereby this is a proper case for this Court to invoke
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
Order 14A of the RC 2012 and that judgment may be entered in favour of
the Plaintiff under Order 14A of the RC 2012.
[24] This Court notes that the Plaintiff also cited section 47 of the
Contracts Act 1950. This provision deals with the issue of time and place
for performance. It provides as follows:
47 Time for performance of promise where no application is to be
made and no time is specified.
Where, by the contract, a promisor is to perform his promise, and
no time for performance is specified, the engagement must be
performed within a reasonable time.
Explanation - The question "what is a reasonable time" is in each
particular case a question of fact".
[25] Reference was also made to section 56(1) and (2) of the Contracts
Act 1950.
[26] Last but not least, the Plaintiff highlighted the fact that at the time of
the filing of these actions, there is still no permanent water supply
available to the said Lot.
[27] However, the Defendant urged this Court to not overlook Clauses
10.2 and 10.3 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
[28] These relevant clauses provide as follows:
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
10.2
The parties hereto hereby agree that the Basic Infrastructure shall
be deemed to be completed upon the practical completion of the
same as certified by the Vendor’s consultants.
10.3
On completion of the construction of the Basic Infrastructure
hereinbefore mentioned, the Vendor shall do everything possible
within its powers to have the Basic Infrastructure taken over and
maintained by the relevant Appropriate Authorities.
[29] In addition to the above two clauses, the Defendant also drew this
Court’s attention to Clause 13.3, which the Plaintiff has also omitted to
mention. Clause 13.3 reads as follows:
13.3
It is hereby agreed that upon expiry of fourteen (14) days from the
date of the notice from the Vendor requesting the Purchaser to take
possession of the Lot, whether or not the Purchaser has actually
entered into possession or occupation of the Lot, the Purchaser
shall be deemed to have taken delivery of vacant possession of the
Lot.
[30] Based on the above three clauses, it was thus the Defendant’s
contention that the water reticulation system had indeed been completed
pursuant to Clause 10.2, as certified by their consultant, and that
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
“completion” does not include handing over of the system to the
Authorities.
[31] It is trite that Order 14A is suitable despite the Court having to
examine and construe documents or agreements involved in the matter.
However, as noted earlier, this is subject to the overriding rider that the
Court must be able to reach a decision without having to call witnesses to
determine the true meaning or intention of the clauses.
[32] A reading of the clauses cited by the Plaintiff suggests that this may
be a proper case where Order 14A ought to be invoked. However, when
these clause are construed together with the other clauses relied on by
the Defendant, these clauses as a whole put a different complexion on the
matter.
[33] This Court is of the considered view that while the clauses cited and
relied on by the Defendant do not determinatively resolve the dispute one
way or another, they have nevertheless, raised questions which can only
be answered at a trial.
[34] This Court agrees that witnesses will have to be called and extrinsic
evidence will have to be adduced to establish the veracity of the
“defences” raised by the Defendant.
[35] The application in Enclosure 9 is dismissed with costs. The Plaintiff
to pay the defendant costs of RM5,000, subject to allocator.
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
Postscript
[36] The scope of the summary judgment procedure has widened
considerably. In addition to the general summary judgment procedure laid
down in Order 14 and the disposal of a case on questions of law or
construction under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, summary
judgment for specific claims such as accounts and inquiries, actions for
specific performance etc and summary proceedings for possession of
land are provided for in Order 43, Order 81 and Order 89 respectively.
Hence, the proposition that “trial, as a rule, must precede judgment”
(Symons & Co v Palmer’s Stores (1903) Ltd [1912] 1 KB 259, 266) is no
longer the “rule”. Be that as it may, summary judgment is not granted as
a matter of cause when these Orders are invoked.
[37] With the amendment of section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act
1964, section 68(1)(d) now provides that “where a High Court dismissed
any application for a summary judgment”, no appeal shall be brought to
the Court of Appeal. When one examines this provision and those in
section 68(1)(e) and (f), the rationale becomes obvious. A dismissal of an
application for summary judgment does not mean that the applicant has
failed in the action. The matter proceeds to trial. Likewise, when an
application to strike out any writ or pleading is dismissed or an application
to set aside a judgment in default is allowed, the matter proceeds to trial.
In each of the above situations, section 68(1)(d), (e) and (f) now state that
no appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal.
[38] This Court has been made to understand that the Plaintiff in the
instant case is appealing against this Court’s decision in dismissing the
Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. As explicated in the
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
preceding paragraph, and in line with the provisions in section 68(1)(d) of
the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, no appeal shall be brought to the Court
of Appeal.
[39] This Court has also been made to understand that the Plaintiff
intends to argue that section 68(1)(d) only applies to dismissal of summary
judgment applications made under Order 14. As this application is made
pursuant to Order 14A, the Plaintiff will accordingly argue that the
provision in section 68(1)(d) does not apply.
[40] If the reasoning that section 68(1)(d) is only meant to apply to
applications made under Order 14, then dismissal of applications for
summary judgment under Order 14A, Order 43, Order 81 and Order 89
are all subject to appeal.
[41] This Court is of the view that if indeed the intention of the Rules
Committee is to limit the application of section 68(1)(d) to dismissals of
any application for a summary judgment under Order 14, this would or
should have been made clear in the said sub-section 68(1)(d). In view of
the absence of the phrase “under Order 14” in the said sub-section
68(1)(d), summary judgment ought to be understood as to include all
summary judgment applications under the various procedural rules of the
Rules of Court 2012.
[42] It is nevertheless granted that in certain circumstances, a
determination of questions of law or construction of provisions in a statute
or clauses in a contract or document pursuant to Order 14A of the Rules
of Court 2012 may bring a matter to an end. In such a case the losing
party ought not be prohibited from bringing an appeal to the Court of
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
Appeal. The adoption of such an approach will correspond with the
rationale behind the introduction of sub-section 68(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the
Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
[43] As for the present case, the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Notice of
Application for summary judgment under Order 14A does not result in the
dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action. The dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Notice of
Application for summary judgment under Order 14A does not result in
judgment entered in favour of the Defendant. This Court is therefore of the
view that the present case falls squarely within objective envisaged or
intended by the introduction of the new paragraph (d) in sub-section 68(1)
of the of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Henceforth, no appeal shall
be brought to the Court of Appeal. However, that is the decision to be
made by the Court of Appeal.
Dated: 3 November, 2023
sgd
[CHOONG YEOW CHOY]
Judicial Commissioner
High Court of Malaya
Shah Alam
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
Counsel:
Fong Lip Jeen for the Plaintiff
(Messrs. Wong & Ting)
Deborah Lau for the Defendant
(Messrs. Khairuddin Ngiam & Tan)
S/N j9zz8LstESfouCocncIMA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 19,732 | Tika 2.6.0 |
W-01(IM)-390-07/2021 | PERAYU LFL SDN BHD RESPONDEN PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA | striking out application - method of execution of the death penalty in Singapore was unlawful and brutal (‘the 16th Article”) - Correction Direction - section 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (‘POFMA’) - statutory powers - Article10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution - extra-territorial jurisdiction - a declaration that the appellant could not be subjected to any process within Malaysia in furtherance of the Singapore – injunction- leave to intervene in OS 51- immunity to a foreign state from being sued in another state in respect of its sovereign or governmental acts. The second principle limits the applicability of a country’s laws to its own territory and its citizen within that territory - immunity to a foreign state - restricted’ sovereign immunity - Absolute immunity - acta jure imperil - acta jure gestionis - Summons and Warrants (Special Provisions) Act 1971. | 08/11/2023 | YA Datuk Yaacob Bin Haji Md SamKorumYA Datuk Yaacob Bin Haji Md SamYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3a3e520f-3e1b-4bee-843e-d495d3d8f5fc&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA
(BIDANG KUASA SIVIL)
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-01(IM)-390-07/2021
ANTARA
LFL SDN BHD … PERAYU
DAN
JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA … RESPONDEN
DIDENGAR BERSAMA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA
(BIDANG KUASA SIVIL)
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-01(IM)-393-07/2021
ANTARA
LFL SDN BHD … PERAYU
DAN
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN
08/11/2023 11:55:40
W-01(IM)-390-07/2021 Kand. 31
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur
(Bahagian Kuasa-Kuasa Khas)
Saman Pemula No. WA-24-51-10/2021
Dalam perkara Arahan Pembetulan
bertarikh 22.1.2020 yang dikeluarkan di
bawah seksyen 11 “Singapore Protection
from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation
Act 2019”
Dan
Dalam perkara Perkara 5, 8 dan 10
Perlembagaan Persekutuan
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 15 Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012
Dan
Dalam perkara seksyen-seksyen 50 dan 51
Akta Relief Spesifik
Antara
LFL Sdn Bhd
(No. Syarikat 923866 – A) … Plaintif
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
Dan
K. Shanmugam, Menteri Dalam Negeri Singapura … Defendan
Dan
Peguam Negara Malaysia … Pencelah]
DAN
[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur
(Bahagian Kuasa-Kuasa Khas)
Saman Pemula No. WA-24-46-09/2020
Dalam perkara Arahan Pembetulan
bertarikh 22.1.2020 yang dikeluarkan di
bawah seksyen 11 “Singapore Protection
from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation
Act 2019”
Dan
Dalam perkara Perkara 5, 8 dan 10
Perlembagaan Persekutuan
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 15 Kaedah-Kaedah
Mahkamah 2012
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
Dan
Dalam perkara seksyen-seksyen 50 dan 51
Akta Relief Spesifik
Antara
LFL Sdn Bhd
(No. Syarikat 923866 – A) … Plaintif
Dan
Kerajaan Malaysia … Defendan]
CORUM
YAACOB HAJI MD SAM, JCA
VAZEER ALAM BIN MYDIN MEERA, JCA
MOHD NAZLAN BIN MOHD GHAZALI, JCA
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There are two (2) related appeals before us which are as follows :
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
i. Civil Appeal No. W-01(IM) - 390 - 07/2021 (“Appeal
390”); and
ii. Civil Appeal No. W-01(IM) - 393 - 07/2021 (“Appeal
393” )
Appeal 390 is the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the High Court
in Kuala Lumpur allowing the Attorney General Malaysia’s striking out
application of the appellant’s Originating Summons No. WA-24-51-
10/2020 dated 2.10.2020 (‘OS 51’) against K. Shanmugam, Minister of
Home Affairs, Singapore.
The appellant’s appeal in 393 is against the decision of the High Court in
Kuala Lumpur allowing the Respondent’s striking out application of the
appellant’s Originating Summons No. WA-24-46-09/2020 dated
18.9.2020 (‘OS 46’) against the Government of Malaysia (‘GOM’). Both
the striking out applications were heard together (collectively herein as
“the Appeals”).
[2] This is our unanimous decision. After considering
counsels’ full submission, both oral and written, we allowed both
the appeals.
[3] We provide our reasons herein below.
Background facts
[4] On 16.1.2020, the appellant published a press statement on their
website https://www.lawyersforliberty.org/2020/16/18875 in which they
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
alleged that the method of execution of the death penalty in Singapore
was unlawful and brutal (‘the 16th Article”).
[5] The Government of Singapore directed the issuance of a Correction
Direction dated 22.1.2020 (“the Correction Direction”) to the appellant
under section 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act 2019 (‘POFMA’), and notified the appellant that:
(i) the 16th Article contained false statements of fact;
(ii) Singapore’s Minister of Home Affairs (‘defendant’), in exercise of
his statutory powers under POFMA, directed the
plaintiff/appellant to insert a correction notice (‘correction notice’)
not later than 23.1.2020 and failure to comply with the correction
direction, without reasonable excuse, would amount to an
offence under s. 15 of the POFMA;
(iii) the plaintiff could apply to the defendant to vary or cancel the
correction direction; and
(iv) in the event the application for variation or cancellation was
refused, the plaintiff could appeal to the High Court of Singapore
to set aside the correction direction.
[6] However, the plaintiff did not comply with the correction direction
and, instead proceeded to file the two applications in the High Court, by
way of Originating Summonses (OS), namely OS 46 and OS 51.
[7] In OS 46 against GOM, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs -
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(i) a declaration that the appellant has the rights to express their
opinion in Malaysia with regard to any matters, pursuant to
Article10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution;
(ii) a declaration that the appellant’s rights could not be impaired by
a law in Singapore, namely the POFMA, which purports to extend
beyond Singapore, that is assuming extra-territorial jurisdiction;
and
(iii) a declaration that the appellant could not be subjected to any
process within Malaysia in furtherance of the Singapore law.
[8] In OS 51, against the Singapore Home Affairs Minister, the appellant
sought the following reliefs-
(a) a declaration that the direction issued by the defendant could not
be enforced against the appellant in Malaysia;
(b) a declaration that the defendant, or anyone acting under his
authority, could not take any action to enforce any provision of the
POFMA against the appellant within Malaysia; and
(c) an injunction to restrain the defendant, his servant or agents or
anyone acting under his direction from enforcing Singapore’s
laws, in particular the POFMA, or taking any action related
thereto, within Malaysia against the appellant.
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
[9] Vide order dated 23.12.2020, the Attorney General of Malaysia was
granted leave to intervene in OS 51. The Government of Malaysia, as the
defendant in OS 46, and the Attorney General of Malaysia, as the
intervener in OS 51, applied to strike out the plaintiff’s OS on the grounds
that they were scandalous, vexatious and frivolous and otherwise an
abuse of the process of court.
[10] In brief, the GOM and AG’s applications to strike out the appellant’s
OS 46 and OS 51 are premised on the following grounds-
(a) the High Court in Malaysia has no jurisdiction to determine the
validity of foreign legislation;
(b) Malaysia recognises Singapore as a foreign sovereign and
therefore Singapore enjoys immunity;
(c) the appellant is seeking to use the process of the court in
Malaysia to evade and escape from the enforcement of
Singapore laws in Singapore.
High Court’s decision and reasons
[11] Both the applications were heard together. The learned High Court
Judge has allowed the Government of Malaysia’s application (encl. 7) and
the Attorney General of Malaysia’s application (encl. 29) to strike out both
the appellant’s OS 46 and OS 51 with no order as to costs.
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[12] According to the Grounds of Judgment (GOJ) of the learned High
Court Judge, inter alia -
(a) Section 60 of the POFMA provides that, when an offence is
committed by a person outside Singapore, that person may be
dealt with in respect of that offence as if it had been committed
within Singapore. Section 233 of the Communication and
Multimedia Act 1988 (‘CMA’) makes it an offence, inter alia, for a
person to use a network facility or network services to initiate the
transmission of any false communication with the intent to annoy,
abuse, threaten or harass another person. Section 4(1) of the
CMA stipulates that the CMA applies to both within and outside
Malaysia.
(b) Both OS 46 and OS 51 called for the court to determine the validity
of the defendant’s action against the plaintiff under the provision
of the POFMA. However, the court was not seized with the
jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the POFMA. The law as
to jurisdiction had to be strictly observed by the court, as set out
in s. 23 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 which explicitly set out
the general civil jurisdiction of the High Court. Both OS 46 and OS
51 were frivolous and vexatious and abuse of the process of the
court, with no prospect to succeed.
(c) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong recognized Singapore as a foreign
sovereign. A certificate to this effect was issued by the Secretary
General of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With the
issuance of the certificate, (i) Singapore is clothed with sovereign
immunity from the jurisdiction of this court; and (ii) this court was
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
barred from exercising its jurisdiction to further inquire into the
plaintiff’s complaints in the OS.
(d) Furthermore, the defendant, in issuing the correction direction
pursuant to the provisions of the POFMA, was an act undertaken
by the authority of sovereign State of Singapore. This was clearly
a government act and therefore protected by sovereign immunity.
(e) The present case comes within the category of plain and obvious
case as envisaged in the case of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd for the
reason that both the OS are frivolous and vexatious and abuse of
the process of the court.
[13] Aggrieved by the learned High Court’s decision, the
Appellant filed appeal 390 against the AG and Appeal 393
against GOM.
Appellant’s submission
[14] Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are serious
questions that need to be tried as the OS involved a consideration and
resolution of applicability of two principles grounded in the international
law of comity of nations, in the context of this case. The first principle
grants immunity to a foreign state from being sued in another state in
respect of its sovereign or governmental acts. The second principle limits
the applicability of a country’s laws to its own territory and its citizen within
that territory.
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[15] The issue that arises in the OS filed in respect of Appeal 390 is:
whether and to what extent the court in one sovereign state has the
jurisdiction to consider whether or not relief can be given to a person who
complains that he could be affected adversely by a law of another
sovereign state acting possibly in violation of the second principle. In other
words, is the immunity granted under the first principle absolute such as
to oust entirely the applicability of the second principle. And as such that
the citizen will be denied access to justice in this country. Thus, this
requires a full and mature consideration of the applicability and scope of
an extra-territorial law in the context of the principle of comity between
nations. It was further contended that based on this principle, a foreign
state cannot rely on the principle of absolute immunity to oust the
jurisdiction of the local court. It was also submitted that there is no reason
why local courts are deprived of the jurisdiction to also consider this issue
as to whether or not a law has extra-territorial effect; and the concomitant
issue of its possible consideration as in this case to balance against or
oust the immunity of sovereign nations. To allow extra-territorial effect of
laws outright would result in an impairment of the appellant’s guarantee of
fundamental rights to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Federal
Constitution. It was also contended that any person who genuinely
perceives a threat to his freedom or adverse consequence is entitled to
seek a declaration from our court to protect himself from the threatened
action. The case of Datuk Syed Kecik v Government of Malaysia &
Anor [1979] 2 MLJ 101 was cited in support of the proposition. It was
submitted that the High Court Judge in allowing the striking out
applications had failed altogether to address on point of law – of
applicability of this principle of comity of nations as regards extra-territorial
effect of a national law.
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
[16] Learned counsel further contended that the immunity to a foreign
state may be denied if it violates two important principles, namely,
fundamental rights, and access to justice. The case of Benkharbouceh v
Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2019] AC 777 was cited in support
of the argument. The principle in Benkharbouceh was applied by the
Federal Court in Subramaniam a/l Letchumanan v The United State of
America and another appeal and The United States of America v
Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia and Ors [2022] 1 LNS 1253. It was
further submitted that the appellant is not questioning the validity of the
Singapore law. Just that any such law should not be extended to citizens
in Malaysia exercising their right to free speech. That is the thrust of the
remedy that the appellant seeks from the court.
[17] It was also contended by the appellant that the Attorney General of
Malaysia as intervener has no locus standi to object the OS at this stage
of the proceedings when OS 51 in Appeal 390 has yet to be served on the
defendant (Minister of Home Affairs Singapore). Thus, the AG has no right
to strike out this action when the defendant has not been served and not
taken any such course of action. Several cases were cited to support the
argument : Commonwealth of Australia v Midford (M) Sdn Bhd [1990]
1 MLJCJ (Rep) 77 [SC]; Hii Yii Ann v Deputy Commissioner of
Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2018] 7 MLJ 393;
Subramaniam a/l Letchumanan v The United States of America and
another appeal [2021] 5 MLJ 612.
Respondents’ submission
[18] Learned Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) for the respondents
submitted that in both cases jurisdiction is a fundamental and threshold
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
issue. Making reference to section 23 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964,
the SFC contended that the general civil jurisdiction of the High Court
provides that its limited within the local jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction
therefore is a limiting factor to the power of the High Court to deal with a
subject matter. SFC further contended that there is a significant difference
between “jurisdiction” and “power”. Jurisdiction relates to the type of such
matter which the court may deal with, whereas its powers may be
exercised only in relation to that jurisdiction. The case of Tan Keat Seng
Kitson v Kerajaan Malaysia [1996] 1 MLJ 454; Hap Seng Plantations
(River Estates) Sdn Bhd v Excess Interpoint Sdn Bhd & Anor [2016]
3 MLJ 553; Abdul Ghafar bin Md. Amin v Ibrahim b. Yusoff and Anor
[2008] 3 MLJ 771 were cited to support the argument.
[19] On point of sovereign immunity, SFC submitted that in Malaysia the
courts have adopted the theory of ‘restricted’ sovereign immunity rather
than absolute immunity. Absolute immunity would mean that any
proceedings against a foreign state are inadmissible unless that state
expressly agrees to waive such immunity, whereas restrictive immunity
would mean that the immunity is only available in respect of sovereign
activities or governmental acts (acta jure imperil) and not acts of a
commercial nature (acta jure gestionis). The case of Commonwealth of
Australia Commissioner of Taxation v Mildford (M) Sdn Bhd [1990] 1
CLJ (Rep) 77 and Hii Yii Ann v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of
the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2018] 7 MLJ 393 were cited to
support the argument. It was further submitted that the certificate issued
by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong vide the Secretary General of Malaysia
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Wisma Putra) had recognized Singapore as a
foreign sovereign. As such, Singapore is clothed with sovereign immunity
from the jurisdiction of courts in Malaysia exercising jurisdiction to inquire
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
into the appellant’s complaints in the two OS. SFC further submitted that
the act of Singapore Home Affairs Minister in issuing the correction
direction pursuant to the provisions of POFMA was an act undertaken by
the authority of sovereign state of Singapore that is governmental act
(acta jure imperil) and therefore protected by foreign immunity.
Our decision
[20] These appeals are against the decision of the High Court allowing
the striking out application made by the respondents pursuant to O. 18 r.
19 of the Rules of Court 2012.
[21] Since we are concerned here with the question of striking out
pleadings under O. 18 r.19, we do not propose to go into the facts and
documents in any more detail than is necessary.
[22] With regard to the principles for striking out pleadings, there are well
explained and expounded by the Federal Court in Seruan Gemilang
Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor
[2016] 3 MLJ 1 where Ramly Ali FCJ stated that:
“[25] The principles for striking out pleadings pursuant to O. 18 r 19
of the ROC are well settled. It is only in a plain and obvious case
that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule;
and this summary process can only be adopted when it can clearly
be seen that a claim on the face of it is obviously unsustainable (see
Bandar Builder, Hubbuck & Sons v Wilkinson, Heywood and
Clark [1999] 1 QB 86; AG of Duchy of Lancaster v London and
North Western Rly Co [1892] 3 Ch 274).
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
[26] The tests for 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:
(a) it is only in plain and obvious case 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’ (Emphasis added);
(c) it cannot b exercised by a minute examination of the document
and facts in order to see whether the party has a cause of action
or defence; and
(d) if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an
objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set
down for argument under O 33 r 33 of the ROC; and
(e) the court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of
action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the
defence raised are not arguable.
[27] The Court of Appeal, in Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v Che
Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors [2012] 1 MLJ 473, had adopted the well
settled principle of striking out in the following passage:
A striking out should not be made summarily by the court if
there is issue of law that requires lengthy argument and
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
mature consideration. It should also not be made if there is
issue of facts 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 (Federal Court)…
[28] 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 claim without having
to go into lengthy and mature consideration in detail. If one has to
go into lengthy and mature consideration in detail of the issue of law
and/or fact, then the matter is not appropriate to be struck out
summarily. It must be determined at trial.
[29] The established rule on this point is that the court should not
examine the evidence in this summary proceedings in such a 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 in
American Cynamid 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 not to
decide difficult question of law which call for detailed argument
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
and mature consideration. These are matters to be dealt with
at the trial…
This passage was cited with approval by Privy Council in a
Malaysian case of Eng Mee Yong & Ors v Letchumanan [1979] 2
MLJ 212.”
[23] Coming back to the instant appeals. From the OS 46 and OS 51, it
is clear to us that the appellant’s application for various reliefs and
declarations concern the issue of extra-territorial enforcement of certain
Singapore laws in Malaysia i.e. POFMA. On that account, it means that
the issue of extra-territorial enforcement of a foreign law in Malaysia and
the jurisdiction of Malaysian courts vis a vis that foreign law would have
to be dealt with following mature discussion and consideration by the
court. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Federal
Constitution protects the appellant’s rights to freedom of expression and
it is unfair to penalise the appellant in favour of a foreign law, the
application of which is unsettled in Malaysia. It is our view that the issue
raised by the appellant merits full and mature consideration. We agree
that there are serious questions to be tried in both Originating Summons.
In particular the two principles of comity of nations raised by the appellant
was not considered at all by the learned High Court Judge. The first
principle grants immunity of a sovereign state from being sued in another
state in respect of its sovereign or government acts; and the second
principle limits applicability of a country’s law to its own territory. In this
regard, it is useful to refer to Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 7th edn,
p. 118:
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
“In general, the principle of comity between nations requires that
each sovereign state should be exclusively allowed to govern its
own territory. So an Act does not usually apply to acts or omissions
taking place outside its territory, whether they involve foreigners or
Britons.”
[24] We agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
that there are serious issues raised in both the OS that requires further
serious argument. The primary issue raised by the appellant in both
appeals is whether and to what extent the courts in Malaysia have
jurisdiction to consider whether or not relief can be given to a person who
complains that he could be affected adversely by a law of another
sovereign state acting possibly in violation of the second principle, i.e. the
extra-territorial application of Singapore’s law in Malaysia in the context of
the principle of comity between nations.
[25] The learned High Court Judge decided that the appellant was
seeking the court’s pronouncement on the validity of a Singapore law, i.e.
POFMA, and in this regard the learned judge stated as follows:
“[16] Based on the above, I am of the considered opinion that this
court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of
the POFMA.”
[26] However, with respect, this is not the crux of the appellant’s case.
The appellant is not seeking the assistance of the High Court to adjudicate
on the validity of a foreign law, i.e. the POFMA. The appellant’s challenge
was instead on the extent of application of Singapore law to a citizen or
entity of this country, lawfully exercising within Malaysia his rights to
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
freedom of speech as enshrined and guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution. In other words, the question is to what extent, if any, may the
laws of one sovereign state have extra-territorial effect in another
sovereign states in the context of comity among nations. We believe that
this is the first time such a question has been brought to our courts and it
is an important enough issue to be given in-depth consideration by the
court. This is even more so when considering the potential legal
consequences to the appellant arising from non-compliance to the
Correction Direction. Under section 15(1) of the POFMA a person can be
imprisoned or fined (or both) for non-compliance of a Correction Direction.
Hence, it is clear that the appellant faces potential criminal sanction and
penalty for any alleged breach of POFMA, and the Singapore authorities
may have recourse to the Summons and Warrants (Special Provisions)
Act 1971 to enforce the appearance of the appellant in Singapore in
respect of the alleged offence. Pursuant to section 3 of the Act, a
Magistrate in Malaysia is empowered to issue a summons for a person to
appear in a Singapore Court if satisfied that it is a valid summons issued
by a Singapore Court requiring the appearance of that person.
[27] The situation is very unique. The appellant is a Malaysian entity. The
offending publication by the appellant, i.e. the 16th Article, was published
by the appellant in its website in Malaysia. The Correction Direction was
served on the appellant in Malaysia, directing the appellant to insert a
correction notice before the stipulated date. The appellant failed and/or
refused to do as directed. This is an offence under POFMA in Singapore.
The appellant can be summoned to appear in a Singapore Court through
the assistance of the Malaysian courts pursuant to the Summons and
Warrants (Special Provisions) Act 1971. In such a situation, where
Malaysia has some treaty obligations to render assistance to the
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
Singapore authorities, it becomes even more imperative for the issue
raised the appellant in both OS be given the consideration that they
deserve, instead of being summarily struck out. In coming to the decision
to strike out both the OS, the High Court Judge had failed altogether to
address this very crucial and important point of law – i.e. of the applicability
of the principle of comity of nations as regards extra-territorial effect of a
national law.
[28] Thus, upon the facts and allegations pleaded in the pleadings, which
we have highlighted above, can it be said that the OS applications
disclose no reasonable cause of action, for the High Court to exercise its
power to strike out the pleadings under O. 18 r.19(1)? Secondly based
on the conflicting affidavits in support of the applications, can the High
Court court exercise its power under the said Order or under its inherent
jurisdiction to strike out the same pleadings on the ground that they are
frivolous or vexatious or may prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of
the action or these pleadings are otherwise an abuse of the process of the
court under r.19(1)(b), (c) or (d) of O.18? [see Bandar Builder (supra)].
[29] Bearing in mind the established principles stated above, we say that
this is not a plain and obvious case for striking out the pleading as
disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Nor can we say that they are
frivolous, vexatious or may prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of
the action or that these pleadings are otherwise an abuse of process of
the court. To that extent we find that the learned High Court had erred.
[30] It has been said that so long as the pleadings disclose some cause
of action or raise some questions fit to be decided by the judge, the mere
fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed at the trial is no ground
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
for the pleadings to be struck out. The court should only strike out a suit
sparingly and only when it is bound to fail at trial. We are of the considered
view that there are serious questions to be tried in the OS of both Appeal
390 and Appeal 393 as the cases involved a consideration and resolution
of applicability of two principles grounded in the international law of comity
of nations and extra-territorial jurisdiction. The authorities further show
that if there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an
objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for
argument under O. 33 r. 3 of the Rules of Court 2012.
Conclusion
[31] In view of the reasons as discussed above, we hold that both the
decisions of the High Court allowing the striking out applications of the
respondents is plainly wrong, which therefore warrants appellate
intervention.
[32] As such, both appeals are allowed and we set aside the orders of
the High Court. Both matters are remitted to the High Court. We made no
order as to costs.
t.t.
(YAACOB HAJI MD SAM)
Judge
Court of Appeal
Malaysia
Dated 11 October 2023
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
Solicitors :
Counsels for the Appellant:
Dato’ Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar
Latheefa Koya
Kamarudin Abraham
Au Tian Hui
Messrs Daim & Gamany
Solicitors & Advocates
Unit A-1-1, Block A, 8 Avenue, Jalan Sungai Jernih 8/1
46050 Petaling Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Counsels for the Respondents:
Suzana binti Atan (Senior Federal Counsel)
Atiqah binti Zainal Abidin (Federal Counsel)
Attorney General’s Chambers
(Civil Division),
No.45, Persiaran Perdana,
Precint 4,
62100 Putrajaya.
S/N D1IOhs7kuEPtSV09j1/A
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 33,432 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-A52NCvC-482-09/2020 | PLAINTIF TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD DEFENDAN SHAHIZAM BIN IBRAHIM | meter tampering-sama ada TNB berjaya membuktikan meter tampering dan berhak menuntut kerugian daripada pengguna berdaftar | 08/11/2023 | Dato' Ishak Bin Bakri | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f35df14f-eb1e-4058-b455-4e49363df393&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 08:33:21
BA-A52NCvC-482-09/2020 Kand. 60
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N T/Fd8x7rWEC0VU5JNj3zkw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
BA—A52NCvC—IE2—D9/2020 Kand.
as/u/mu
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESVEN DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERV SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA
GUAMAN No BA-A52Ncvc4a2479/2020
ANTARA
TENAGA NASIONAL EERHAD .. PLAINTNF
[Nu. syarikar 199uo1oo9294 (200856-Wn
DAN
SHAHIZAM BIN IBRAHIM . DEFENDAN
(No K/P. a11214—1o—5-173)
DAN
MAsTR\x SDN BHD . .P\HAK KETIGA
(No. syanku: 1272904-X)
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
1. Plaurml ada\ah sebuah syarikal berhad yang membexaxkan lenaga
elsklnk dan mpemaaamn ua bawah undang-undang Mamysxa yang
mempunyan mama: berdafvar dx Pejaba! Seuausaha Syarikal, Tlngkal 2,
mu Pembal Tenaga Nas|ona\ Eemad, Na. 129, Ja\an Bangsar, 59200
Kuala Lumpur.
2. Defendan pula admah indwidu perseorangan yang mempunyai
aVama\ lerakhir yang mkexanm mm d\ Nu. 3.1‘ Jalan Hlflpark 11/3, Pusat
Perdagangan Hiflpark, mun Puncak Alam‘ Selangor Dam! Ehsan
sw HFnax7rwEcwu5.ANy:z.xw
mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm
an
3-2;
uan/atau No. 23. Jalan 13, Pandamaran Jaye, 42000 Pakabuhan Klang,
Selangnr Damn Ehsan
3, Delendan mempaksn pengguna hevdaflar dengan plamxii melahu
Akaun Na. 5141 210070350600 (ham) berkenaan bekahln Eflaklrik yang
amskaxkan ke pvemis delendan bsrelamaldx Na.:4—1,.1a\an HH|park11/3,
Pusat Perdagangan Hinpark, 42300 Puncak AIsm,se1angur Damn Ehsan
l“premis Iersebuf).
4. Pada alau sekmar 231.2019‘ pwamm me\a\ui agen/pekenanya lalah
melakukan pemenlsaan ke avas pepasangan mater/meter di prams
Iersebu|.
5. Eardasarkan hasil pemeriksaan lsrsebul‘ plamm mendakwa
bahawa pekerja pwamm lelah menemuw penguswkan alau ksjanggaxan
pada pepasangan meter/mam dx prams lsrsebut, amara Iainnya,
dwdapalx Ierdaval Dandawaisn [ems hag‘ Keuga—Uga lasa dan neulral ks
DB psngguna lanpa me\alui meter.
0 Wawnul kernudiannya menyalakan bahawa pekaqa mainlfi telah
ruerekodkan kesemua kqanggalan nan/aoau pengusikan dan/atau
gangguan yang mlemul pada pepasangan me|erlme\er sewaklu
pemenksaan an prerms tersebul.
7. PIEVMW kemudwannya menyafakan bahawa pskeqa plain!!! lelah
mekakukan pembalkan ke alas pepasangan meter/meler lersebul darn
|e\ah mengambfl bahznrbahan bum yang menunwkkan keuanggarsn
dan/atau penguswkan uanramu glngguan yang wum pada pepasangan
meler/meter di pre lersebm.
IN HFOax7rwEcwu5.ANy:z.xw
-um smm ...m.mm be 0;... 0 mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
45 O\eh im, adaflah ]e\as bahawa pernyeeaen bertuns \evsehut lelah
memenum llma (5) syaral yang aihuurkan nleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalem
kes Tanaga Nulonel Enrhad v Dunla Raya Enzarprisa sdn Bhd [2015]
5 cu 751
For me eppeuem ca rely an e wvman smlnmunl, lhn fomrwinu mun
have Izkan wax
(u we eppenam mull have twisted the loss cl revenue
and reduce n we a documum and wnllsn stammsm.
my an employee and/av auly mm-ma pump at me
BDDe\Ian|mus|have pemsedme am:uman|n:wn\l eme
wnllln smamem up penny me wmlen stammerfl,
um mecermea mm... siavsmunlmum epmamme pampmars
slated VA 5 saw on ESA 1990
(my «er a vane oemncale. |he neme av the emplnyae or
eemerme panel: uf me appeuam mun appear m me
statement and duly sagnea,
m rva proper oenmea sxalemenl is Vswed, n needs up be
.I-wad an we cni1omerand\Hha cusmmavdues nm pay.
men mm men can he Iskzn mu, :1 a porrmuorr
pre(>eden|lor\nn|s(\annln\\IlInnIlon1n rempepu as «er
Tenaqato Vssue a oenmsd wnllen slalemenlacccrmng up
law, belove cml acuan wn be ppmmencea..
47 OVEI1 VIII, Derllyalaan bsrtulis berlarikh 29 7 2020 walar dilemma OVEN
Mahkamah sehagai xenerenger. puma fanie msngenax jurmen yang
temmang oxen delendan kepeae Mamtif bagi kehflangan permepeoen.
43. Du pmek delsndsn puna, dedsndan telah gegex mengeruuuaken
sebarang kmsrsngan hag! menyangkal kelerangan puma /ECIE
psrnyataan nenuns plamlif.
N nrnaxvrwzcvvusmvluw
we sanaw n-nhnrwm be used e mm e. nrW\nnU|Y MW: dun-mm wa .num wrm
Ponglraan uagl lumlall mmuun
49. Semasa katersngan saksl plamdfSP1, beliau telah mengemukakan
Penglraan Amaun Kemg\an Hasu dan Perbehanjaan Sena Ca; Barman
Akmax Uukan Pepasangan Meter yang msaaiskan nleh behau flan
dflumskan oleh SP4 bagi menyekcng lunxutan p\amM unluk kahilangan
pendapalan menurut Seksyen asm Akla Eekalan Elekmk 1990.
so sm Ieleh memelasxan sscara lerperinci berkenaan cara beuau
membual pengiraan bag: jum\ah tunlulan, spc jugs membenkan
kensrangan hahawa sehanang kepulusan mengsnal kaedah psngwaan
yang digunapakai darn Cara menenluksn lankh permulaan pengiraan
kebewakang dnbual berdassrkan perbmcangan behau usngan pegawai
avasan belisu Ianu sun
51. Twads wbab unluk Mahkamah msnulak keterangan SP1 dan SP4
mengenaw pan an jumkm luntulan plmmmemaaap defendan.
52 Da\am kes Sumbang Projaks Sdn Ehd v Tenann Nusional
aamad [2014] 4 CL] 323 Mahkamah Rayuan memuluskan.
[521 n was nut view man m cm absence Many Ischnmal penunne\
lmm Iha P\am|\lTIoIg:|mzs|\on, such as an engmeen being called as
veriryme ewdanm an SP3 Mm win pm a slam, n V: not sans mvlhu
com m my on sPa's evndsme mane as having pmvln lhs Flammfi
quanwm no as 1055 ov revenue Although spa dawned ma: 3 olher
semor Mlwcen ma cunnnm and appmved he! caloulalmn av ma
hacK~b4IHng m (hair lhlenua nus -mwntod to a mu asssman nmy.
In my words. them was no mrmbaralmn an ms iewrzcy M sve -
u\wla|\on
N nrnaxvrwzcwusmyzuw
ms Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m mm ms nflmnnflly MW: dun-mm wa muNG Wm!
53. Dalam kes i , SP1 yang manyemaxan panglvaan adalah seorang
pembantu oaam yang berpengalaman dan telah berkhidmal dengan
plainlif sewama weum kurang we nanun dengan plamlii
54. Penglraan yang dwbusl eleh sm selanjmnya Ae\ah msemak dan
diluluskan men swa, saorang Eksekunl Sackbifling carauxaucn yang
berkhndmat dsngan plainuf Pengwamany la\ar bewakang den xewayakan
SP1 den SP4 Iehah dikemukakan kepaua Mahkamah semasa mereka
memnerv kelerangan.
55. Mahkamah menaapau banawa SP1 dan SP4 adalah orang yang
harkawayakan un|uk menjalankan lugas—|ugas mereka berdasarkan
pengalaman, \ea'han—|a\ihan dun kawayakan mereka. 0\eh nu, (lads sabab
unluk Mahkamah msragm pengiraan kehflangan pendapatan yang arbuan
oleh SPldan(e1ah msemax dan auumskan men spa.
Sam: Ida dolnndzn Idalah ptngquna Inrdufiar dengan puimin
55
bevdauav dengan Mawntwiadalah delendun. Berkenaan undakan wendan
yang mernlaukan presiding terhadsp Pmak Keuga, plainm lidak
mempunyal ssbamng hubungan konlrakmal dsngan Plhak Ketiga
bsrkenaan erskmk yang aihexaman ke warms lersehm.
a kevaguan bahawa pads mxsa yang macenax, penggun: yang
57. Dawn kes Thomas Thomas V rorug. Nulorul Bovhad [2017] 4
cu 340 Mahkamah Rayuan menyalaksn
[20] Thelvfomy Isiavas wnsumwonmelecmolly m lhe Dlermsei
:5 concerned, n was me uppeHan|‘s wla viwunsnbxlfi‘/y am we
‘oonsumef under Ihe salesmen! a pay allumavnndmg mural: dun
IN nFnax7rwEcwvu5.ANy:x.xw
-ma saw ...n.mn be used m yaw ms mm-y mm: dun-mm wa muNG pm
up ma On me ewdanoe as mm by me Isnmed saxsms cam
judge and as ufflrmod by me llamsd Nlgh Conn judge on appeal,
e\ec1m:\o/ mu a. «eu um mnsumad dunng me penud «mm 22
sepnemper ZOOLZ1 Deosmber 2007 n Vs inenmm mp emuany
eonpumeo me enemcrry
[211 As ma‘: ragumea cpnsumev, n war we zppeuenrs
reepanemxmy we ensure Inst Ina meter nl me pmrmux wu ml
darnlslad av tampered mu ms vssmnsimlny Iamnim wilh ma
appaflznl (hmughour mp dummn M the agmsmenl unllss by his
Ienanny agreement pm me IIrun|, u. had amqnsd such
rwwmvmbfllly to me Innam Even than such ngreemem mum m:|
pm 1'Ns,m11 pump a parlym msmnzncy agreement
my me, where we mete: was damaged orlamporsd mm by me
«emu av me uccumav wan nr warm: the epneuenre nevmussxon or
by anyone as: during lhn Igrsemvnl pence, me wpellenl musl Day
for me resumng ‘ass of revenue meme by ms‘ M71 necme he
nan anytr-mp to do wnh the Lumnedng er damage uupea up we
melsv but Baum: up was bound py Agreement m pey Var me
Meclvinny merges the Van ul vvvanuu under such circumstances
mnnol can on was ueea mmiu be gmlsly meme ms
55 Beldasarkan kepada kes yang dirujuk a. alas. admah jelas bahawa
sslakal mans Isnys adalah herxenaan penggunaan Nektrik d1 plemis
weepm, ianya adalah Oanggungjawab defendan seVaku pengguna di
bawah parjarman bekalan umuk membayar kesernua ca]-ca; yang perlu
dibayar an bawsh akann |ersebul kepada ms.
59. Dalam Imdskan .n., delemian lelah memfaflkzn prosmding Pihak
Keuga ialu Iarhadap Megmx Sdn and. Mahkamah nereequxu dengan
mqahan pram bahawa plainlfl lidak bo\eh mengempn ape-ans Imdakan
sw nFnax7~vEcvvu5.ANy:h.kw
«-we smpw n-nhnrwm be used m mm me nflmnnflly MW: dun-mm VII muNG v-mm
(emadsp k Ke|iga memandangkan keliadaan konlrak anfara plalrml
dan Puhak Kenga. Pevaturan 3(2) Perelman-Feraluran Beka\an
Pemagang Lesen 1990 mempemnlukkan bahawa defendan, selaku
pengguna berdaflar dengan plalmrf ada\ah benanggungan untuk
membayar kapad: plairml segala ca, berkenaan dengan psmbekéflan
elaklrik pads prams Mu yang lerakru.
so Feralumn 3(2) Feraluran-Peraluran semen Fsmegang Lesen
1990 msnyallkan sepem bank
3. Rzmveny olelsclvidly charges
41; A hmnsaa may mower from a wnwmerany charges mm m mm
m respect oi um snowy or axecmmy, or in vupecl at In: supply and
fixing :71 any elemncfly melsv. sunmy Hm av a\m:lm:4l eq mam
(2; N 3 aansumer was my wsmlssrs at ma. shclncny nas bwsn
mum by a lboensse mm: alvmg mliae (band m m. nmam.
w (Ital .1 u renewed by me menses ac lean wee mama day;
baton he quit: lhu pmmu, n. man be him: m pay Ina Hcensee
an mamas m reaped cl me suvmy ul e\eL1nuty m m. prurmssi
accluma up to wmchavsr ov me mum-vg rm oscuvs, ninety-
12:) Du um walking day nllsv he has given such man: In Ine
mnsee:
my me next day an wmcn me regular av any mslsv has |u be
awenilned‘ at
(C) Ihu day mm which any nubsmzuem uncunret cl mg premises
reqmre: me lmensae lo sumfly aucmuxy 10 ms pramli-as
51. Berdasirkan Peramran 3(2) Peraluran—Ferawran Eekakin
Pemsgang Lasen 1990, defsndan tidak bo\eh mengelnk danpada
|anggung1awabnya umuk mernbayar jumlsh Iunlulan Kepada plannvf.
sw nrnaxvrwzcvvusmyzuw
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
62. Feraturan 3(2) Peraluran-psraluran Eeka¥an Pemegang Lssen
1990 membenarkan mans-mans penghunl selerusnya msmohnn kspsda
plainm unluk mambeflkan bakalan eleklrik ks premis (sraebut.
5:. lm bermaksud Pihak Keuga sebngaw penglmni baham prerms
tersebut omen mamohun unluk menukar nama pengguna berdaflar
dsngan plum. Tebapi uevendan hdak mengambil (indaksn Lmtuk
menukar nama psngguna berdaflar kepada nama Pwhsk Keuga smepas
menyewskan premls (arsebm kepada Pmak Keligs.
ea. oxen yang uammn, defendan Kekal sebag pmak yang
barlanggungjawab ke alas penggunaan bekalan e\ek|rik ax prsmls
(ersebul.
5-ma ma plalnlif porlu memberikan notls nwal knpada dulnndall
ubolnm minlalanlcan pomariksann kc nun promls defendarfl
ss Delendan nemuzan bahawa pemenksaan ke alas pepasangan
meter/meter yang anakukan aleh pnamm adalah benenlangan dsngan
Akita Eekalan flan/alau Peraluramperuluran Femegang Lesen
memandsngkan mamlwf udak membenkan ssbarang nous awal keoada
defendan sebelum plamm menjalankan pemanksaan lpada 23.1.2019.
as Walau bagaxmanapun, penelnian Mahkamah kepaus Peratumn 1
Feramrsn Beka\an ‘alas memnen kuasa kepada wakxl nan/aoau pekar]:-1
pramm unluk memasuki pvemis Iersebul hag: lujuan menmankan
pemenksaan ke atas pepasangan meter/meter (anpa perlu membenksn
IN HFnax7rwEcwu5.ANy:z.xw
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
nmis awal mengenav pemenksaan yang akan auawankan kepada
delendan.
67 Da\am kes Te-mg: Nusionnl Ben-ad v AWP Enmprlu {M} Sdn
and [2015] 3 MLJ 268 Mahkamah Rayuan memuluskan sepem bankm
[161 The um com um nmarr m nppmng summon mm to we
max muse befioru an Irsoacfian mm «m Vnsnsdmn ... m no
luhlity Furlhin one: (amparmg rs nmmnmoa, the party Mm am an
m, um 2. blllnus cl pmbabfllllas, the wnsumur who pays um
maclnnfly am. who an would gum by dmng so» The argument: as
m whu ndumly used Ins ehxfindly‘ and me ghnnw ol mum helm:
an \’nspocnun,aI1argumen1IIMllI no mum. and pmbamyonlylolssd
me am ulmy lmm lonumng an me vesevanx inuu
ea Dalarn kes Tatum: Nuloml Eurhad v arigm Rims
Manutmurlng sun and [2011] a MLJ A55 Mahkamah Tmggi
memuluskan sepeni berikul.
[41] Dalam pnnyataan Pefnhalaznnya‘ delendan Ielsh menaflkan
dakwun plamhl |mdspI| u-ngumn paoa Psmasznwan me|er m
premls deiendan Dnlam perenggan am delsndsn telsh manuauu
mink pemah dlben nalis alau dlmaklum Izmang pemenksasn ylng
akan dUB\ankan man peqawm mamm.
my Dnlam keadam a: man: vannunan .:axmx |eIah emu.
nenaku. mama musm sekalx mm mamsflukan nmls dlban
sebeium vamankszan mm. ddalankan. Pemerlksaan hnnya
bsrkesan smranya d\la\ankan xecara manweiul lanpa memben
sebnrang palunng Kepada pmak ynng duxmksa umuk membual
vevseam avsu umuk membemlkan kendzun Mahkamah
N nFnax7rwEcuvu5.ANy:x.kw
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
mandapalv aduan delendan dalam kxmlaks W Max bnasas Vanusun
Dunw dun pnmx -innmk
59 Oleh nu. pemeriksaan plammemadap pspasangan maceml premls
dsfendan pada 23.1.2019 adalah sah tanpa perlu mamberi nous awal
kepada defendan.
7o Ds\am kes pemenksaan kepada penguslkan alau kejanggalan
Kepada pepasangan meter, Mahkamah berpendapal, sacara lojlk axsl,
pemenksaan serava mengewl kepada mana—mana premis Ianpa
memberikan sebarang nous adalah munasabah
71. sexwanya nous awal mberikan, letdapal kebarangkafian yang Imggi
bahawa pengguns berdaftar bo\eh mengambfl undakan untuk
msmpsrbelulkan pengusikan kepada pepasangan mam
Pannnluan mm. parmulaan bagi plnglrzan jumlah cumman
72. Kelerangan SP1 aan SP4 berkenaan pengvaan jum\ah mmman
man dncabar meh defendan Delendan mendakwa (ankh psrmulaan
penguraan Jumlah xunman pada 2a.s.zma adalah (idak lepat enas a\asan
sepem bsrikul.
(a) daiendan hanya manerima millkan kosang daripada pemaju
pada acau saxuar 5.7 2018: dim
(b) premis tersehul hanya dwsewakan kepada Puhak Keuga hermma
1 3 2015
IN nFnax7NvEcvvu5.ANy:z.xw
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
13 SP1 dan sm Ielah meruelaskan bshawa kehlasaannya suddsn
drop digunakan unluk menenmkan lankh permmaan pengxraan gurrflah
kehflangan pendapalsn yang jugs manggap sehagan mun pengusikan
bermula.
74 Walau nagaunanapun. memandangkan nada sudden drop dalam
penggunaan erexxrik di premis delsndan, SP1 dan SP4 |e\ah
menganggarkan hahawa penguslkan bermula seawa\ dalendan rnula
maanaukan sebagan psngguna berdaflar hagw premis Ietsebul mu pads
28.6.2018.
75. Pendekavan yang mambo oxen spa dan sw ada\ah selaras dengan
perenggan 5.3.20) Saris Panduan Prossdur Tumuxan Kemgian Haswl
Olen Pemegsng Lesen bagr Kes—kas Fsnggunaan E\ek\nk Dengan
Curang yang mksmarkan o\eh Sumhanjaya Tenaga (‘Gans Panduan ST‘)
sapem bsrikut.
5.3.2 aagx kes yam (lads sudden amp
1 m man: kasahhan dwsyakx law: n1HaI<ukan dun mm. bekxlan
m.n..:m.., klvaan IEIVWDN kumlangan unn hsrmula nan um
bekalan «mm... sehmus my melebmi hm: <5) mm... man
u an dakam «mes Vam. mm tampon mum." um| mm
danplda \ankh kasahhan dflramm Xe oeiakanw flank melasihi
Iimamuhun
7a. Barkenaan dakwaan delendan hahawa meler an premvs aevenaan
menunjukkan penggunaan “anmr semzsa milikan kosong dibenkan
kepada defendan pads 5 7.2013. sm memewasxan bahewa beflau mah
manenlukan Lankh mula Dsngiraan ;um\a7I tuntutan berdasarkan mu
IN nFnax7rwEcvvu5.ANy:x.m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
panama banankh 28 7.2015 yang dwekodkan bagi lempoh anvara
29.6.2018 hmgga 25 7.2013 lailu 514.00kWh.
17. P am berhujah walaupun bil-bx! eleklrik bagl bman April zms, Mex
2013 den Jun 2013 msrskndkan panggunasn nkwh, Cerdapal ca[ mmima
yang dwkenakan Ierhadap delsndan bag: hulanrbulan lersebul Tambahan
pula. penggunaan ukwn max boieh msamakan dengan kefiadaan
eleklnk. mi kerana jenis pengusikan flan/atau kwanggaian yang duemm
ada\ah penggunaan kabe\ lambahan asmg yang mgunakan unluk
menmekaxkan eleklnk ke premis lersebul secara Isms (anpa me\a\ui
meter danpada due (2) sumber yang beriaman
75 mam wga bemujah bahawa dukumerrdckumen berkenaan
serahan milikan kosong premis tersebul kepada delsndan oleh pemaju
dan penaniian sewaan amara aevenaan dan Plhak Kaflga |idak pemah
dlkemukakan o\eh delsndan kepada pnamm patia bllarbula mesa sevepas
derendan menenma nous-nuns tuntman bagi membmehkan Mainm
mengamhnl hndakan unluk mene|i|i semwe uenglraan jlmllah Iunlman
sebelum nndakan Inl Waflkan di Mahkamah.
79 Dokumsn-dakumsn lersebut hanya mxamukakan o\eh defendan dx
Mahkamah bag: |u]uan perhicaraan pen-m lmdakan mi O\eh itu, «empoh
pengxraan julmah tumuvan yang d\bua| cleh plamui ada\ah munasaban
den telah dmuat berdasarkan Gans Panduan ST.
30. Da\am kars Yellaqa Nasiunnl Earhad v AWP Enlurprln (M) sdn
BM [2015] :9 MLJ 268 Mahkamah Rayuan memmuskan bahawa
penemuan bagv kehflangan pendapalan handaldah bardasarkan
anggapan kerans adakah mus(amI unluk pxaumw msmmar semma mesa
IN HFnax7rwEcwu5.ANy:z.xw
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
B Eerdasarkan ujlan yang dljalankan ke alas papasangan
metar/mater di premls lalsebul, plalnlll mendakws bahawa meter dl
premls lersebul lelan gagal urlluk merekcdkan penggunaall eleklrlll
sebenar Iallu dsngan ralal sebanyak 429.12% akinal daripada
Kejanggalan dan/alau penguslkan dan/alau gangguan lersebul.
9. Berikulan danpada pemsrlksaarl nleh plalntfl dan kqanggalan
darl/alau psrlguslkan darllaiau gangguan yang dllemul kepada
pepasangan meter/meter G1 premis IelSebuL plalnnl lalan membum
laporan pulls bemcmbor Saujarla uuma/ooosezle Danarikh 23.1.2019
benuiuarl senagal mjukan darl raked plalnlll bahawa psmerlksaarl
pepasarlgan rneler/male: telah alyalanxan al pramls lersebul.
16, Akibal penguslkzlrl lelsebul, plainlll mendakwa meter di prenns
tzrsebut iidak dapal berflmgsi dengan baik darl sempuma sana gagal
merekodkarl bacaarl yang lepst aalaras dengarl uekalan aleklrlk yang
alnakalxan pada sellap masa yang ma|sriaI
11‘ Eeldasarkan kepada nasll penlerlksaan lersebul, plalnln lelan
menlbual penglraan flan merldapali banawa lerdapauumlah penggunaan
Ierlaga aleklnx yang Ndak dlrekodkan ssbanyak RM174,74I-3.10 unmk
lenlpon uarl 28.6.2018 hlngga 23 1.2019 Isrmasuk kns opera
berkailan.
an cukai
12 Plalnlll kemualannya Ielah mengeluarkan nulls mnlulan beriarlkh
29 7 2020 kspada aalanaan menunml dafendan membayar lumlall yang
dilunlul Selerusnyay melalui sural peguamcara plainlll benarikh
23.2020. plalnlll merlurllul daferldarl rvlsmhual Dembayararl berjumlah
RMI74,749.10 larmaauk laedan dan kos.
IN nFnax7rwEcvvu5.ANl:lz.m
"Nuns s.n.l In-vlhnrwm be as... m mm a. nrwlruflly MIN: dun-mm vla .nunc wnxl
bagi merukodkan penggunaln sebenar da\am kss—kes yang melibalkan
pengusman ke alas pepasangsn melarlmeten
[51 ms case eunclmod ex-many wppry We hear In mi
-ueancny vs wmxe me! one nupphad m fixed qnammui Iuwrdlng
In mdlr, Inch that am qulnmy mum and suppuea Vs nleafly
determined by defively orders and Wnvulcna,
(:7 ulhermznms names and svmnhaeirby men n -mppm, n \s
wnvwibla‘
(:2) me mum me Ivwims man a wniumev pay: in nonumn
manage, Inrlhe quinn'Iyo1e|3cMcm/ wnwmed:
(up manquanmy vs determined hy a me1m,lnI(a\|e¢ meesamy m
we prarmul M ma uonsumac
my me melzrisumpamd warms rawmmu would not mllanlhe
mus: qnenuly cl e\ec1r1uIy mmumed, and
min w me meta Is waned In a mum mm is kupl kicked.
sameann may nu access II N Inlsmevl the eweemmy tabla:
nevme reaching and muecy bypassing me mmer.
[1 71 For ma suesmsmy xuyphsr‘ n Is wmposslhla in Ium buck |M duck
nnd m-mmurthu wnlummwn The aecemmeuen Vs neeessenly
by an esumale.
[Mme gsvmznl oormdeqnon‘ In our view. is Ihal me dncumenx
flemnnslrxlas haw an uwnate n armsd an m u\oulaI\ng
hackohames to be Imposed An as me, camparsd m anus!
ememe wm appear as sketchy‘ hazy ems wniusmg. Sl=I1wca\
mmemaucs mu anew: Vs nun: sumeemwn me avenue :71
lawyers and judgss N we ewmala results In lmuusing an
admlxznm charge at 21»/. In man had been mm and pan1.l1Is
ram 50 necessamy beyond the bounds av rasuunalulhly man n
ma bi Vfijutled. Vn am mew, n u Is ealahlhhsd men n meluv
mu been umpusa mm and as readings dues m|ra4lea1 me
sm Ylrnaxvrwzcvvusmyauw
mm. sew n-nhnrwm be LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
ac|ua\ cunsumpllon at eleclflcuy, zmd ma auamonax mam or
backduvge lmpawd uponms cansumens nmdemomlriladlo
be mnm1as|\y umuuwnable‘ axoessrve or wmnu. ms amaunl
due is Druved upon 3 balance Mpmbamlxtwal
[251 In the rum analymz
1a) 3 mnsumsrmust paymrihs alodncrly he nunsumus‘
(I2) 719 should not he aflmmfl Ia hsnefit mm tzmpsvwg av rnslsvs in
pay \ass, as n msulls \n ma aanmx n-Mn: aw; nun lorllsstr
s4ec11icny‘ and
my shine the c\m:k umnm :1. turned on In reausasuve Ins
wnsmnnnm mfly esflmalzs can he mnde. um um unmet:
.3 rw| mwn In be munwsauy unreasonable, exrzasslve orwmnq.
it may he mzpxaa as may upon a oa\am>e an pmbabflilles al
was amoum estimated and dmmosi
51 Undang-undang msmap adalah hahawa Mahkamah bemak darn
diberi kuasa unluk mengawadkan aps we rem yang mm waiar dan suai
manlaat kepsda p\a1nM dalam Iindakan W menurut pemlaran Mahkamah
ssbagaunana yang (Blah diplldkan dan dwpohon dalsm pemnggan 79(9)
pemyalaan mm-nan heflankh 21,9 2020
52 Dalam kes Llm Eng Kny v Jular Mohamnd Sald [1952] 2 MLJ
156 Mahkamah Persekuluan memuluskan sepeni benkul:
In any case prayer (an In Darznrznh 41). ‘Any um: vefievf which «Ms
Nnrvnurnbb Court deem m to qmnt'mua1 m| be healed as . mere
arnamem ta pwemmgs devmd uvany mnanlng lms pmyer shnmd
ermtls Ihe Court to make such an messmem
Sama ads plninlll mum momnukkan xumuun jumlah kanllnngan
hull bani prnmls 5-1 ax dalam lumlah tumulalfl
N nFnax7rwEcuvu5.ANy:x.kw
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
83 Defendan mendakwa bahawa plamIxHe\a7I memhuauumuvan surah
temadap devendan dsngsn memssukkan Iunmtan kehilangan hasu hagi
Premxs 5-1 d1da\am;umIaMunlu(an plainm
an Wa\au bagaimanapun, SP2 dalam kelarangannya Ielah
manjalaskan bahawa prerms Iersebul msnggunakan e\ek(nk danpada
due (2) summer yang herhezs ‘am; satu (1 ) dari incoming prerms Iarsebul
sendm dan salu (1) wag] dam‘ mmming Premis 5-1 dengan manggunakan
xabex lamhahan asing yang msammmg secara cams ke drsbvmmon board
an dalam premis lersebut.
as Tmdakan SP1 dan SP4 yang membual pengwraan wmlah luntulan
berdasarkan ,-mien ams eleklrik yang dlujx olah pasukan pemeriksaan
danpada ksdua-duz sumhsr adalah sah darn max manyalam um:ang—
undang.
es. Semasa pemanksaan ba\as, spa |elah menyelaskan bahawa
aevenaan adalsh puhak yang sehamsnya menanggung rugi plainw aknbal
daripada nengusvkan danlalau kqanggalan yang dllsmuw m premws
defendan.
37. Walau bagaimanapun, Gans Fanduan 57 dengan ‘alas
membenarkan plsmw membual pengvaan jumlah lumulan dengan
menggunakan "beban yang diglmakan di premls ssmsss psmeriksaan
c/an psngujran metal d" /ankan” seaenimana perenggan 52 3 yang
memperunlukkan sepani berikul.
Sekimnya beknlan diambtl dalvqan mammal aamhlmgan secsrn
«ems mp. ms4a\ui ma nlau psngunan kamunn max flaps!
IN nFnax7rwEcvvu5.ANy:x.m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
awwamnaun, penglraan xsnuangan unu mm. mmuu mg...
menagunakan Eeban Kshundak Makwna yang hsndaklah mum
ssmasa pelmohnrmn bekslzm ekaltmk mm: ulsh pangguna denuun
msnggunakan hshan Ismasam amu hebnn yang dngunakan a.
mm Iemua pemenksain den ysngnulan .nersm...x.nm
ea Ada\ah jelas bahawa pengwraan ;um\ah mmuzan plamul aflalah
taralur dan munasabah. nerendan lelah gage! unmk msmmmkkan
seharang manifest erwr dzflam pengirasn yumuan lun(u|an naua sabab
unluk Mahkamah menmak cara pangvaan yang dfbual dan uleh sm dun
sm.
89. Gans Fanduan ST yang mgunapakav oleh pkainuf aaram msmbuat
pengxeaan yumwan mnmnn nanyaran bersflat sabagai garls panduan dan
ianyz udak mempunyax sebarang kesan untiangmndang
so. Adalah muslam unmx p\amuf mengkm gens panduan Iersebul
secara kaseluruhannya Ianpa mengam aspek prakI\ka\ semasa an
Lspak pemenksaan. Gans Panduan ST rm adalah gans pantiuan dalaman
yang dikaluarkan o\eh Suruhanjaya Tsnaga sebagau panduan berkenaan
cavacara pengenaalian kes-kas pengusxxan pepasangan me|e(lme|er.
91. Damn: kes Jm. Kansult Sdn and vTom - Nulonal BM [2022]
muu 1507 Mahkamah Tinggx ada memuluskan hsrkallan isu yang sama
yang dibangkflkan oreh poguamcara delandan an mana da\am kes Jltu
Konsult Sdu Bhd Mahkamah Tmggi man memutuskan sepeni berikul:
[171 I also hold mm mm .5 snsomry no neuasuly for (he
wilnemex In Euler vmu lha prermsu m asoeaam man the lmnkmg
cable gncemn We Ihe Dismbuhon Box\na\da1he Plamltrrs prenflses.
IN nFnax7rwEcvvu5.ANy:x.m
Nuns smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nrW\nnH|Y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm
n it snMcIen| Ina| me Flalnml has suncessluw pmvan man we
Irunkmg mnying nu cable bypisslng ma mslervas um and mm
hln mg Delendanfl plamiyas snnnnny, theta us nu nsoessrty vonna
witnesses to Dream: phomqraphs naming we came anscuy
wnnauled to (M nmnmmon Bax Them 15 amme ans! lasflmcmy man
an a mlnants In ptvve me Plenum uawn Thaw ewdanoe was
mnsmenwnnmne aocmnanmye»-mane. anu Halltnws any mm
by them (0 mvsruprssent cn. rm; As I nm and umsn um sc.I
acosviad mew emanoe and lound them credible wilnssses
Pungvunaan Amp Tang yang digunaknn aloh puukan pomarlknan
92. Defenuan jugs bemmah bahiwa pengiraan jumlah Iunlman adalah
sa\ah kerana am penguuan yang mgunakan sswaklu psmenksaan lidak
dmemuukur senagarmana yang dxperunlukkan oleh perenggan 5 2.2 Gan:
Panduan ST.
93. Walau nagairnanapun, pmnm berhujah bahawa perenggan 5.2.2
Gans Panduan ST hanya lerpakax dalam ksadaan an mana kaedah
pengiraan mmlah kenuangan nasal pvaanw mam menggunmn kaedah
ralal
N nFnax7rwEcuvu5.ANy:x.kw
Nuns smm ...n.mn be used m mm n. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm
u u K:-am run Run: n».
\ smm than Mm aw‘ saw." om:-um m min
mm mm-I ..».u...,. ..m mug: awpmhm wmul nmuulhn
mm aw:-mm mm." mm mmlm... mm. mm
m..-mm menu p-m-um numx noun
n 3.; ........«»..n MM... ....4.. mu w rwvm um
Minn->-n mun ma-......n Dimuunvg ..... »....1.m.
"yum .m Mvllwan v-w aamm u.» «mm. mm
nu-mun-44uu|ler-hvmwyumuhlmnm
Iu mm mwumm max mum ylng qua‘ .......
VVVIWI mum 5-nu nnnmx me... am mmumm y-as
mum-n<an‘unuubarIy:kwos$
nu-nu Mm. nu u-comm-r man .u um. um...»
Wm. mun ham: mun mum mama -mum gnaw
w a..." y..m.m.. mum: hug nmm e... ..a.»,.x Hg: mu.
m ".1. an-rum and-um mm: cu-1. ¥m1g| 1»,
human wnmx. many: rum mmvwm MM: fllvll
Gtzvuwu n-mm." m wvullvv mum mnlvun um.
nunnd mo.“ dumnm manna! um vwmrun
......u .. uzrvnlz-n 1: «nan: p-wx...‘ ..w. n-Mud
mm», mm .1.» .m..za_..um man we
nmvvwurlmuwua
94. Dalam kes nu, pengiraan wmlah Iumman dmuat berdasarkan
kaedah beban kehendak maksxma den bukannya kasdah Palal
95. Demaan ;uga hemujah hahawa alat pengupan yang digunakan
olsh SP2 sewaklu pemeriksaan lidak mempunyai sqil psnemuukuran
(cenrcaos ol Calibration) yang sah alas alasan bahawa sljil
penenluukuran yanu dwkemukakan m Mahkamah max marujuk kspada
slat Denguii wing digunakan aleh SP2.
96. Sehagaimana yang
lelah menialarlkan ujlan perbanumnan arus menggunakan am penguji
yang dikenah sebagai Amp Tong unluk merneriksa mlsx arus sabenar
yang msngalir masuk ke meter danpada punca bekalan plamm flan yang
dvekadkan oleh meter temebul
uelaskan oleh SP2 sewaklu perbicaraan, SP2
sm Ylrnaxvrwzcwusmyzuw
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
97 SP2 juga lelah mengemukakan Cerrtlrcata cl ca/mutton Nu.
TNEM/v5.m—os/492 berlankh 17 5.2013 (Cemficsls of Cs/lbrsl/on)
sehagai dnkumen soknngan yang menurqukkan bahawa Amp Tang
lersebul bevada da\am keadaan hawk dw mana kah |emkfw a1a\ levsebut
umenmukur adalah nada 45 we (‘aim lebvh kurang 4 bulan sebelum
pemeriksaan dijalankan Dada 23 1 2019).
95, s»=2 wga cexan memewaskan bahawa isman Amp Tang yang
dlgunaksn (fish SP2 hanyaksh -sman dalaman yang dwgunakan o\eh para
pekena p\a\nM manakma isman Digital C/ampmslsl merupakan Vslflah
nasnn yang mgunakan dakam dokumen-dokumsn rssrm senagannana
yang hnleh mum da\am Csmflcala ofcahbratrnn dan juga Arahan Ksrja
Tentukuran Dan Tantusahkan Peralatan Kerja No ENGR—75(lr77—W\—U3
benankh 1210 2017
Knlmpulan
99 aemaserxan kepada alasan-alasan yang mperyelasxan dalam
penghakiman .n., Mahkamah mendapau bahawa plamtii nerah bsriaya
ruembukllkan, nmangsn kebarangkalwan, kes plainmlemadap delenuan
mu. oven nu, Mahkamah memuluskan membenaikan mnlman p\amM
lerhadap deflendan sapemmana benkm:
(a) deiendan diperinlahkan membayar kepsda plamtii jumlah
sebanyak RM174,749.10 bagl Jumlah kehilangan pendapatan
lermasuk kns operas! dan cukal ; den
IN nFnax7NvEcuvu5.ANy:z.xw
-um smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
(:7) !aedah 5% selahun mas Jumlah psnghakxman bermura dari
vankh saman awaukan semngga Iankh penyewesaian pemm
Gan kns.
101. K05 perblcaraan ini mmetapkan alas 1urn\ah RMZDJJOG no dibayar
olen defandan kepada p\a\nli1.
102 Bemenaan \un\u!an defendan Iemadap Pmak Kemga, deiendan
Ie\ah memasukkan penghakwman ingkar kehadwran bsrlavikh 20.4.2021
lerhadap Pmak Keuga
Bsnankh pada19 Seplzmber zaza
\)’\
\
1lSH K EAKRI)
Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen
Fmak~Pihak.
Maxzurs Mohamed Amm ( Teluan Mehanadass Partnersmp) D/p plairmi
Goh Kee Sang (Teman Kelvin Wong, Fhang 5. Assocwaies) hlp delsndan
IN nFnax7rwEcuvu5.my:nm
-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
13. Walau hagawmanapun, se ' gga k‘ Idefendan masih enggan, gagal
dan/atau cum unluk membual bayamn bag: lumlah tumuban Iersehut‘
14. Defsndan pura me\a\ui psmhslaan defendan telah menafikan
mnlman p|ain|i1 den Ialah mamhangkitkan pdbagaw isu sebagal
membanoan hmtulan nlamrii‘
15. Dsfemian [I193 Iumt msm!ai\kan prosmmg Pihak Keflga umuk
msmhnkukan bahawa delendan lidak nenanggungan temadap tuntulan
nlamm
15. Semasa psrhncaraan, puamm telsh memanggu 5 erang saksx-Saks:
pram Saksw-saksi mamm ia\ah Sm Nam Rahmah bmti Nash’ (SP1),
Muhammad Rwduan bm Ruslan (SPZI. Che Muhd Rasydan hm Che Rosfi
(SP3) den Muhammad Ham! bin Hashim (SP4).
17 Defendan pma mamanggn 1 nrang saksn defandan Lmtuk memheri
kelavangan Saksi delandan iavah Shahizam hm mramm (SD1)
Kc: Dlllnlll
1a. P\amM menya|aKan bahawa |smapat huktl penguslkan xe alas
meter/pepasangan ms|er di prams defendan
19. Plainxil sexemsnya menyalakan |erdapa! kabe\ (ambahan asing
dlgunakan unmk membekalkan elekmk sscara Isms ke premis lersebul
daripada due (2; summer bekalan pnamar Ianpa melalul meter Aaltu dari
mcommg premws tersebul dan mcnmmg prams 5.1
IN nFnax7NvEcvvu5.ANy:z.xw
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
zc. Plainlwl setevusnya menyatakan bahawa defendan dan/avau wakil
defendan den/afau penghum pvemis farsebm IBIS?! menenma mamas!
darlpada elsklrik yang Ierkurang ca] aklbat daripada pengusxxan |erssb|.n
mngga menyabahkan keruglsn kapada plainlif.
Kn dcfvndan
21 Deiendan menyavakan bahawa plalrml gage‘ membuklnkan s\emen
pengusxkan di premls rmllk aeisnaan
22 Devendan selerusnya msnyacakan bahawa (Jada buku pasukan
pemenksaan nlairml memasum prams delendan
23 De(endan watarusnya mernbangkilkan isu penggunaan sslah
bsrkakan Amp Tang yang dlgunaksn eleh pasukan pemenksean p\ain|W.
24, nevenaan selerusnya menyalakan bahawa luntulan puainm adalah
sa\ah apabila pwntillelah memasukkan lunlman ]um\ah kenflangan nasu
bag: prams 5-1 da\am 1um\ah lunmlan malntit
25 ueveman sslemsnya menyalskan bahavm penemuan Iarikh
permulaan bagi pengrraan wmlah tunlulan plamnf adalah salah.
26 Delendan selsrusnya menyamkan bahawa sflai gage‘ memben
nous awal Kapada aevsnaan sebemm msmmankan perneriksaan ke atas
pepasangan meter/melsr m prarms delendan.
KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH
IN nFnax7rwEcuvu5.my:nm
-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
Sum: ad: lordnpal buktl pengunkan pad: pepnangan memnmm
dl pmnls aelenaan
21 Saksi p\a)n(iV, Muhammad Riduan bin Roskan (sP2), Che Mnhd
Rasydan bin Che Rash (spa) dim Muhammad Hem am Haamm (spa)
dalam ksterangan mereka «swan menyatakan nanawa msreka |s\ah
memalankan psmenksaan ke alas pepasangan meter/meter di plemis
defendan Semasa pemenksaan lersebul, mereka menyauskan bahawa
meleka le\ah menemui nengusikan can/am kejinggeflan pads
pepasangan meterl.ersebu|.
za. Da\am kecerangannya SP2 (elah mamberi peruelasan yang
menyemruh berkenaan penemuan pengusikan dan/alau ke)angga\an
yang guemui pads papasangan mslardl premws cersebul.
29. SP2 menyalakan behau Isiah msmeriksa keadaan pendawaian bag)
meter lsrsebul flan mandapu lerdapal kabel oambanen asmg berwama
mam yang msamhung secaya Kerus ke prems lersebul eanpa melahu
meter hag) ke(iga—l(ga vase
30. SP2 juga mendapau kabal (smbahan aszng lsrsebul lelah
dusambung gan dua (2) sumber Incoming plainllf (emu saw u) «an
mmmmg prerms tersebul flan salu (1) (agi dan inoommg premis yang
bera\ama(d1 Ne. 51, Jalan Hurpark (1/3, Pusal Fsrdagangan Hfllpavk,
42300 Funcak Awam, se(angar Dam) Ehsan (‘Fremws 5-1') ks dua (2)
bush mannaucion board yang taflelak dakam premxs Iersebul.
IN HFnax7rwEcwvu5.AN(:z.m
-we Snr1n\n:nhnrwH\I>e used m mm .. amxmuuy mm: dun-mm VI] muNG Wu)
:1. SP2 ueran mengemukakan gambar-gambar yang menuruukkan
sambungan dam mcommg premis (ersebul dan gambar-gambar bagi
sambungan can mcormng Pram]: 5.1
32‘ SP2 dmam kelerangann‘/a iuga menyalakan bahawa behau lelah
memaxankan ufian perbandmgan urns menggunakan Amp Tong unluk
memenksa N751 arus sebenar yang mengam masuk ke meter daripada
punoa bekalsn pnainmaan yang drrekodkan man melar (srsahm dx mans
ams yang dirukndkan ada\ah sepem benkul.
unh r . Kuninq
Sumber Pammfi (mcam\n57 I25 WA 131 7A
Pmmusmrsebmfl
Sumbat Karin! (mcommg 1 131 GA 115 2A 124 DA
FM. 5.1) ;
am... amiynnn 2 539A saw ‘ a mu
dwzkndkanmeh melerdi 1
Flam: tsrsebul ‘ j
33 SP2 jugs manyalakan bahawa hellau mam merekodkan penemuan-
penemuan lermasuk penemuan katzsl sambungan «ems dari Fremvs 54
ke premws tevsebut da\am Eorang Pemenksaan s Penguflan Pepasangan
Meier — Arus Fenuh 3 Fast: benankh 23.1.2a19.
34. st»: jugs lurul mengamukakan kepada Mahkamah Pemukmman
Semakan Mela! EIEHHK o\eh TNB, Surat Fembenfahuan Psmsriksaan
dan Penguiian Pepasangan Meier ma dan Sura\ Pemberilahuan
Pengambilan Bahan-bahan am benankh 23.1.2019 dsn laporan pohs
mangenal penernuan-penemuan tersebul.
IN nFnax7rwEcvvu5.ANy:x.m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
55. SP2 ;uga mangemukakan hukh fizikal kabel oamban-an yang
diambil sewaklu pemenksaan pada 23.1.2019 dan mengemukaxan
Ulasan Tekrukal bsflaflkh 24.1 2019
as. Kesemua lakia-lakla yang dwkemukakan aleh SP2 Imsokong cleh
gammgamzaar yang mamnn aleh sn=3
37. new keianggalan yang dilemui pada pepasangan melerdw pmlms
tersehul Ialah uuawaskan ulah SP2 dx mana simbungan kabe\ asmg yang
dijumpaw den busbar alau inconung ‘ms Am berfungsl umuk mamberikan
bekalan e\ekLrik seem Cams alsupun direct supp\y dari plmca bekakan
TNB ke warms dan juga premls 51 lanpa melarw meter.
aa. SP2 memelaskan da\am kaadean normax, sepalulnya ams elakmk
unluk kagunaan prams akin menganrdan punca bekalan ma Ke prsmis
me\alui male! (1! mans meter skan merekedkan mmxan arus e¥skIrik yang
mengahr seberum bekakan mekulk d\sa\urkan ke premls «eusebm.
:9 Dalam kes um, sambungan [ems yang dibuat dari busbar axau
mocmmg ma man digunakan unluk membexauuan arus elskmk sscarn
lerus be warm: Iersebutdan juga prsmis 5-1 :11 mans arus sleklnk meuaxm
kabsl asing (ersebu! Iidak menganr masuk ke meter Iangsung.
40. Ds\am kas Evamunw Funllur Mannfuclurlng (M) Sdn Bhd v
Yonaga Mzslonal Eemud [zoom 5 MLJ 715 Mahkamah Tmggu
memuluskan bahawa apabfla kelerangan saksw-saksw ada\ah Iegas dan
konswsien dengsn penemuarrpsnemuan panguslkan. Mahkamah
hendaklan menenma kebenaran kelerangan yang diberikan.
IN HFnax7rwEcwu5.ANy:z.xw
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
41. Da\am kes Tunnga Mulonnl Bovhad v Am Knlghl am
(pm ' usly known as Fnhulco Corp am!) [2017] 5 MLJ sa1
Mahkamah Rayuan msmuluskan sepem henkul‘
[111 4.. our oanstdamd opxmn, ma centre! Vssua Var deienmnatien
Mala: m ma qussflen at meme: (ha phmnfl had suacseded m
pm‘/mu Ihanhe motsrln:u|\n1vmIwusInmpevvd On a psrusa\L71l7>9
appeal racoru, we are sansned lhalmere Vs unmmmvened awdanne
toshomhltlhs mvbennslaflahon had hasnlampuvsd The msmvaty
mm. rmaxgn mpperobpaci wmm was msenad m use ma|er Vs pm
at me «an M mmper1I\g.We aqua wm. lha submlwwon M Vuvnsd
counsel (or me mammflhel me evidenue pmaucea hy me p\amhl1':
mmm wan oons\s|an| and crsdlblu. n was avw oonnbornled by
(he Druriucflan mm Dhmugmphl, lhe ‘mm mum: plvjilvgkaan
we MV/HV‘ ‘aural nunakluman semukzn mew, ‘smut
pambunuhtun pengammlan barann my and polxze mm On the
Icmlny of me evwdervce we am at me Mew ma| on a nzrme oi
pmhannlueslhe plewfllhadsucceeded m pmvinglhanha mstarwil
Iamnarad
42 Mahkamah mendapall bahawa kecmngan sn=2 dan spa adalah
(ages dan konsxslsn lermasuk semasa pemenksaan balas Eerdasarkan
kepada kelerangan SP2 dsn spa dan ketarangan dckumsn, adalah jelas
bahawa pepasangan meter an menus lersehul |e\ah diusik di mane
lamapat kabel (ambahan asmg yang digurmkan untuk memberikan
beka\an dektrik secara Ierus ke premis tetsebm danpada dua (2) summer
bekaden mamm (anpa melalui meter waitu dan mcommg premis Iersebm
dan mccmmg Premls 5-1.
43 Kesimpulan kepada penguswkan avau kejanggalan meter adaflah
Izahawa devendan dun/alau wakil defendan flan/alau pengmmn pramls
N nFnax7rwEcuvu5.ANy:x.kw
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
Cersebul leLah msnerima manfaal danpada elekmk yang uerkursng cm
akmal darlpada pengusman Iersebul yang menyebabkan kerugxan
kepada puamv.
44. Plainui Ie\ah mengemukakan nous mnman benankh 29.72020
yang marupakan pemyalaan beriulis msnurul Seksysn saw Akta
Bekalan Eleklrik man hagn menyokung Iumulan (emadap delendan urnuk
kehvlangan pendapalan plamm
45 Penelman pemyataan benuhs menurul Seksyen 381A] Akta Eeka\an
Eleklnk 1990 mampunyal buhr-bum henkul,
(a) nanya menyavakan secara spesmk uawenaan sebagal
pengguna berdamr:
lb) perenggan 3, 4 dan 5 pemyataan henulns menyalakan jmmah
yang (erhmang ssbagal RMw4.749 10 Perenggan to secara
Khusunya menya|akan bahawa Iumulan adalah bagi jumlah
kerugwan hasfl dan pemelanjaan, ya sawanjmnya menyalakan
hahawa Iuntuvan mbuac berdasarkan kepada Ssksyen 35(3),
my den (5) Am Eekalsn:
(c) lampiran A menuruukkan pecahan jurmah yang perm mbayar
dan gambar pengusukan yang diwmpax paaa pepasarlgan
meter:
my defendan dibemcan empal belas (14) nan unluk membayar
jumlah yang uinyaxaksn daham pemyslaan berlulxs tersebul,
(eh pernyaxaan bemms ls\ah dwandalangani oven spa yang
mampakan senrang paksria plamm. dan
(r) pamyanaan bermlis lersebm telah diterima o\ah deiendan.
IN nFnax7rwEcvvu5.ANy:um
-ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m yaw .. mn.u-y mm: dun-mm wa mum pm
| 3,669 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-28PW-119-09/2021 | PEMOHON J.J. BROTHERS SDN BHD RESPONDEN NORADZ TRAVEL SDN BHDPIHAK KETIGAJabatan Insolvensi Malaysia PENCELAH 1. ) BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) SASILA BASRI & CO 3. ) UMI KALSUM HARUN & CO 4. ) S.I RAJAH & CO | Pihak yang berniat untuk mengenepikan atau mengubah Perintah Mahkamah boleh berbuat demikian dalam tempoh 30 hari selepas menerima Perintah tersebut merujuk kepada Aturan 42 Kaedah 13 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 | 08/11/2023 | YA Puan Zaharah Binti Hussain | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fd814549-e817-4440-b38c-9e69674c4b69&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 11:52:43
BA-28PW-119-09/2021 Kand. 92
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N SUWB/RfoQESzjJ5pZ0xLaQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
E
an-zant-119-09/2021 Kand.
92
cm:/292: 11 32:43
(DALAM PERKARA KES PASCA-PENGGULUMGAN
SVARIKAT N0.BA-2IPW»Il9»4'l9/2021
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI sum ALAM
PETISYEN PENGGULIJNGAN SYARIKAT No zaucr: 1;; Ma
ANTARA
AFFIN BANK EERHAD
(Nu. Syariknlz 25046-T) ...PEMPETlSVEN
DAN
NORADZ TRAVEL 3. SERVICES son em:
(Nm syankn: 664530-W) ...REsPouDEN
DAN
J.J. BROTHERS sou BHD
(No. Syarikal: susos-A) ..,PEuIoHoN/PIHAK FENCELAH
DAN
BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA ...PlHAK PENCELAH KEDUA/PIHAK
TERKILAN
DAN
TETUAN SASILA EASRI I co MPENCELAI-I KETIGA/PIHAK
TERKILAN um; DICADANGKAN
mm A\..‘ .9 VJ 141,1
aw SUWB!R7oOESzu5pZflxLM]
«mm. sm.‘ runbirwm E. med w my 1.. urwmuhly mm; fluunvwnl W2 IHLING WM!
DAN
UMI KALSUM HARUN a. co
(Firm: Gulmnn yanq beninfluk bngi ...P|HAK PENCELAHIPIHAK
Pununrm Punk Kalivaj TERKILAN YANG DICADANGKAN
DAN
TETUAN s.I. RAJAH a. co FIHAK FENCELAH IPIHAK
TERKILAN um: DICADANGKAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
P-ngonalln
['1
sepem benkul
3)
Pada 16 Dgns 2023, Mahkamah im Ielah memhenkan kepulusan
Nuns Parmchnnan (Kindungan 57) Teluan s I Raw: 3. cc,
bag: menne\ah darn dwamrxah sebagal Pvhak Peneelah/Pmak
Terkrlan yang mcadangkan dan pevmuhonan unmk menulak
Nous Permuhonan(LampIran12)BarIk Nsgara Malaysia yang
mevupakan Plhak Pencelah Kedua/Pmak Yerkuan bagx
mengelusrkan dan membalalkan pevenggan 13 dannada
Penman Kindungan 11 berlznkh 13 sepnemner 2022 dan
setemsnya permohonan penangguhan arahanarahan da\am
Z\|1ll.‘flV»VJA‘,4 k. 2,
am suwarRraoE5zuspzm<Lm
«mm. sm.‘ runbirwm n. mad w my ». mmm mm; fluunnlnl w. -HUNG Wm!
Qwiik
P-nu-mun Pmyu:
Telu-n s I Ra]ah & Co
Alas 5‘ \Msm: MAEA‘
No 5 Jilin Hang Jahal
50150 Kuila Lumpur
No. Tel. as-20222019
Emmi‘ sue ahcgflyahgg mm
Puguamcnra Poncalall Kodua/Pmak Tulkilln:
Um! Pengua|ku:Isain Pemaabnn dan Lnigisl
Jabahn unaang-unuang, Bank Negava Ma\aysia
fingkat 135, Jalan Dale‘ Orm
suaao Kuzla Lumpur
No. Tel. 0326958044
Emaxl cwfl \i|Ig_gj\on@bnm guv my
um mvw H9 ;>u mu
5/N suwarkrooiszgtsozaxml
“Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my .. mmm -mm; m.m. n. IVMNG Wm!
penmah berlankh 13 Seplember 2022 adalah dxlohk‘ dan
b) Ttada penman lerhadap kos
Lmrbmk-ng K n
[2] Pada 13 September 2022, Yang AM Hakvm Aznu hm Anflln wan
memberikan Pennlah anlara lalnnya 9da\ah'
(1; Membenarkan plhak penoeran J J Bromers Sdn Ehd unluk
mencelah dan menjadvkan pmak da\am prasnflngn
(2) Augusflne all T K James menggannxan Pegawal Penenma
Jabacan lnsolvensv selangnr sebagai Pelikmdasi
413) that Bank Negava Malaysia andlor any other am party he
restrained lrom dlapasmg nfand/nr dlSUlb|AI\lV§ (he assets of
me Respondent Company save by way 0! the Ilqwdalmn
process:
[:1 Pmak Bank Negara Marayw lelah memlallkan permuhunan an
Lamplran 12 unluk menoelah da\am Prosldmg my din memahnn supaya
Felenggin 13 dwkemarkan din dlhalalkun danpada Psnrnah berlankh
1309,2022 dl bawah bwdang kuasa sedva ada ('mherenl Aunsdwcflon“)
Mahkamah
am. Jsvw _AB 115,1
5/N sxiwarkrooiszxlsolaxml
“Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my .. mmm -mm; m.m. n. IVMNG Wm!
[4] Eevdasarkan perenggan 13 |eIsebu!, Vang Am Hakim Aznu bin
Anmn lelah memennlahkln supaya Bank Negav: Malaysia dan mans»
mana pmak keflga msexat danpada melupuskan danlatau mengagmkan
asst-asea sylnkal Rewondsn melainkan me\alu| pruses II uldasw
[51 Pmak Bank Negara Malaysia Iidak pemah menenma kertas kausa
bagi permohcnan passe kas penngulungin syankat Nu aA-2ePw-n9-
as/2021
la) Fania Kahun zoos‘ semasa proses swasalan dualankan ke seas
Responder: ianu Noridz Travel 3. Semcas sun and dan
pmmpmak wam yang «embat, penmarwenman penynaan
lemadap asel-asel Responden lelah dmeluaman nleh
nmnaran Pendakwa Ray: 4: bawah Seksyan sum /ma
Penoegahan Penggubahan Wang Havam dan Peneegahan
Pembvayaan Keganasan 2001 1A><ta 613) Susulan ilu‘
Rasponden bevsama dengan Fengirahnya Ielah dlluduh dan
dlsahllkan aleh Mahkaman Sesyen Kua\a Lumpur dw Dawah
seksyen 25 Akxa Bank dan lnsmushmsmusi Kewangan 1969
sampmg mu. Pengalahnya lurm xelan mslbllkan dengan
kesalahan an bawah Seksyen 411) Am 613 Sablmnubxmn
temadap Responden flan Pengarahnya te\ah drkekalkan aleh
Mahkaman Rayuan pads 29 3 2016
an zww 1:9 .2 mm
5/N suwarkrooiszgtsozaxml
“Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my .. mmm -mm; m.m. n. IVMNG Wm!
(bl Susulan danpada nu, sebelum Mahkamah Sesyen Kua\a
Lumpur membual sebarang penmah peluculhakan hana Ke
mas asshasel Responden m bawzah Selsyen 55 Akla SB,
Mahkumah teiah menymkan sualu Nous da\am wana Ianu
P u (B) 53 berlankh 14 2 2012 unluk memanggvl mama-mans
puhak kenga yang menunun mempunyaw apa-ape kapenhngan
menganau aset—aset Responden supaya hadxr an hadapan
Mahkamah dan menuruukkan sehab mengapa hana mu (iflak
bnleh dnucuxhakka ‘
(c) Pads 26 82016, selelah mcara pmswdlng m bawah Seksyen
s1 Akl: e13 lelah yexesm, Mahknmah Sesyen Jenayah Kuala
Lumpuv |elah memumskan‘ amara lam supaya asez-aset yang
dwsenarawkan dalam Warla Keraman Pevsekutuan melalui
P U (B) 53 berlinkh 14 2 2012 larmasuk Wang dnlam akaun
hank Responden unluk mpuuangxan kepada pe\ahuv-pekahur
secara Dro—rata
(d) Pads 20 12 2017, Mahkamah Tmggl Jenayah Kuala Lumpul
telan mengekalkan kepulusan MSJKL unluk memulangkan
asst-asst yang dusna kepnda pexabur secara pm-ma
51M Arm .3 .2 mm
5/N suwarkrooiszgtsozaxml
“Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my .. mmm -mm; m.m. n. IVMNG Wm!
(9) telah
Pada 27 as 2021, Mahkamah Rayuan Jenayah
mengekalkan Kepulusan Mahkamah Sesyen Jenayah dan
Mahkamih finggl Jenayah unluk memulangkan else!-esel
yang d1sila kepada pelabuv secava pro-rala
[5]
melibalkan pengaglhan aseraset yang kesemmnannya bemnal lebm
Perineah Mahkamah Rayuan benankh 27052021 Iarsebul
kurang RM71 ma 1se1akat Apnl 2021 1 dl mama zmman levsebul lermasuk
Iebm kurang RM|3 Ma tseiakm Apm 2021) dalam akuun bank nullk
Resp»:-den yang perlu magmkan kepadi 1ebm danpada 15,000 olang
pelabur
[7] Pmak Bank Negara Malaysm mendapau bahawa perenggin 13
pennlah bertankh 13092022 lerselxn bercanggah kepada Penman
Mahkamah Rayuan berlankh 27 05 2021
[51 Teluan s 1 Rajah & Co. Peguamcam yang mewaki|isena1'ai9,243
urang Pemmlang din telah mamfallkan bukli hulang aengan Kelua
Fengavah Insolvensi Malaysna. cawangan Shah Alam le\ah memiallkan
pennonensn a1 Lampuan 51 sepeni berikur
1) Eahawa Teluan 5 I Rapan 3 Cu dmenurkan memvaxlxan Nous
am mvw 11! 03 mm
5/N suwawooi Isuzoxna
“Nut: s.n.1...“.2",‘;111.,.m....:M1....m.m.m1.,..“.m..meW
Permuhnnan In: umuk mancelah can dnambah sahagul Pmak
Penoe|ahIPihak Terknan yang dmadangkan
u) Bahaws Mons Permahonin (Lampum 12) Bunk Nagira
Ma\avs1a yang merupakan Fmak Penoexan Kedua/Fmak
Tevkilan bag: mengeluarkan dan memhalalkan perenguan 13
daripada Penman Kandungan 1 berlankh 13 Seplembev zuza
dan selerusnya permahonan psnangguhan arahan-arahan
dalam pennlah benarikh 13 September 2022 adalah dnorax
m) Kus penmnonan ml dllanggung aleh Fernohon /Pxhak
Pencelah yang dxcadangkan
IV) Apa—apa rem dam pennlah lam yang dvflkvrkan sualmanlaat
uleh Mahlcamah
[5] Alasan permohonan Im adalah -
0; Moms Permohonsn (Lampnan 12) nleh Bank Negara Mmaysia
sebagax Plhak Penoe\ah Kedua adaran uuax wajar kerana
pemmhonan unluk memmda perinoah bertankh 13 semember
2022 adalah benemangan dengan Damn Functus Omcra
nu AHVW IAD nu um
5/N sxlwarkrooiszytsozaxml
“Nun: SIM‘ ...u..mu .. mad w my .. mm-y -mm; m.m. n. IVMNG Wm!
karan: Mahkamzh ml mm mempunyax kuasa unluk mammda
pennlah alau pengnakuman yang mahpun muktamad
on Nous Pelmohonan Limpvran 12 im adulah lidak ssh din
lamalal kerana pmdaan hanya baleh dmhal mekalul
permcmonan di Mahkamah Ffayuan
(nu Pnhak Bank Negam Ma\ays1a perm memraukan pennononan
unluk penggulungan pewaksanaan
Anal
Mahkamah
i) Pormoholllll oleh Bank Nlfi-In Mlllylll ldlllh 'F|lncIIlI Ofliclu'.
[10] rsu m. |e\ahpun dipumskan oleh Yang Am Hakim Azrm mu Anmn
pada 722u23 semasa menolak banlahan awa\ nleh Pemohon u
Blather: mengenzv ‘Vunclus oflicld Inl Oleh flu wsu ml Hdak boleh
dlbangkwtkan lagw oleh Yeluan s I Rajah a. co
Ilu Lumplrnn 11 mm unluk mumnmlx-n pornnggln 1: dalim
Porinuh In] perlu unailkan di Mahknmnh Rayuan.
[11] Mahkamah merujuk kepada Amran 42 Kaedah 13 Kaedah-kaedah
Mahkzmah 2012 xallu
s|3A 25»w A7 an Inn
5/N sArNmRraoE5zu5uz0xLm
«mm. sm.‘ ,..u..mu .. uxafl w my ». mmm -mm; fluumlnl n. IVMNG Wm!
Menmmupikzn nnu mongublh pvnulllklmln dun Purinuh
-1: Kecuar: sob.-zyarmana yang drpsrunlukkurv sslamnya da/am
Kaedalvkasdah rm, jvka pemnmkkan drbuaz dalam Kaedalrkaedeh my
urmlk mengenaprkan arau mengubah spa-spa permlan alau
pervghakrmsn, suatu prhak yang Dermal Lmluk msrvyensprksn Elan
mengubah psrmluh slsu pengnaktmsn rm hsndaklah membuar
permolvonalv kepada Mahkaman din menyamparkannya kenada pmak
yang zeran Uapsl permlah alau penghakllnan mu aaram N75 puluh nan
ss/enas perlnlah mu panqhaldman rtu armnmnys '
[12] Eerdasavkan Aluran 42 levsehut‘ Mahkamah nu sememangnya
mempunyax kuasa sema ada ( Inherent ;nrisdv::unn"j unluk mendengav
Lzmpwran 12 oleh Bank Negara Malays
iii) lsu bahawa Bank Negara Malaysia perlu memiaiuuu
pongglnlungln p. ukun m.
[13] Mankamah bevpendapal bshawa um adalah «max Kepat
Pengganlungan peflaksanaan mponun sehranya lerdapa| rayuan kepada
Mlhkamah yang rebm Imggl Damn kes um‘ nuak oda saebarang pmsudmg
vayuan dibuat
9|3A zewv ‘La umon
5/N suwawooi Isuzoxna
«mm. s.n.y...“.2",‘;m.,.m....:my....m.yy.ma.,..“.m..meW
Pemmlp
[14] Eerdasarkan «ma-cam dan undang—undang yang umyalakan,
Mahkamah menolak permarmnan Teluan s I Rajah unluk mencelah dan
awambah sebagil Puhak Pencelah‘ mg: selemsnyl manulak
permuhnnannya unluk pmak Bank Negava Ma\aysAa membaxaxxan
perenggan 13 danpada benankh 13 September 2022
Benankh zs Oklnber 2023
®?:*w
(ZAHARAH BINTI NUSSAIN)
Pasuvumaya Kanamman
Mahkamah Tmggl Ncvc 2
Shah Alam
1n|aA ,’K“W Mu nu um
5/N suwmRrooE5zu5uzoxLm
«mm. sm.‘ ,..u..mu .. uxafl w my ». mmm -mm; fluumlnl n. IVMNG Wm!
| 1,492 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
PA-25-40-06/2023 | PEMOHON ATM MANAGEMENT TEAM SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) LOW BOEY FOON | Judicial Review – Application for an order of certiorari to quash Industrial Court Award - Whether the termination/dismissal of the 2nd Respondent from the Company was with just cause or excuse- What were the reasons operating in the mind of the employer at the time or immediately prior to terminating the 2nd Respondent.- The reasons operating in the mind of the employer which preceded the decision to terminate, and resulted in the decision to terminate, comprise the matters to be considered and adjudicated upon by the Industrial Court under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.- Was there an error of law committed by the Learned Chairman in the finding that the basis of termination on the ground of statutory retirement age as per the letter of termination was not made out;- The Court finds that there was no error committed by the Learned Chairman in the finding that the basis of termination on the ground of statutory retirement age was not made out- However, the findings of unjust dismissal and dismissal without just cause at paragraphs 74 and 75 of the said Award are set aside as erroneously made based only on the ground stated in the letter of termination. The amount awarded to the 2nd Respondent as compensation is set aside;- Applying the Federal Court case of Maritime Intelligence, the proper enquiry ought to be the reason operating in the mind of the employer at the time of dismissal. In this case, the facts clearly reveal that the mismanagement of funds issue was certainly operating on the employer’s mind at the time of the dismissal to the extent that even the Claimant had pleaded that she was dismissed on that ground. - As such, the Court directs that the matter be remitted to the same Learned Chairman of the Industrial Court who heard the evidence on the issue of mismanagement of funds and for him to decide on the issues as pleaded and to make all necessary orders consequential to any such finding; | 08/11/2023 | YA Dato' Anand Ponnudurai | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=38552058-cc49-4660-8770-3849aec43d68&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 11:15:38
PA-25-40-06/2023 Kand. 22
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N WCBVOEnMYEaHcDhJrsQ9aA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
1>A—25—ac—o6/2023
Kand.
22
as/mzm 11:15-314
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI FULAII FIMANG
nALm NEGERI PIILAU PINAMG
FERMONONAN SEIIAKAN KEHAKIMAN Mo. FA-25-40-06/2023
DaVam umsan pemmhanan ATM Msna9emen|
Team Sdn EM unluk mendapatkan kehenaran
danpada mahkimah
Dan
bagi memfaflkan
permohonan Samakan Kehakiman:
Dalam urusan Awad Mahkamah Perusahaan
Nu sew Term 2023 berlankh 21 3.21123 yang
ulsampavkan dalam Kes
Mahkamah
Pumsannan Pullu Pmang Shevtzal/20
ynng man dllanma aleh S)/Ir\ka( Dana
29 3 2023:
Dan
Dalam perkara Seksyen 20 Ana Pemuhungan
Perusahaan 1957.
Dan
Dalam perkara mengenai Jadual 1, Akva
Mahkamah Kehaklrnln I964 dan Alum: 53
Kasdafrkaadah Mahkamah 2012
Amara
aw wcavuznmvzancmursnwan
-ma Sum ...m.. WW .. used a mm ua nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm Va muNG pm
uanum :1
ATM Manaqemen1Team Sdn am:
[Syankal Nu 2013DIOI2277(1D-$21 I5~H)] Famuhon
Dan
1. Mahkamlah Pamsahnan Mamysiu
2 Law Boey Faun
(No K/P571114-Dz-SGED) . Resaanden-Resnonden
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Inhodudlon
[1] Thus is an awlicalmn loran onierof oemoran In quash Induslrial com
Award No. 667 M2023 asked 21- Mamh 2023 grven m Industrial court
case No 6/4/281/2D Uuemnaller recsarea io as me “sam Award”).
[21 Pames mu be referred m as they were m me Cuun bekm mm me
Apphcant bemg me company and me 2“ Respondent smpbyee as the
Ckaimam.
p] The sanem cams |hal can be gleaned (mm ma pleaded cases and me
said Award as wan as me amdavns before me can be summanzed as
rnmm;
sw wcavL:EnMv£:Hcnn.Arsnu:A vane 2 um
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
rm Fmm me above aeerarorr. rr rs Iherelore clear rrrer the reasons
advanced rn “V! Induslnal Oaurl Inqurry Sholfld be the reasons
cperatwg in the mmd of the empluyer at Of rmmedralsry prior |O the
d‘ ’ al As hrgrrrignred earner, me Learned crrarrrrrarr had
earraruaea ar paragraph «.5 afthe said Award ms: the only reason rrrar
operated al rrre rrme M the rrrsrrrresar was me fact mar the crarrrrarrr
had reacrrad the sramrory velrremenl age er so. Premrsed on me
decisron In mrrairru Inulliuunu (supra), Mhat was rrrrreea rrre orrry
reason mar oaerarea me mmd zfllhe emproyerarrrrerrrrre omrsrrrrssar.
Khan, the Learned Charrman are run err in rusr considering lhal orre
rssua.
[18] Hawever, wrm respect la the Learned charmrarr, rrr my oonsmered
mew, hrs earrcrusran al paragraph 45 01 me sara Award mar me omy
reason Ihatoperated on me rum of rrre errrprayer a| me rrrrre orme
drsmrssal was that the Crarmanl had reached the relmamenl age was
VI error and rnaricrnal based not only on the ervrdenoe adduced but also
on lhe pleadrngs
[191 In we regard, as rrrgmrgrrrea earner, no| only mu me clarmam pread
and iaslrfy m rserarr In rerarrarr to me rsaues al rrrrsrrrarragerrrenr rmurrus
mar rrau been rarsed pnor |c lermmaiiom she pleads lhal srre was
Isked |o resrgrr on aceoum or rm same. srre goes as far as plaadmg
in me srarerrrenr 0! case tharnhe aeruar reason «or theleimmallon was
me mismanageman| or Funds aflagahans As such‘ rr was aerrarnry a
srruauorr mar when we crarrrranr rrraua rrar reprasenlaliun under
section 2a of cm rnarram-I neutron: Au «:1, me arcumsiances
rrr wcavuEnMvE:HcDn.rrsnw:A me 11 ul :1
we saw n-vrhnrwm be used m mm In: nrwrrraflly mums dun-mm vra anurm wnxr
of dlsmxssm she was wmulainmg about was ner dislmssal on me
aHeged grounds o1m\sman:gemen\oifunds.
[20] Funhermore, :1 appears that Varge pnmon of me Inal we was suenl
on Ihe Issue of mrsmanagemenn of mm}: etc. There was no objsclnon
mrsed alany point during me Inal that n was of nu relevance u rs clear
that me parlnes prooeedad an the basis me: n was a mewmnl mailer lo
be eansmerea.
[71] In my wew. considering eu menere. mere can be no unubl mu Ibo
Inn: at mismanagamant :11 funds was eperetrwe on me emmcyef:
mind at me pain! or mrminanan
[221 In me uusnm, m my amnion, me Learned Chairman erred wnen ne
refused to consider Illa Issue ehmsmanagemenl 07 funds as ilwas HUI
onry expressly pleaded by both names but clesny e mane!/Issue that
had ocwrred and operated on me mm 0! me empaeyer prior to and
at the tune cf the dAsmIssa\. It was deafly not a matter that was
dlsmvered past the Cla|manl‘s msmlssal.
[23] II Vs «me Vaw that an enor 0! law Is occasioned where me dsdsion
maker «ans we consider a relevant mailer or rnuseppna the law The
noun of Appeal in me case of
syuriken Kunduun M-Inyu K-Iunun Ehd v. Trunlporl Worhn
Unlovl [ms] 1 MLRA 26l;[1W5]2 cm 743; [1995] 1 Mann:
[1995] 2 ML! :17 held as venom.
"/n my judgment, lhs rme pnhcrpls may be stated as !'o(/ows. An
inferior Mbunal er orrrer dscrlxion making aumorrty, wnerner
exercising a quastyudicial Iuncfion or Fun:/y en adminlsnatlvs
rn wcavmEnMvE:Hcmursnu:A base n 5111
we s.n.r n-nhnrwm be used m mm s. nrwhrnflly mm: dun-mm wa .nune Wm
runenen has no jurisdiction 1.; cammr? an snot ol/aw Heneerenn.
1! /3 no longer o/concern whefhev me em oflaw rs iunsdrcvonal
or not. (I an inferior Inbunal or olhu public dsc/sion taker does
make such an error, men he exceeds hrs [ulisdiclron So too is
jurrsdrcfinn sxcsedsd where 795091 75 hfld 10 an unfatr pmcedunz
(see Re,e Abdul Malek u Senausaha summ/eye Pasukan Polls
(19951 1 MLJ 309;, or where me dectsran reached is umeasuneme,
m the sense that no reasonable tribunal simr/ariy mumsueneeu
wou/I1 have amvad at the impugned deasion It is neither Ieesme
nor desirable to attempt an exhaustive ae/mmon ofwllaramoums
to an error ol/aw for me calegalres or such an em)! we not closed.
Bu! it may be salely said me: an error anew would be arse/need 4
me decfsianmaker asks himse/Hive mm gussuon or lakes rm
ECCOLIHI irreievanx considerations DI omits to laks into acvaunr
relelmnt consfdelatrorrs We: may be convsmsnllz [en-wed an
Anrslnfnfc error or n he miscontrues me terms ol any rem/an:
statute or rmsagg/[es OI mrs-slates a mangle oflhe general law.
Slnoe an Inlsflormbunm has nojunsdicfion (0 make an arm! ol/aw,
us ueclsnne w/II nu! be immunized from /ud/':iaIIe1/raw 1: y an oasis!
clausa however wldsly malted."
[24] Having eunsmered all meners and mm Issued to the Leamee
Chammln, 1 am conslrumed |o conclude met an arm of raw wn
eommmea when M misupphed me new no laflad to take ima eecnum
a reievanl eoneaeremun i.e., men In consmr lha issue ul
mismanagement ov funds as a ground for termination.
IN wcavuznmviancmursnuan vase u um
‘Nata sew n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum we
Whit Nam?
[25] Having opined and concluded above iriai me Leamsd Chairman‘:
nnoing on a proper issue more in ie., ground or siaiuiory ra|inamerIl
ago was carradly daoidad, me Cuurl is iiai minded lo quash man
ririding. Howovar. ii is clear ma! ma hasis lavsuhsaqusnfly oonciudiiig
iriai me ciainianrs xemiinaimi was uninii on mo sole oasis afslamlory
rahramanl isoe was mereiore named and canseoueniiy. Ihe said Award
of 24 moriiris buck wages shouki oa quashsd.
[251 Pames nave suomiiiea n Vcnfllh beionu me bued on me svldenue
adduoed more iris iridusmai coun max I should now decide whether
or mi me ciaimam is guiicy olme alleged niismaiisgeirieiii vflunds
aiioior io decide an ma apomoiiaie comoensaiion, ii eriy. In my view,
1713! uiai issue ougm to have been oonsiaered
riaviiig mncluded as
and decided by me Leamad criaimiaii, iiis m| nw my oiaoe lo decide
mis sssue as If at first iiisiaiioa iii my opinion, me issue oi
mismanagemem Ufflmds and any possmie wmpensaoori ougm lo be
the domain oi me Indusmal ooun ax firs1 iiisiaiioo who heard me
exierisive iesiimoiiy oi |he wimesses on me issue niat would also
avoid me deprivauon oiane ieyei oiaopeai by eflher pany aga s1 any
such decision on me issue.
Conclusion
[21] As such, rieviiig ooiisioerea an maueis, mis ooun maka melollmving
DVdef$‘
IN wcavmE:iMvE:HcDri.irsnw:A Page In 0417
None s.ii.i n-nhnrwm be used M mm i.. nrwinaflly MIN: dnunvinnl wn aF\uNG WM!
a There was nu srmr av law darnnnrled rn [ha findlng mal me basis
or Ierrrllrlalmn on me ground of slalmory rellrsmanl age was not
made out:
b. The findings ol urrlusl drsrrrissal and dismlssal wlmou1jus1 cause
at paragraphs 14 and 75 01 me sald Award are sel aside as
erroneously made based only on me grmmd stated ln are leller M
lerrrrlrralion:
1:. Oonsequenlly, ma anraunl cl RM335,2au.ao awalded as
oompensatlan ls also sal aslde;
d The ruamer ls remlued Io ma sama Leamsd Chairman of ma
lndusmal cdun who heard the emdanda url me issue nl
rmsmanagemerrl ol lands and ldr rum lo declde on lh ues as
pleaded and lo make all rrecassary orders corIS6quen|laI |n any
sucn «ndrng;
e I dIleC| the maltertu be llxed before lhe Regl51rar of the lndusmal
Cour! WMWI 14 days or (oday wllh a Vlew mar me many be
ramlllod back do the same Learned Chalrlrlan IO enable mm to
hand dwn another Award allar adnsrdarang lna relevant
pleadlngs, evldence and submlssions and In pamaular, la dam.
on me issue or wnemer me Company has eslalzlisnad |helv
plaadad case M negllgenoe/mlsmarlagement M runds being a
mauer lhal werated an the emD\O‘IC1'S mlnd at the Dam! of
Ierrrlinanon.
rn wcavmznmvianclmlrsnwan val: rs 1:011
-ma Smnl n-vlhnrwlll be used m mm are nflnlnallly mm: dun-mm wa .num wnxl
[28] In fight ems observations and concluswons man I have reached, I am
omue view lhallhere should be no order as to costs formis applucation.
Da|o' 8"‘ November 2023
ANAND PONNUDURAI
Judge
mgr. Conn Georgetown
Pu\auFmang.
Counsel 5
Mr Khamlan Malhavan from Messrs WK Um 5. Partners (Pamng
Jaye) [Or the Apphcanl
Mr. Ang Boon Pm and Mr. Khoo vu Jialrom Messrs. av Aug & Tan [fiukit
Menajsm) «:4 me 2"“ Respondent.
c gs) rtfurcd Io:
Goon Kwes Phoy v J -i P coals (M) EM [1931] 2 MLJ129
Mznlime lnlelllgencs Sdn Ehd v ran N: (Sex [2021] 10 CLJ 553
Muan Auw Sdn and v Wong Seh Yen [1995] 3 MLJ 537
sw wcavL:EnMv£:Hcnn.Arsnu:A -as. u .11 11
was smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
Syarikalkenderaan Melayu Ke]aman Bhd v Transparl Workers Union
[1995]] MLRA 26811995] 2 CLJ 740, [1995] 2 AMR16(]1:[1W5]2 Mm
317
Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Luau v. Knshan Kutty Sanguni Nair 5
Anor[2oo2] 1 MELR 4; [2002] 1 MLRA 188: [2002] 3 MLJ 129: [2002] 3
AMR 2898, [2002] 3 CLJ 314
uglslaunn s] nllrud lo:
Induslrial Re]afions An 1967, Sechon 20
Mlmmum Renrernem Age Act 2012
Ru]es or Conn 2012, Order 53
sw wcavuznmvzamcmursnuu me 17 M17
um smm n-uhnrwm be used 0 van; .. nrimrrnflly mm]: dun-mm VIZ mum wnx]
[41 The ciainiani oeniinenoed einpioymerii with the company on 1“
February 200 at the age oi 53 years one and 2 months Her pxsition
was that at Geriaiai Manager wiin ioias speoziicaiiy ieieiing in finanw
arid aeoounis. An issue inai arms: was wneiner there was a een|i-act
wfemplwymenl issued with the claimant saying mare was norie bui ine
company oontending that ihere was one but which has airipe gone
missing. The Learned criaiinian of me indusuiai couri dean wiih this
issue ai paiagiapns 477 52 otthe said Award and «hen oerieiuded trial
the c arirs version of not being given an empioyrneni oormam me
more dredipie. I see no ieasori to disiuip this wnoiusien The test iiiat
she was an employee of the Cornpariy is hdwever nu! disputed as
eoriiriisutioris were being made inwards EFF. socso etc.
[5] 2 years iriio empioyineni and aiier hauing ooiaiined an irrcremeniiri her
saieiy, aiiegatioris oi mismanagement or Company tunds aidse
wrieiein the ciahneni and a eoiieague weie oonironied on the issue. it
is oonterided oy ihe company thei the niaior epinpiaini was man ii sum
oi appiuxiiriaieiy RM 2 2 iniiiiori was overpaid to the company's
so ors ior conveyancing mailers.
[6] The company had then engaged an eiiteiriai iorenaie audit which
apparemiy/aiiegediy found no misiriuriagement ofiurids.
[71 No show cause ieder was issued nor diaoipiinaiy action iaken, but
rather, on 29“ August 2|}19 the company apprdaoned the ciaiinarii
and gave her the option in resign iaiiirrg which she wouid oe
terminated. The ciaiinarit refused to resign arid this red in a
ieimination ieitei dated am August 2019 oeing issued. The fact a!
termination is not in dispute.
IN WCEVDEnMVE:HcDhJr:Dfi:A me: am
we s.ii.i n-vihnrwm be used a mm ms nflmrreflly MIME dnunvinnl wa nFiuNG WM!
[3] However, what is of utmost signmcanae in this se is the contents of
me letter ofdisrrltssal which reads as toilews
--[:2]
Altn: Mdm Law.
NOTICE OF TERMINANON
As you have long exceeded the statutory retirerrient age, we
hereby issue directly In you lhs Italics onemiination at your
employment with inintetttate ettaet. nits notice is served
together with payment aronam monlll salary (MEE cheque no’
752212) in lieu otnotice perintt. Thank You
AYM Management Team Sdn Ehd
soon Michael
Executive Director“
[9] Having oensiitetett aiteti temiiriaiian In be without iust cause at
excuse, tlie claimant then made tier iepieseriitaaon ler relnstatemant
Dursuanl to section 20 of me Industrial Relations Aiet 19:1 which
was subsequemty reverted to the lndusfllai Ccurl.
[10] At the lnrtitstiial Oourl, the claimant and ttie cempany filed their
statement ul case and statement or new being their respective
pleadings. ol stgmficance to me, in her statement at case, the
claimant sets eitt tlie evenls that tianspirett in relation |o me allagsd
mismanagement el liimts prior to her dismissal and at paragraphs 27
and so tiieaits that the reasons eiage reiiett en tarttie tenriinatton was
sin WCEVDEnMVE:HcDhJr:Dfi:A vaau at I‘!
we s.it.i In-vihnrwm be its... m min ms titiiniiii Mimi dnunvllnl VII .riiiite Wml
a sham and that the anus! reason fur termrnatran was the IHegalIons
er mismanagement oflunds when were nmlme and wrthout hams
[11] we Ils statement m Rapty. the cernpany peace the background at
the crarnranrs anrpteynrant am. and raraes the Issues euhe clairnarrrr.
neg\tgenoe/ mismanagement of funds and does not deny tannrnaung
her servrces. Hwever, as seen earher, atthaugh the lenmna|ron terrar
enty makes reterenee to the age teeter as the reason, the Cumpany
new cnnlends that Vl was atsa due to the Issues with her performance.
In tact, tnts was amply dear lrom paragraphs 15 and 17 pl the
srarernent in Reply which reads as loHams'
-15. hr response ta Paragraphs 21 and 22 onhe saici statement of
case, the Respondent‘ states that rt had no alternative but to
terrnrnata the ctahnant and the Finance Manager at the same
trnre to prevent rurther financial losses that mayhavs suffered by
the Respondent due to the ctermants failure to discharge her
dunes and restxzhsrb mes to perform and sheer neg/rgehae and
gross repeated mistakes in he! capecrty as the General
Manager. The Rsspondenlwtll provide documenmlyplvolarthe
Heerrrrg
17 rhe Resporroentuenres each aneevery attegatran rnaaa by the
ctarrnant rn Paragraph 23,2425, 2s,27,2a,29,3o, 31,32 and 33 or
the satd statement etcase am contends that her ersnrtsaat was
wllh ‘]us! cause" In that the 0/airnant had attarnee the rettrenrerrt
age and that she latter: to dtschalge her duties to the aatzsiactrorr
crmre Respondent as ertpectea other desprre repeater-1 warnrrrga
ghreh. the Respondent wtll pmdtlcs swdsnce troth oral and
rn wcavuEnMvE:HcDh.trsnw:A mu at n
we s.n.r tunherwm as used a mm has aflmhaflly mm: dnnnmhl wa afluNG Wm
documentary at me Heanng ol rrris matter to subslarvfisls ma
avermenfs herein '
Yh Ind al coun you dings and the Award
[12] A 1ria\ was conducted overseverav days wnara me Company produced
one witness and me clarrnanr mp wrtnassas Upon perusrng the
respective wnnen submrssvnns, me Learned Chairman nandad dawn
Ina said Award. 1 nave paruaad me sad Award and me iuudwrng
thought process and oonelusrons made In me Award can be
surnrnansed as loflaus‘
a Tne Learned Chamnan at paragraphs H36 dune sard Award sets out
accuratary me brreflaccs as well as the rapecuua msesl oanlenlrans
v1 bah varies.
a. M paragrapns 37-41 a! me sad Award, he men (cdrraeuy In my view)
sela oul the applicable law and racogmxas «nan ma burden cl pron! Is
on ma Company no prove an a bmance o! prdpaprnuas mar ma mason
advanmd for me drsrnrssal nae been made mi! [See «na cases of
radon Kw» Pnoy ». ; 1. P cam (ll) Bhd[1Il1] 2 Mu I29; llllln
Auto sdn and v wong Sch van mas] 3 MLJ 5:1 and 1
rm-ya Kawnun um. v. Kr-mun xuny Sangunl Nllr A
And: R001] 1 MELR A1K3W2] 1 IIILRA ma; [21:02] 3 MLJ 129;
max] : AMR am: [1002] 3 CLJ an].
kom
1: me Learned cnarnnan then proceeds to wnsrder and drscuss the
reason far ma d1smissa\ rrprn paragraph 42 ormerds Uflhe savd Award.
Havmg aseenannsd mar me only reasdn soared in the leller or
sru wcavuEnMv£:HcDn.Arsnw:A rm 6 m n
ma s.n.r In-nharwm be used m mm has anmruuly awn: dun-mm wa mans wrm
cerrnrnarion was me sramrary rerrrernanr ags rssaa, na then makes
reference rd the Federa\ Cmm daarsran m uarir rna Irmulgonu sdn
End '4 Tan Ah Gak [2021] in cm 553 and ounnludes at paragraph
45 aurra sard Award that rrra only reason mar operated an the rrrrnd or
the Company an rrra urns ardrarnissax was the srarurory retirement age
issue As sucrr, he wrvdudes ar paragraph 46 of me said Award char
the statutory reliremenl age rssue rs are only rssue to be oensrdared
and ma caun cannot ponsrderorrrer graunds nor ammnoed allhe time
01 drsrrrrseal. In (ad, rre goes as far as srarrng at paragraph 56 d1 the
sard Award man the Issue aflhe crarrnanr rnrsrnanagrngrrre Company's
fund is of no relevance at all
d, He man prpceeds up evaluale wha| he oonsidared ma acre issue \.a.,
whether me company was rrrsrinad m lermmallng rrre crarrrrarrr-s
ssrvrm on me ground of having arralrred ma rnrrwrrurn n:wemen| age
0160. In mu regard, rravrng cansrdsred axransrvely Ihe prevarring aasa
Iw as well as me pamcullr (an: or rrrrs case as wan as Dru evidence
adduced in pamcular mar or me corrrpanys whnsss rnar srau are
rararnad weH past are age 0160, ha condudaa mar II was claarrrrar rrra
crarrnanr nad a Iegrrrrrrara upacmlvnn as work beyond an and man:
was no evidence whavsoaver In suggasr mar sne was subpctad re a
rmrrarnenr age 1: rs men concluded ar paragraarra 74 and 75 :21 the
said Award mar ma crarrnarrrs disrnnsar was wrcrraur rusr came or
excuse as the Comvlrry rrad applied nra uinlrnurn Rdlirnmtm Ag-
Act 2(11ZIn bad «arm.
9. He nnany aears war. are remedy rronr paragraphs 7610 32 onna said
Award and orders me Company ra pay me crairnarrr 24 rnorrms back
wages as oarnpensarrnn.
rn wcavmErrMvE:Hcmr.ArsnwaA use 7 ar 11
Naps s.r.r n-nhnrwm re used m mm a. ar1mrraHIy mm: dun-mm vra anurm pwnxr
ni cam rounds for Lt: ic on
[13] me Applicanl nave in lneir order 53 Rulu no caun 2M: sieoenieni
raised several grounds in cnallengs ind impugned Award. Huwavar,
lrdni me Aapliaanrs wriuan submissions, II II ciearinaune crux dnnair
cdnidlainl is mac me Learned criainnan nad erred wnan he only
dansidersd ins issue dl ins siaiuidry raureinanl age and flD1“19\5SLIB
d1 nagliganaelrnisrnanadenienl ouunds as pleaded
[14] In lnis regard ii is hcyorld paradventuru that me Learned cnairrnan
only considered ins issue dl iris slalurery relirarnanl age on me aasis
lhal «rial was me only reason grvdn in ins ldicar d1 lermirlallan Al |hl5
iunerurei I mva noted «rial ins Applicant does ndi appear In Iaka
urnarage dn ins mislusidn raaehed (hEI| «nerd was rid basis ra
levmirlale an we grounds dl slaiiuldry rslirenisnl age. Having perused
me said Award, l have no reason is inlsrlsra wim soon a finding and I
am dune view that dn lrre lame and evidence prsrsenled before in, than
was Ihe danecl mndiusidn id be reached by lna Learned criainnan
[I5] Howevev, iriai is no: me and dune matte! The Apgllcanlnow ddnisnds
uial ins Learned cnainnan dugni id have dansidered me pleadad
issue dl negligende and mlsmarlagemenl al lunds and that me
Learned cnairnian had erred in ruling ll lrrelevan| and declining la
inquire inio il. in mis regard. iris Applicant ddniends marine Learned
cnainnan niisadnalrued the Federal cdun dedsidn in the ease dl
larirlilrna lnulllganae (Swan).
[16] Tris use dlulamirne limlllganca discussed irie lssue dl an employer
relying on a ground wnrm was discovered sudseduenlly and was not
relied upon al lne poinl al lerrninallon ln lhal use, me ernaldyee was
in wcavuEnMvEaHcl3n.lrsnwaA nu r at n
we s.n.i In-vlhnrvim as used M van; i.e nflglnnllly Mimi dun-mm wa aFluNG mi
lsrmmalefl on Severn! grounds of lmsmnduct pursuant k) E Domeslvc
nnquny. Al ms Vnduslrim coun, ma Cnmpany also sought ta rely on
other grounds in le|a|iarI la hev quahficahnn whldl were dlseavared
posuaynnnauon. The vssue posed lo me Federa¥ Cour! was whether
the |rIdus11ia\ Cnun has a nghl lo enquire IMO reasons subsequemly
PM up byme empklyev Via Rs pleadmgs even N such reasons weve not
given at ms wne of dismissal The Federa\ Court In answering the
above quesmn m ma negalws held as loII:Ms'
-(3) By virtue allhs clqarslatulory camsnrals 20(3), ms Ilmnmcm ol
I/lfi Indusmil COM rs lied inextricably lo the Veprssarllallons 0:‘
ma womnan ofa drsIm:sa/ wvthouuusl cause or excusa Thase
representations are made by the workman Bf the film! of his
drsrmssat for reasons whrch he res/s are wimour any reasoned
basis or for reasons that are Insuflicfem I0 wamsm a dismissal.
The focus aflhe anqmry afths lnduslhsl Court under s 20(3) or
the Ad, 5 Ihereinre prsmrssd on matters and events as may
occurred at the me oflhe nirsmlsss/. The muons gmung in
tho mind 0! ma onngoyg, wing’ In games: an docision m
mntnm and IISIIIIOI1 in nu aec;g'on to Iermlruta
canmse me nuflars m be considlrud and awuarcaged umn
1: the I a! com undeIs.1 3 . By wayofelaboratian oi
rrns pomt, specrfic Iamzvs. evenls orreasons would have opemred
on the employers mind, pnor to me employs! deciding In
lemlfnale me workmarfs services. 1: is moss reasons, racras or
events wmcn comprise one Dasrs Inr Ins drsrmsssl The workman
makes Ins reptesentalian cl comp(aml oi dismissal mmout ;ust
cause 57 excuse based on (hose reasons, rams or events only
an wcavL:EnMv£:HcDn.1rsnw:A Vases M17
Nuns saw n-nhnrwm as used m van; me nrighuflly mm; dun-mm wa mum puns!
undsr s mm. H Phsrelals follows (hat we raprasenlalions based
on those Vrmilad reasons factors oravanrs only, can comprise the
basis /or assessmenl and adjudrcahun Lay the Inaumel cenn
under: 2013}. The (arm ‘renrvsenfafroni lhsrelnrs has the
/unsdrcnon of me /nrmrnel am down to rrre reasons, vacrure or
svenls operanng m we mrnd :21 me employer at me time er
Lfismfssa/resumngin Ihe Iepresenlalion (paras A548)
(I) There /s no provrsacn Ior the Indusmal Court 2.: consider Inaflsrs
omsrae ol the rsplssenlal/on by me workman, under s 20(3)
Meners outside onne represenrenon would rneruda rnaners wh/on
wars not apsreuve rn me smploysfs mind when we daemon to
dismiss was taken, bu! wrncn me smpmysrchooses in put! forward
pnsldtsmrsszal er a uubsaquam slugs rn lhe Industrial Court, to
jusniy me decision to dismrss me workman, ex post facla. The
very specific wordmg als 2n dons not pmeenbe or allow en
avernrching eunrey by the Inuusnnw Court cl any and en rnnners
bolh pro and P05!-dtsmuul. in an plied to ascertain wrrezner me
workman‘: representnhons -re made out In is the srahnonly
pmscribed Iunctbn of lhe Industrial Com to axlmins, rnvesriaane
ths rapresenlatrons of the workman and men hand down an
award under s 20(3) I: is not me runcnan oune Indusma! Court
to decode othsrw/sq than prescribed by the Act. The Act rrnplicmy
plescnbas an mvssfrgalian into facts and events and masons nr
me pornr and/or unre afdismissa/e There rs no provision in me Act
fat the mdusrfial tribunal to embark on a Ia!-mnging survey on
asnsrlam wnemer gnrerr rnaners wnrcn mo employer has
discovered smrsequenuy and rmlpm to me rronnnen, n rsrusrmea
in drsmrssing me wwkman (paras so a 51)-
rn wcavmEnMvE:HcDn.Ar:nu:A >31: mm
“Nuns s.n.r n-nhnrwm be used m mm e. ennmun MW: dun-mm vu mum vmm
| 2,259 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
T-09-79-03/2020 | PERAYU W MOHD SYAFIE BIN W MUSTAFFA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] | Seksyen 377E Kanun Keseksaan – Seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 – Keterangan saksi kanak-kanak dihadapan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah diuji di bawah seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 – Kanak-kanak seorang saksi yang kredibel dan kompeten bagi maksud Seksyen 118 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk memberikan keterangannya secara tidak bersumpah – Kebolehterimaan masuk keterangan seorang kanak-kanak – Keseluruhan keterangan yang diberikan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan terutamanya keterangan saksi kanak-kanak, tidak dapat disangkal lagi bahawa ianya adalah kukuh dan boleh dipercayai walaupun terdapat sedikit percanggahan yang remeh – Pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh Perayu dan SD2 hanyalah suatu penafian kosong, pemikiran terkemudian dan rekaan semata-mata yang tidak menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan – Hukuman memberikan keutamaan kepada kepentingan awam – Pesalah berulang (repeat offender) untuk kesalahan yang sama. | 08/11/2023 | YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Collin Lawrence SequerahYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d48bf898-a1e7-4be9-ada2-03eb9bfe8868&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: T-09-79-03/2020
ANTARA
W MOHD SYAFIE BIN W MUSTAFFA - PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN
[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Terengganu
Kes Perbicaraan Jenayah No: TA-42JSKS-1-05/2019
Antara
W Mohd Syafie Bin W Mustaffa - Perayu
Dan
Pendakwa Raya - Responden]
15/11/2023 08:28:48
T-09-79-03/2020 Kand. 54
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
KORUM:
HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, HMR
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH, HMR
AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, HMR
PENGHAKIMAN
PERTUDUHAN
[1] Pendakwaan terhadap Perayu bermula di Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala
Terengganu, Terengganu Darul Iman di atas pertuduhan berikut:
"Bahawa kamu pada 2/6/2016 jam ebih kurang 2.00 petang sehingga
4.00 petang, bertempat di Maahad Tahfiz Al lkhwan, No. 1334, Jalan
Kenanga, Batu Buruk, di dalam Daerah Kuala Terengganu, di dalam
Negeri Terengganu, didapati telah merangsang penama xxxxxx, KPT
xxxxxx yang berumur 7 tahun untuk melakukan suatu perbuatan
kelucahan melampau. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan
suatu kesalahan yang mana boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 377E
Kanun Keseksaan.”
FAKTA KES PENDAKWAAN
[2] Mangsa (SP3) berusia 7 tahun semasa kejadian.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[3] SP3 adalah seorang pelajar di Maahad Tahfiz Al-lkhwan, Batu Buruk,
Kuala Terengganu di mana pelajar-pelajar menuntut ilmu Al Quran. SP3
menghadiri kelas mengaji tersebut sejak dari tahun 2015 iaitu ketika SP3
berumur 6 tahun lagi. Sesi pengajian Al Quran ini bermula pada sebelah
petang iaitu dari jam 2.00 petang sehingga 4.00 petang setiap hari Ahad
hingga Khamis. Pada sebelah pagi pula, SP3 belajar di Sekolah
Kebangsaan Sri Budiman Dua, Kuala Terengganu.
[4] Pada 2/6/2016 (hari Khamis) jam lebih kurang 4.00 petang, SP3 telah
menceritakan kepada ibunya iaitu Siti Aisyah binti Ali (SP5) dan bapanya
iaitu Mohd Ramlan bin Ramli (SP2) bahawa semasa SP3 berada di Maahad
tersebut, salah seorang ustaz yang mengajar di Maahad tersebut iaitu
Perayu telah memanggil SP3 masuk ke dalam bilik penginapannya di
Maahad tersebut dan Perayu memberikan telefon bimbitnya kepada SP3
untuk bermain permainan yang ada dalam telefon bimbit tersebut. Perayu
kemudiannya menyuruh SP3 meniarap di atas lantai bilik tersebut lalu
Perayu duduk di atas SP3. Perayu telah membuka kain yang dipakainya dan
membuka pula seluar yang dipakai oleh SP3. Semasa SP3 sedang
meniarap, SP3 telah menoleh ke belakang dan di masa itu SP3 nampak
kemaluan Perayu. Kemudian, Perayu telah meletakkan, memasukkan dan
menggeselkan kemaluannya ke dalam punggung SP3. SP3 dapat
merasakan kemaluan Perayu diletakkan di bahagian dubur SP3. Mengikut
SP3 lagi, sebelum kejadian terbaru ini, kejadian yang sama juga telah
berlaku terhadap dirinya sebanyak tiga (3) kali.
[5] Pengetua Maahad tersebut iaitu Badrul Salleh Burhandin Fadzlullah
bin Abdul Rahman (SP6) mengesahkan bahawa Perayu merupakan salah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
seorang tenaga pengajar di situ. SP6 juga mengesahkan telah
membenarkan Perayu bersama keluarganya tinggal di dalam sebuah bilik
belakang di Maahad tersebut (tempat kejadian). Manakala seoarang lagi
tenaga pengajar iaitu Ustaz Azmi tidak tinggal di premis maahad tahfiz
tersebut.
[6] Pada 3/6/2016, SP2 telah membuat laporan polis di Balai Polis Kuala
Terengganu terhadap kejadian yang berlaku terhadap SP3. Laporan Polis
Kuala Terengganu/005002/16 ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P3.
[7] Pada 4/6/2016, jam lebih kurang 3.30 petang, bertempat di Bahagian
Siasatan Jenayah Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kuala Terengganu, Pegawai
Penyiasat kes iaitu Inspektor Siti Aniza binti Askulali (SP9) telah
menjalankan satu sesi kawad cam bagi SP3. SP9 mengesahkan bahawa
SP3 dapat mengecam Perayu sebagai orang yang melakukan perbuatan
tersebut terhadapnya. Laporan kawad cam tersebut telah dikemukakan dan
ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P10. SP3 juga dapat mengecam Perayu di
dalam Mahkamah semasa SP3 memberi keterangannya.
[8] Pada 5/6/2016, SP3 telah dirujuk kepada SP4 (Doktor Azhar bin
Osman) di Jabatan Pembedahan, Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah, Kuala
Terengganu untuk pemeriksaan perubatan ke atas SP3 kerana dikatakan
menjadi mangsa liwat. SP4 mengesahkan tiada sebarang kesan luka pada
bahagian dubur SP3. Dubur SP3 berada dalam keadaan yang normal. SP4
berkata sekiranya seseorang pesakit diliwat, tidak semestinya akan terdapat
kecederaan pada bahagian duburnya. Terdapat juga situasi di mana pesakit
yang diliwat tidak mengalami apa - apa kecederaan. Mengikut SP4 lagi, SP3
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
ada menceritakan sedikit kepada beliau tentang kejadian yang berlaku pada
dirinya. SP4 yakin cerita tersebut adalah benar.
RINGKASAN KETERANGAN PEMBELAAN
[9] Perayu (SD1) telah memilih untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah.
[10] Perayu tidak menafikan bahawa bilik dalam gambar ekshibit P2H
adalah bilik tempat tinggal beliau.
[11] Perayu menafikan beliau ada melakukan perbuatan kelucahan
melampau terhadap SP3 dalam bilik tersebut.
[12] Perayu menyatakan bahawa SP3 tidak pernah memasuki bilik Perayu.
[13] Perayu menyatakan bahawa pelajar di Maahad Tahfiz tersebut tidak
dibenarkan untuk memasuki bilik Perayu.
[14] Perayu menyatakan bahawa pada hari kejadian iaitu 2/6/2016 jam
lebih kurang 2.00 petang sehingga 4.00 petang, beliau berada dalam bilik
penginapannya di Maahad tersebut bersama isterinya iaitu Noraini binti
Mohammad (SD2) untuk menjaga anak kecil mereka berusia lapan (8) bulan
yang demam pada masa itu.
[15] Perayu menyatakan SD2 yang bekerja sebagai guru KAFA di Sekolah
Kebangsaan Sri Budiman Dua, Kuala Kuala Terengganu tidak bertugas
pada tarikh kejadian tersebut (Khamis) kerana jadual tugasan SD2 hanyalah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
pada hari Ahad, lsnin dan Rabu jam 2.00 petang sehingga 5.00 petang
sahaja.
[16] Perayu menafikan bahawa beliau telah menggunakan tandas
sepertimana yang diceritakan oleh SP3. Tandas yang ditunjukkan itu hanya
digunakan oleh pelajar Maahad Tahfiz dan guru tidak pernah menggunakan
tandas tersebut.
[17] Perayu menafikan ada memberikan telefonnya kepada SP3 untuk
bermain "game" pada hari kejadian. Menurut Perayu, telefon bimbit yang
dipakainya bukan jenis smartphone sebaliknya hanya telefon lama jenis
3310. Oleh itu, tiada "game" dalam telefon yang digunakannya itu.
[18] Perayu juga menyatakan selain beliau, terdapat seorang lagi ustaz
lelaki bernama Ustaz Azmi yang juga mengajar di Maahad Tahfiz
berkenaan.
[19] Menurut Perayu, Ustaz Azmi tidak pernah ditahan oleh pihak polis
berkaitan kes ini dan tidak pernah diletakkan di dalam barisan kawad cam
bagi memberi peluang kepada SP3 untuk mengesahkan sama ada Perayu
ataupun Ustaz Azmi yang merupakan orang yang melakukan perbuatan
seksual terhadap SP3.
[20] SD2 pula di dalam keterangannya hanya sekadar mengesahkan
keterangan Perayu bahawa beliau ada bersama-sama Perayu pada tarikh
dan masa kejadian tersebut.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
[21] SP2 menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak bertugas pada hari kejadian itu.
SP2 dan Perayu bersama-sama menjaga anak kecil mereka yang demam
pada hari itu.
KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PEMBELAAN
[22] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memutuskan
bahawa pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh hanyalah suatu pemikiran
semula, penafian semata-mata serta tidak menimbulkan keraguan
munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan. Pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya
membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan munasabah. Perayu didapati
bersalah dan disabitkan di atas pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 377E Kanun
Keseksaan.
[23] Perayu telah dijatuhi hukuman pemenjaraan selama 10 tahun dan 3
sebatan rotan. Hukuman pemenjaraan ini berjalan secara berturutan dengan
hukuman bagi kes TA-42S-13-09/2017.
PERAYU MENFAILKAN RAYUAN KEPADA MAHKAMAH TINGGI
[24] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, Perayu telah menfailkan rayuan
kepada Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Terengganu terhadap keseluruhan
keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Notis Rayuan yang difailkan oleh
Perayu adalah terhadap sabitan dan hukuman.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
DAPATAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI
[25] Pada 10/3/2020, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi mengekalkan sabitan
terhadap Perayu. Mahkamah Tinggi juga mendapati hukuman pemenjaraan
selama 10 tahun penjara dan 3 kali sebatan tidaklah terlalu berlebihan.
Justeru itu, Mahkamah Tinggi tidak berhasrat untuk menganggu hukuman
yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Hukuman Rayuan
Perayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman ditolak. Perintah Hakim Mahkamah
Sesyen dikekalkan.
PERAYU MENFAILKAN RAYUAN KEPADA MAHKAMAH RAYUAN
[26] Terkilan dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut, pada
10/3/2020, Perayu telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan kepada Mahkamah
Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah
Tinggi Kuala Terengganu terhadap Perayu.
PERUNTUKAN UNDANG - UNDANG
(i) Seksyen 377E Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukan seperti berikut:
Inciting a child to an act of gross indecency
377E. Any person who incites a child under the age of fourteen years
to any act of gross indecency with him or another person shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and
not more than fifteen years, and shall also be punished with whipping.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(ii) Seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti
berikut:
"133A. Where, in any proceedings against any person for any offence,
any child of tender years called as a witness does not in the opinion of
the court understand the nature of an oath, his evidence may be
received, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of the court, he
is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the
evidence, and understands the duty of speaking the truth; and his
evidence, though not given on oath, but otherwise taken and reduced
into writing in accordance with section 269 of the Criminal Procedure
Code [Act 593] shall be deemed to be a deposition within the meaning
of that section;
Provided that, where evidence admitted by virtue of this section is
given on behalf of the prosecution, the accused shall not be liable to
be convicted of the offence unless that evidence is corroborted by
some other material evidence in support thereof implicating him."
PRINSIP UNDANG - UNDANG DI PERINGKAT RAYUAN
[27] Mahkamah dalam mendengar rayuan ini berpandukan kepada prinsip
undang-undang yang mantap di mana mahkamah di peringkat rayuan
seharusnya mengambil pendirian untuk tidak menganggu keputusan yang
telah dibuat oleh mahkamah perbicaraan melainkan ternyata keputusan
tersebut terdapat salah arah, tidak menurut undang-undang dan terdapat
keterangan kukuh yang menunjukkan bahawa hakim perbicaraan telah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
terkhilaf di dalam menilai keterangan yang telah dikemukakan semasa
perbicaraan.
[28] Di dalam kes Amri Ibrahim & Anor v. PP [2017] 1 CLJ 617,
Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan yang berikut:
“[51] It is trite law that the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of
a witness must be given proper weight and consideration. An appellate
court should be slow in disturbing such finding of fact arrived at by the
trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness,
unless there were substantial and compelling reasons for disagreeing.”
[29] Di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 2 MLRA 590,
Mahkamah Persekutuan menegaskan seperti berikut:
“Now, it settled law that it is no part of the function of an appellate Court
in a criminal case or indeed any case to make its awn findings of
fact. That is a function exclusively reserved by the law to the trial Court.
The reason is obvious. An appellate Court is necessarily fettered
because it lacks the audiovisual advantage enjoyed by the trial Court."
[30] Menyentuh mengenai prinsip yang sama, di dalam kes LCY v. TWY
[2019) 7 CLJ 158, Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat HMR (kini KHN)
menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
“[26] The principle of law on appellate intervention is settled. In Dream
Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453, the
Federal Court reiterated the principle as follows at p. 476;
[60] It is now established that the principle on which an appellate court
interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is "the plainly wrong test"
principle; see the Federal Court in Gan Yook Chin & Anor (P) v Lee Ing
Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Anor [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2005] 1 MLJ 1 (at
p. 10) per Steve Shim CJ SS. More recently, this principle of appellate
intervention was affirmed by the Federal Court in UEM Group Berhad
v Genisys lntergrated Engineers Pte Ltd /2010] 9 CLJ 785 where it was
held at p. 800; and
It is well settled law that an appellate court will not generally speaking
intervene with the decision of a trial court unless the trial court is shown
to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. A plainly wrong decision
happens when the trial court is guilty of no or insufficient judicial
appreciation of the evidence (See Chew Yee Wah & Anor v Choo Ah
Pat [1978]1 LNS 32; Watt v Thomas [1947] AC 484; and Chin v Lee
Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309”.
KEPUTUSAN KAMI
(a) KETERANGAN SAKSI KANAK - KANAK
[31] SP3 yang berusia 8 tahun sebelum memberikan keterangannya
secara terperinci di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah diuji di bawah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen
berpuashati bahawa SP3 merupakan seorang saksi yang kompeten bagi
maksud seksyen 118 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk memberikan
keterangannya secara tidak bersumpah. Rujukan dibuat kepada Nota
Keterangan di Kandungan 11 RR Jilid 3 m/s 82-83 di mana Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen menyimpulkan seperti berikut:
“Mahkamah: Berdasarkan jawapan yang diberikan oleh saksi ini, saya
berpuashati beliau mempunyai kecerdikan yang mencukupi dan tahu
tanggungjawabnya untuk bercakap benar. Walau bagaimanapun,
saya seterusnya mendapati yang beliau tidak memahami maksud dan
tanggungjawab untuk memberi keterangan secara bersumpah. Oleh
yang demikian, saya membenarkan beliau memberi keterangan tidak
bersumpah di bawah peruntukan seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan.”
[32] Mengenai isu kebolehterimaan masuk keterangan seorang kanak -
kanak, rujukan dibuat kepada kes Muhammad Adib Sufyan Bin Azman v.
PP [ 2019] 8 CLJ 261, di mana Mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut:
“Admitting Child Evidence In Court
[23] The crux of the case rests on the reception of SP7's evidence who
at the time of the incident was 13 years old. At the time of trial, he was
over 16 years of age. The definition of a child can be found in several
legislation. Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (1989) defines children as all human being under the age of
18. The Child Act 2001 defines a child as someone below the age of
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
18. The Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 defines a child to be
someone under the age of 16.
[24] It is essential that in every trial involving a child witness, the
competency of a child testifying must be ascertained. An inquiry must
be done by the trial judge to determine if the child witness is competent
to either testify under oath and be allowed to give sworn testimony, or
be allowed to give unsworn evidence in court (see the Federal Court
case of Muharam Anson v. PP [1980] 1 LNS 137; [1981] 1 MLJ 222 at
223).
[25] Section 118 of the Evidence Act ("EA'') provides the start point
where the competency of witnesses are concerned. It provides that all
persons are competent to testify unless they are, in the opinion of the
court, unable to understand the questions put to them or unable to give
rational answers to those questions owing to tender years, extreme old
age, disease of mind or body, or any other such cause.
[26] The intellectual capacity of a child to understand questions and to
give rational answers is the sole test of his testimonial competency and
not any particular age (see Santosh Roy v. State of W.B . [1992] Cr LJ
2493 (Cal). It depends upon the exercise of the trial judge's discretion
upon exercising his judgment on the competency of the child (see
State of M.P. v. Oeoki Nandan {1987] Cr LJ 1016).
[28] The introduction of s. 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 ("s. 133A")
in 1971 saw the development of the said provision being discussed in
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
many cases. The focus of the provision is on assessing the
competency of a child witness, in particular children of tender years. In
PP v. Chan Wai Heng [2008] 5 CLJ 805 it was held that:
[15] Section 133A refers to a situation where a child of tender years is
called as a witness and does not understand the nature of an oath. In
such a situation his evidence may still be received though not given
upon oath if in the opinion of the court he possesses sufficient
understanding to justify the reception of the evidence, and the child
understands the duty of speaking the truth.
[16] The first part of s. 133A therefore governs the admissibility of the
evidence of the child though not given under oath. The proviso deals
with the way in which the evidence once admitted is to be treated, that
is, where the evidence admitted as such is given on behalf of the
prosecution, the proviso requires that the evidence is to be
corroborated by some other material evidence in support thereof in
order to implicate the accused.
Heliliah JCA went on to explain as follows:
“...Once a witness is found to be a competent witness, even if he is not
competent to take an oath or if there is an omission to take an oath that
will not invalidate the proceedings or render inadmissible the evidence.
The rule generally is in favour of admission of evidence though the
weight to be attached to it will naturally be a matter for consideration
by the Court. There is always competency unless the Court considers
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
otherwise. If a witness is not competent he will not be examined in
Court. In the case of a child, it depends on the capacity of the child, his
appreciation of the difference between truth and falsehood as well as
his duty to tell the former. The decision of this question rests with the
trial Judge, who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his
apparent possession, or lack of intelligence. The trial Judge may resort
to any examination which will tend to disclose the capacity and
intelligence and in the case of an oath, his understanding of the
obligation of an oath. See Rameswar Kafyan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan AIR [1952] SC 54: (1952 Cri LJ 547), George L. Wheeler v.
United States, 159 US 523, Krishna Kahar v. Emperor AIR [1940] Cal
182, Ram Hazoor Pandey v. State AIR [1959] A/1409: (1959 Cri LJ
796), Basu v. State of Kera/a [1960] LR Ker 256, and Ponnumani v.
State of Kera/a [1987] (2) Ker LT 1042. Oath or affirmation shall be
made by all witnesses, the only exception being the case of a child
under 12 years of age where the Court is of the opinion that though he
understands the duty of speaking the truth he does not understand
oath or affirmation. If the Court is so satisfied, oath will not be
administered to the witness. The evidence will nevertheless be
admissible (emphasis added).
[33] Menyentuh mengenai isu yang sama juga, Mahkamah Rayuan dalam
menerima keterangan tidak bersumpah saksi kanak-kanak menyatakan di
dalam kes Mohammad Zulkarnain Jemat v. PP [2016] 1 LNS 54, seperti
berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
“[123] It is also to be noted that PW5's testimony was given under oath.
But PW6's testimony was not under oath because prior to giving
evidence the learned Session Court Judge had conducted enquiry
pursuant to s. 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 to determine whether
PW6 was capable of understanding what 'oath' is and whether PW6
was able to understand the meaning of telling the truth under oath.
How ever there is no law that prohibits the Court from accepting the
evidence given in a witness box but not on oath if the Court believes
the evidence to be true. More over such evidence, as in this case, had
been tested through cross examination by the defence.”
[34] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menjalankan inkuiri dan tapisan yang
teliti bagi menentukan kompetensi SP3 seiring dengan kehendak
peruntukkan seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 sebelum beliau
membenarkan dan menerima keterangan tidak bersumpah SP3. Melalui sesi
soal - jawab yang yang dibuat ini, kami mendapati tidak terzahir apa - apa
kekhilafan yang dilakukan oleh beliau di dalam menerima masuk keterangan
SP 3 ini. Kredibiliti SP3 sekali lagi diuji melalui sesi pemeriksaan balas oleh
peguam Perayu dan nyata SP3 berjaya melepasi ujian tersebut dengan
jayanya. Ini menambahkan lagi keyakinan mahkamah sesyen bahawa SP3
adalah merupakan seorang saksi kanak - kanak yang boleh dipercayai.
[35] Berdasarkan pemerhatian yang dibuat, kami berpendapat bahawa
SP3 adalah seorang saksi yang kredibel dan kompeten dalam memberikan
keterangannya.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
(b) PERCANGGAHAN KETERANGAN SAKSI - SAKSI PENDAKWAAN
[36] Peguambela Perayu membangkitkan isu berkaitan kewujudan
percanggahan keterangan yang diberikan oleh SP3 apabila dibandingkan
dengan keterangan SP2 dan SP5. Percanggahan ini dikatakan sesuatu
yang material sehingga mampu mengugat dan meruntuhkan kredibiliti SP3.
[37] Mengupas mengenai isu percanggahan ini, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi
di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya di dalam kandungan 9 RR Jilid 1 m/s 23-
29 telah mengambil perhatian dan pertimbangan tentang isu pencanggahan
ini dengan menyatakan seperti berikut:
“[29] Seterusnya, peguambela Perayu dalam menghujahkan isu ini
turut membangkitkan beberapa percanggahan yang dikatakan wujud
dalam keterangan SP3 apabila dibandingkan dengan keterangan
saksisaksi lain iaitu SP2 dan SP5. Oleh sebab itu, SP3 dikatakan
saksi yang tidak kredibel. Antaranya SP3 mengatakan nampak
kemaluan Perayu manakala SP2, SP5 dan SP13 mengatakan SP3
telah memberitahu mereka bahawa dia tidak nampak kemaluan
Perayu. Seterusnya SP3 mengatakan Perayu masukkan "angry
bird"nya ke dalam punggung manakala menurut SP2 dan SP5 pula,
SP3 memberitahu mereka bahawa Perayu hanya menggesel "angry
bird" pada punggung. Selain itu, SP3 dikatakan memberitahu kepada
SP2 dan SP5 bahawa kejadian tersebut hanya berlaku kali pertama
kepadanya. Namun semasa di Mahkamah, SP3 memberitahu kejadian
itu berlaku sebanyak tiga kali.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
[30] Dalam memberi pertimbangan terhadap percanggahan
percanggahan yang dibangkitkan ini, saya telah meneliti keseluruhan
keterangan SP3, SP2, SP5 dan SP13. Apa yang boleh diperhatikan
dan dibuat kesimpulan oleh saya ialah tiada percanggahan yang
ketara dalam keterangan mereka. Malah, ada penjelasan berkenaan
perbezaanperbezaan yang dibangkitkan oleh Perayu itu. Jika diteliti
keterangan SP5 iaitu ibu SP3 yang banyak mendengar aduan
daripada SP3 berbanding SP5 dan saksisaksi lain, beliau
menjelaskan bahawa pada mulanya memang SP3 tidak nampak
kemaluan Perayu dan hanya merasakan sahaja kemaluan Perayu
digeselkan pada punggungnya. Namun, kemudiannya SP3
memberitahu SP5 bahawa dia telah berpaling dan bertanya kepada
Perayu mengapa membuat perlakuan seperti itu. Pada ketika itulah
SP3 dikatakan nampak kemaluan Perayu. Keterangan SP5 di muka
surat 21 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2(a) adalah seperti berikut:
“Semasa dia main game, ustaz itu duduk di belakang anak saya. Anak
saya kata dia rasa “angry bird” ustaz itu dekat punggung dia. Saya
tanya dia jika dia ada rasa atau ada nampak. Dia kata dia tidak nampak
tapi dia rasa. Kemudian dia paling dan tanya ustaz kenapa ustaz buat
macam itu. Dia kata ustaz itu cakap "ustaz sayang Alif Iman". Anak
saya kata dia ada nampak “angry bird” ustaz itu."
[31] Selain itu, saya mendapati perbezaan penggunaan kosa kata
perkataan masuk "angry bird" dalam punggung, cucuk konet pada
punggung, letak "angry bird" pada punggung dan gesel "angry bird"
pada punggung yang dinyatakan oleh saksisaksi iaitu SP2, SP3, SP5
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
dan SP13 hanya melibatkan percanggahan yang kecil. Kesemua
keterangan saksisaksi adalah konsisten menunjukkan bahawa aduan
SP3 menyatakan Perayu ada menyentuh kemaluannya kepada
punggung SP3 semasa kejadian. SP3 juga secara konsisten dapat
menjelaskan kedudukan Perayu yang duduk di belakangnya semasa
melakukan perbuatan tersebut. Perbuatan Perayu yang diceritakan itu
memenuhi kehendak elemen dalam pertuduhan. Oleh yang demikian,
saya tidak dapat mencari alasan untuk tidak mempercayai keterangan
SP3 dengan ketiadaan ketidakmungkinan yang wujud (inherent
improbabilities) atau ketiadaan percanggahan yang material dalam
keterangannya itu (rujuk kes PP v. Mohamed Ali [1962] 1 LNS 129).
Apatah lagi percanggahan kecil sedemikian tidak seharusnya diberi
pertimbangan berat oleh Mahkamah (rujuk kes Muthusamy v. PP
[1947] 1 LNS 71).”
[38] Kami juga tidak menafikan kewujudan beberapa percanggahan antara
keterangan saksi - saksi pendakwaan sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan
di atas. Namun percanggahan sebegini bukanlah sesuatu yang
serius/material sehingga boleh memusnahkan keseluruhan kes
pendakwaan. Percanggahan sebegini adalah sesuatu yang biasa terjadi di
dalam mana - mana kes pendakwaan kerana kekuataan kuasa ingatan
(power of memory) seseorang adalah berbeza. Tidak ada seorang saksi pun
yang sempurna yang dapat mengingati sesuatu insiden yang berlaku
beberapa tahun lalu dengan terperinci dan tepat. Namun di dalam kes di
hadapan kami ini, jika diteliti keseluruhan keterangan yang diberikan oleh
saksi - saksi pendakwaan terutamanya keterangan SP3, tidak dapat
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
disangkal lagi bahawa ianya adalah kukuh dan boleh dipercayai walaupun
terdapat sedikit percanggahan yang remeh.
[39] Nas undang - undang mantap berkaitan isu percanggahan keterangan
saksi - saksi yang tidak boleh terlepas pandang sama sekali adalah di dalam
kes Public Prosecutor v. Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No. 2) [1977] 1
MLJ 16 di m/s 19, di mana Mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut:
“In this case different witnesses have testified to different parts of what
had happened or what had been said and also there are, in the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, some discrepancies, as
would be expected of witnesses giving their recollections of a series of
events that took place in 19711973. In my opinion discrepancies there
will always be, because in the circumstances in which the events
happened, every witness does not remember the same thing and he
does not remember accurately every single thing that happened. It may
be open to criticism, or it might be better if they took down a notebook
and wrote down every single thing that happened and every single
thing that was said. But they did not know that they are going to be
witnesses at this trial. I shall be almost inclined to think that if there are
no discrepancies, it might be suggested that they have concocted their
accounts of what had happened or what had been said because their
versions are too consistent. The question is whether the existence of
certain discrepancies is sufficient to destroy their credibility. There is
no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must either be believed
in its entirety or not at all. A court is fully competent, for good and
cogent reasons, to accept one part of the testimony of a witness and
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
to reject the other. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinize each
evidence very carefully as this involves the question of weight to be
given to certain evidence in particular circumstances."
[40] Keputusan di atas adalah selari dengan dapatan Mahkamah
Persekutuan di dalam kes Ong Teng For v. PP [2013] 1 CLJ 39 di mana
Raus Sharif PCA (beliau pada ketika itu) di dalam menyampaikan
penghakimannya menyatakan seperti berikut:
“[33] It is settled law that the credibility of a particular witness and the
weight to be given to his other evidence is manifestly within the
province of a trial judge. In Andy Bagindah v. PP [2000] 3 CLJ 289,
Shaik Daud JCA said that:
There is no dearth of authorities to say that in every case, there are
bound to be contradictions and discrepancies. The question to be
decided by the trial judge is whether those contradictions and/or
discrepancies are material ones so as to strike at the very root of the
charge. It is for the trial judge to consider this since he was the one
who saw and heard the evidence. In the present case the learned judge
concluded that there were discrepancies but those discrepancies were
not material ones. Since this involved the credibility of witnesses, we
held that the learned judge was a better person to decide and an
appellate court ought not to interfere with such findings.”
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
[41] Rujukan juga dibuat kepada kes Pie Bin Chin v. Public Prosecutor
[1985] 1 MLJ 234, di mana Wan Yahya J (beliau pada ketika itu)
menyatakan seperti berikut:
‘“Discrepancies are no doubt present in this case, as they do ostensibly
appear in most cases in evidence of witnesses for the prosecution as
well as the defence. The transcripts of most evidence, when thoroughly
toothcombed by any able lawyer, never failed to yield some form of
inconsistencies, discrepancies or contradictions but these do not
necessarily render the witness' entire evidence incredible. It is only
when a witness's evidence on material and obvious matters in the case
is so irreconcilable, ambivalent or negational that his whole evidence
is to be disregarded.
Forgetfulness and failure to recall exactly certain events, which did not
seem to be important to the witness, do not necessarily shake his
credibility or render other parts of his story unworthy of belief. Various
persons are endowed with varying powers of cognition, attentiveness
and perception, so that it is not uncommon for two witnesses to a
common event to describe it in slightly differing versions.”
(c) KETERANGAN SOKONGAN SP3
[42] Menyentuh isu keterangan sokongan SP3 pula, Hakim Mahkamah
Tinggi di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya di dalam kandungan 9 RR Jilid 1
m/s 23-29 menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
“[33] Perayu menegaskan bahawa keterangan SP3 tidak disokong
oleh manamana saksi bebas. Dalam hal ini, saya mengambil maklum
bahawa SP3 merupakan seorang saksi kanakkanak yang masih
mentah yang telah memberi keterangan secara tidak bersumpah. Oleh
yang demikian, keterangan SP3 memerlukan keterangan sokongan
sebagaimana kehendak Seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 (rujuk
kes Sidek Bin Ludan v. PP [1995] 1 LNS 219).
[34] Dalam hal ini, saya berpendapat keterangan SP2 dan SP5 yang
mendengar SP3 mengadu kepadanya tentang perbuatan Perayu
sebaik sahaja selepas kejadian itu berlaku boleh menyokong
keterangan SP3 untuk mengesahkan kejadian perbuatan Perayu ke
atas SP3 itu benarbenar berlaku.
[35] SP8 setelah menemuduga SP3 di Pusat Temuduga KanakKanak
menyatakan bahawa SP3 dapat menceritakan kejadian yang
melibatkan Perayu dan dirinya sendiri dengan jelas dan terperinci. SP3
dapat memahami soalan yang diajukan dan dapat memberikan
jawapan yang betul dan logik. Keadaan ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa
SP3 konsisten menceritakan kisah yang sama, sehingga menunjukkan
indikasi bahawa aduannya itu benar. Secara tidak langsung,
keterangan SP8 juga menyokong keterangan SP3. Oleh itu, saya tidak
ada alasan untuk tidak mempercayai SP3.
[36] Berdasarkan ulasan bagi keterangan serta keskes di atas, maka
jelas pada Mahkamah ini bahawa keterangan SP3 telah disokong oleh
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
saksisaksi tersebut. Justeru itu, isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Perayu ini
juga adalah tidak bermerit.”
[43] Sewajarnya ditekankan juga bahawa SP3 juga ada menceritakan
kejadian ini kepada SP2, SP4 dan SP5 dan ini disahkan sendiri oleh mereka
di dalam keterangan mereka masing - masing.
[44] Di dalam kes PP v. Mardai [1949] 1 LNS 65: [1950] MLJ 33,
Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:
“It would be sufficient, in my view, if that corroboration consisted only
of a subsequent complaint by the complainant herself provided that the
statement implicated the accused and was made at the first reasonable
opportunity after the commission of the offence.”
[45] Tiada sebab yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu mengapa SP2, SP3 dan
SP5 harus berbohong atau mereka - reka cerita di dalam keterangan mereka
untuk mengaitkan kelucahan melampau Perayu terhadap SP3.
[46] Pembohongan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu ini telah menguatkan lagi
keterangan kes pendakwaan. Mahkamah di dalam kes Kurchang Singh v.
PP [1989] 2 CLJ 442, memutuskan seperti berikut:
“corroboration may come from the other prosecution witnesses or from
the accused. Deliberate lies or incriminating conduct in a material
particular can constitute corroboration."
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
(d) KETERANGAN PEMBELAAN TIDAK BERMERIT
[47] Keterangan Perayu dan SD2 bahawa mereka bersama-sama berada
dalam bilik tempat kejadian untuk menjaga anak kecil mereka yang demam
telah ditimbulkan buat kali pertama semasa kes pembelaan. lanya tidak
pernah dicadangkan kepada SP3, mahupun kepada pegawai penyiasat kes
ini iaitu lnspektor Salwa Asyikin Binti Senin (SP13) semasa di peringkat kes
pendakwaan.
[48] Di dalam kes Ng Tiam Kok & Yang Lain lwn PP [2013] 1 CLJ 632,
Mahkamah Rayuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Ahmad
Maarop HMR (beliau pada ketika itu) menyatakan seperti berikut:
“Bagi kami, jika pembelaan mereka itu benar tidak ada sebab kenapa
mereka telah terlepas pandang untuk mengajukannya kepada saksi
saksi pihak pendakwaan. Keperluan untuk mengajukan (put) kes
mereka kepada saksisaksi pihak pendakwaan bukan sekadar kaedah
teknikal undangundang, tetapi adalah kaedah penting keadilan.”
[49] Kami berpandangan bahawa pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh
Perayu dan SD2 hanyalah suatu penafian kosong, pemikiran terkemudian
dan rekaan semata - mata yang tidak menimbulkan apa - apa keraguan
munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan.
[50] Di dalam kes PP v. Ling Tee Huah [1980] 1 LNS 212; [1982] 2 MLJ
324, mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
“The accused’s defence was one of denial. A mere denial without other
proof to reasonably dislodged the prosecution’s evidence is not
sufficient”.
[51] Di dalam kes Megat Halim Megat Omar v. PP [2009} 1 CLJ 154,
Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan seperti berikut:
“Although in our criminal jurisprudence, there is no burden on an
accused person to prove his innocence but merely for him to raise a
reasonable doubt as to his guilt, it is trite that his defence should be
put to the prosecution at an early stage during the prosecution case.
Failure to do so may move the trial court to dismiss a particular line of
defence as an afterthought, or a recent invention as happened in this
case."
KESIMPULAN
[52] Setelah meneliti keseluruhan rekod rayuan dan penghujahan yang
dikemukakan oleh kedua - dua pihak, kami sebulat suara mendapati tiada
terdapat sebarang kekhilafan di dalam keputusan yang di buat oleh hakim
perbicaraan mahupun Mahkamah Tinggi. Kami mendapati tiada merit dalam
rayuan ini. Sabitan terhadap Perayu di bawah seksyen 377(E) Kanun
Keseksaan adalah selamat untuk dikekalkan.
[53] Mengenai hukuman pula, adalah penting untuk ditekankan bahawa
selain daripada kepentingan individu, kami juga harus menimbangkan dan
memberikan keutamaan kepada kepentingan awam. Mahkamah di dalam
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
kes PP v. Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 1 LNS 116; [1976] 2 MLJ 186, menyatakan
seperti berikut:
“In sentencing generally the public interest must necessarily be one of
the prime consideration ... public interest should never be relegated to
the background and must of necessity assume the foremost
importance”.
[54] Di dalam kes PP v. Chung Kwong Huah [1981] 1 LNS 67; [1981] 1
MLJ 316, Mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut:
“the time has come for the courts to show their disapproval by
acknowledging that offences of this kind are grave and serious crimes,
and that those who indulge in them must expect a severe sentence.”
[55] Perayu juga merupakan seorang pesalah berulang (repeat offender)
untuk kesalahan yang sama di dalam kes yang lain. Maka dengan itu, kami
sebulat suara mendapati hukuman pemenjaraan selama 10 tahun yang
berjalan secara berturutan dengan kes TA-42S-13-09/2017 dan 3 kali
sebatan rotan serta sesi kaunseling pemulihan di bawah seksyen 295A
Kanun Tatacara Jenayah sepanjang Perayu menjalani hukuman
pemenjaraan serta 2 tahun pengawasan polis sepertimana yang
diperintahkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dan disahkan oleh Hakim
Mahkamah Tinggi sewajarnya dikekalkan.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
[56] Rayuan Perayu atas sabitan dan hukuman ditolak.
Tarikh: 6 November 2023
- Sgd -
Azmi bin Ariffin
Hakim
Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia
Bagi Perayu : Firdaus Mohd Yusoff
[Firdaus Mohd Yusoff & Co. (Kajang)]
Bagi Responden : Aida Khairuleen Binti Azli
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
[Jabatan Peguam Negara (AGC)]
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 41,542 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-B52NCvC-262-10/2020 | PLAINTIF TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD DEFENDAN O-IN-ONE SHOP SDN BHD | meter tampering-sama ada TNB berjaya membuktikan meter tampering dan berhak menuntut kerugian daripada pengguna berdaftar | 08/11/2023 | Dato' Ishak Bin Bakri | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0e6bef82-910c-450c-a5bb-0bb071836ebc&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 08:34:51
BA-B52NCvC-262-10/2020 Kand. 39
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
aA—zs52m:vc—262—1c/2020 Kand.
as/u/mu 2
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN D1 SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERW SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN‘ MALAVSIA
GUAMAN No. BA-B52Ncv<>2e2-10/2020
ANTARA
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD ..PLAINT\F
[No Syankal 199oa1oos29A(2noassw)]
DAN
0-|N»ONE SHOP SDN EHD . DEFENDAN
[Nu Syarikalz 1995om215Au135oB43-M)]
PENGMAKIMAN
Pnngonnlan
1. Plamuf adalah set-uah syarikat berhad yang membekalkan Ianaga
eleklnk den mperbaaanxan an bawah undang-undang Malaysxa dan
memnunyaw mama: berdailar an Pejabal Seuausaha Syankal, Tmgkal 2,
Ibu Pqabal Tanaga Nsswonal Bemsd, No 129, Ja\an Bangsar‘ 59200
Kua\a Lumpur
2, Defendan adalah pengguna berdafiar me\alm No. Akaun Pengguna
5142 220133222504 (barn) bag: sebush prerms yang mempunyaw alamal
:2. No. M, Tmgksl 2, Jalan sp ‘/1, Bandar Saujana Putra, 42510 Jeruamm,
Selangor Darul Ehsan (‘prams |erssbu|”|
3. Pada am semar 4.10 2015, p|a\'nl\fte\ah mehakukan pemenksaan
ks avas pepasangan meter/meter dw premis narsenm flan phalnlll
mendakwa hshawa malnluflelah menemm ke;angga\arI pada pepasangan
SIN wvvwfinzvvwmmwcwwn
um sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
39
-5;
meter d! PIEFNS tersebul‘ amara lamnya. hardapal pendawaian {ems ks
na pengguna |anpa memm meter nagx semua fasa den neu|ra\ a. busbar.
A. Plairml seterusnya msmiakwa bahawa akmat pengusikan dan/ahau
kqanggahn tersehul, ma|er an pram tersshm lldak dsnal bermngu
dengan pawk dan semuuma ssrva gags! merekndkan baman yang taps!
sewanas dengan bekman e\ekInk yang dwbekalkan pada semap masa yang
malsnal
5. Vni bermakna lsrdapal psrbezaan jurmah pads nu-nu serahan safiap
bulan yang dikeluarkan men p\a\nM flan h||-bu sebenar yang sspammya
dlkeluarkan me?! mamur.
a. mamm kemudwannya xerah msmbuac pengvsan den mendapall
terdapal mmxan penggunasn (snags s\ak1nk yang max airekomn
sebanyak RM335,D40 35 urvluk Iempoh dan 14 5.2015 mngga 4 10.2010
tennasuk Kos uperasi dan cukai nenkanan.
7 Me\a\u\ nous-nuns (unmlan benankh 1192020 dan 25.9 2020,
pm 0 manunlut dalendan membayar jurmah Iunlulan Iersebu| kepada
p w. Walau hagalmanapun, defsndan lelah gagaw, enggan darn/avau
wai umuk membua| pembayaran bagi ]um\an (un(u|an |erxebuL
3 Deflendan menaflkan mnuuv/an nlavmdan msmbangknkan pelbagai
isu ssbagaibanlahanlerhadap1umlah|umuIan p\amlIf.
9. semasa pemucavaan. mavllif msmanggfl 5 arang saksx mm Anzal
bun Ashan ISPU. Wan Shareia bin Wan Salleh (SP2), Mona Aswan. mu
sw wvvwyfiuzvvw-muwcvNwA
-.0» smm ...m.mm be 0;... m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
uleh SP3. (Nah flu Nada sebab untuk Mahkamah manmak Kemrangan
spa dan sws bevkenaan jumlah kerugnn yang Ie\ah uixanggung alsn
Mawnlw akibat dari pengusikan pepasangan meter dw premis defendan.
39. Mahkamah mandapau bahawa parunmkkan mm: puma [acre
berkahan psnyata penginaan backbxlling yang msmiakan oish SP4 dan
dwsemak sena dwluluskan olah SP6 Ielah memenuhl syaral perskuan
berdasarkan Seksyen 35(4) Ana Bekalan E\eku'ik1990 seperli bsrikm:
Suam psmyalsaan banulws u\sh sexenmng pekaqa pemogzng Vasen
yang dvpelukm dengnn sempumanya clan psmsaang Iwan atau mana-
mm omnu yam mbeukuasz oxen pamagang man
hendakbh memam kelalangan pnma «nae mengenm pambayarsn
yang kena mom man penggunn an nawan suhseksyen 43).
ac. Dawn kes nn, SP4 yang menyedxakan pengvaan adalah semang
eksekum (bazkbtlling calculatmn) yang (e\ah berkmdmal aengan plainlxl
ss\ama Vebwh kurang a lawn
41, spa nememmaan uazah Sanana Muda Kejuruteraan Elsklnk aan
Elekmznik dan Universm Tsnsga Nasional (UNITEN). salain Ru, beliau
wga velan memaxzni lalman-lahhan dan kursus-kulsus yang manjurkan
o\eh plainm separuang berkludmal dsngan p\a\nM
44 man nu, Mahkamah mendapah bahawa keterangan 394 den spa
wmar anamna memandangkan rnereka rnempakan orang yang
berkelayakan untuk membual pengmian backbr//fng sebegai memenuhi
syaral perakuan bedasarkan Saksyen 35(4) ma Bekalan Eleknik 1990.
an guvrDgyRDEVv\uwuwcvNwA
-naa saw n-nhnrwm be used m van; me nnmruuly mums dun-mm wa mum Wm!
sun. ad: dohndnn mm: pcnggunn herdlftnr dengun pIairIIif7
42 Mahkamah bersstum dengan p\aInM bahawa pengguna yang
berdaflar dengan Mamllf herkenaan dsngan exskuik yang dlbakalkan ke
prerms lersebut adalan delendan‘ Fakla ml hdak dwpemkawkan oxen
dafendsn
43 Plalmil berhujah bahawa plsmlll hdsk mempunyax sebarang
hubungan kunlrak anoara p\ainIN flan penyewa pramls detendan
berkenaan eleklnk yang dmekaxkan xe premls Ielsebut. Hubungan
kormak yang wugud berkenaan bekalan elsklrik Iersebut ada\ah :1. amara
plalnmdan pengguna bordaflar raitu defendan.
44 Vsu ini mun umkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes
Thomas mamas v Tnnaga Nnloml Bnrmd [2017] 4 cu 340 an mana
Mahkamah Rayuzn berseluju dengan kepumsan Mahkamah Tvnggl
aavam T-nag: Naslonal acrhad v Empayar canggih Sdn and
(dahuluny: dlkunnll sohaqai onvn Manuhclurur Sdn End) [2014] 8
MLJ 2&0 sepem berikul:
my Yhnvafon, as car 5; mnsumplian M elenmcixy V/I Ihe vmmses Vs
cnneemed‘ u was me appe\Ianl's sale msponsmny. being the
consumer under Ihe agreement to pay an umiiandlnq chimes due tn
ma. on me waence as «am by on. Vuamod sewons wull nudge and
at amma um. learned mgn Calm judge on avvem, emcmclly ma In
fan um mnsumad Gunny: the period [mm 22 September 200441
uemmnarznov u \s Irvslevzm who ar.1ua\Iy consumed ma alednmty.
my A: we‘: regulated cunsumam 1| was me app-slum‘: respmsflmlly
m emure tnauha meleral me pmrmses was not damaged ov lampersd
mm rm: uespunsmmy re-news mu ms anveflam \7vv\IuhL7u| me
syn wummummwcvnwn
-um Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; .. mmny mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
attreunn at me agreemanl umass by his tenancy eereernent wrtn tne
tenant rte had assigned such vesponsvblhly to me Imam Evan men
such agreement meta um {and ma, mm {mm a puny In tn. (Manny
oamsmsm
[22] Thus‘ when tne melarwas aer-aged Orhmvsvod M0! by me tenant
nv tne uewwurwvlh orwrmmn tne eppetmmz penmeeaan or hy Anyone
etee flullng tne agreement mun‘ tne apneuant mus| pay Vor tne
rerwhlnu loss ot revenue suflarsd by ms, ml because tre had anW‘|"fi
m flu wttn tne Iampenng nrdamigs uuwld In me mnlnr bul bbululrfi ne
was bound by agreemenl to My farms etecmty chan:es.T1weIn5s at
revenue under such amumslarrcss mnrrut ran on ms 5 rteea. Tna| wtu
be aroeaty urnatr m ms
45. men mu. adalah jeles bahawa setakan rnena ianya adalah
berkenaan psnggunaan eleklnk at premis defendan, tanya adalah
langgungjawsb dalendan selaku penggune bardafiar di bawah psnanjian
eexeten unluk membayar kesemua ca]-ca] yang perm dibayar at bawah
akaun Iersebut kspada p\aH1lI1. Pletntti Itdak tmteh mengembtl apa-apa
hndakan (emadep penyewe aeterman dlsshabkan ksltadaan konxrak di
aniam plairmfdan penyewa defendan.
4e. Fakla bahawa delendan merupakan pengguna berdafiar bagi
premts tereetaut puga ndak atpentxaiken dan sm mengakui bahawa
penyewa—penyewa premI$ aetenaan hukamah pengguna Vang
mdarurkan dengan me
47. Perelman 3(2) Ferammn-permursn Beketen Pemegang Lesen
mm) memperumukkan bahawa dslendan eetaku pengguna berdevtar
dengan plamtzv ada\ah hertanggungan Immk membayar kepada p\aInM
segale ca] berkenaan dengan pembekalan eleklnk pada premte defendan
N wumrnummrmvnwe
we e.n.t n-nhnrwm be used m van; ...e nrighrnflly mums dun-mm vu mune puns!
yang Iemkru seninggaxan mana—mana sam kqadxan yang dmyslakan an
snu benaku dahulu nu (1) harl ma kellga seleliis defender: |s\ah
memben nous kepadia plainm bahawa delendan \e|ah meninggalkan
prem\s(arsebuta(au(2|l1an berikulnya yang danar mane-mana meter
hendak dnenkukan acau (3) nan danpada penghunl premxs yang
benkulnya mengkehendaki plainllf membekalkan elekmk pads prenus mu
C-1.RemvsrY av e\sc1flc?9/ mamas
(1) A Vlcsmoe may recover hum 2. mnwmlv any chnrga: an. m m
m mm: aims supply alelacmulyy or in msnen Mme supmy and
owns 01 any enacmcrty meter‘ supmy um nr anecmcax equupmam.
n a mnsunux nuns any Dvlmus al mum u\oc1nc\(*/ nu um
wpphud by . huensee wmmm gmng nouns Iharenfl in ma Hnansoe
m mm m is renawad by me Hcensea al lens! was mm-»a flay5
balms he owns ms prsvmm ha mu be nausea vaytha hoensoe
an warns: m vuipea m In: supply 01 s nncrty no me prsmlsss
lcuulng up In wmcneyar M was laI\wMng W3! mama, name\y—
ta) ms mum wnmrv; day ailav rue has amen such nmlca In em
hcenseey
ma rlaxt day an mum me mg»:-gr nr any melav has m be
aseenmned‘ m
the aay horn wmch any subsequent owuvler cl ma
pranum requires me hcemee \o smmy ebcxncwy m me
pmmues
(2)
M
10}
43 Selam ilu, penelman kepada Paraluvan 312) Psra|umn-peralm-an
aekaxan Pemsgang Lem man jugs msnunjukkan bahawa mana-mans
penghuni selerusnya boleh meminla mama! unluk membenkan bekalan
eleklnk ke premis larsebul.
sw wvvvyRDEvv\mmwcvNwA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m yaw .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
49 olen nu, seknanya benar defendan nae menyewaken premis
(ersebul kepada penghuni baharu premls, defendan bcleh memnhon unn
sspamxnya memohan untuk menukar nama pengguna berdaflsr kepada
nzma penghum baharu prams dsfsndan.
50. Dawn kes im. adawl ielas bahawa liada sebarang keadaan dahsm
Paraturan 3(2) Pera|urin-peraluran Eekalan Pemegang Lesen 1990
barlaku yang membalehkan dsfendan unluk hsrganlung kepads yang
sama bag! mengelak danpada Lsnggungawabnya unluk membsyar
wmlah tuntuvan panama kepada plamm
51. Namun. dalendnn lelah gags‘ dan/mu cum dan/alau enggan unluk
mamasukan dan/slau menukar nama pangauna bardaflar kanada nama
panyewa se\epas menyewakan premis Ievsehul kspada penyewa. oxen
nu, defendan kekal sebagau plhak yang benanggunmewab ke alas
penggunaan bekman meklrik as pnanns tieflsndan
52. Plainlxl berhuiah bahawa hak unluk beka\an eleklrik bukanlah
amomaux semrang mmvvdu alau sesebuah syarikal hendakmu
memohon unmk dUadn<an sabagai pengguna berdahar berdasarkan
perunmkan di bawah seksyen 2A Akla Bekalan E\!kmk sepem herikul:
24 mama suvmy on r-qum
my sumun lo the Vaflmllng pnws-ions or am Pm and any mgmaunn
mane thereunden . Hcensee shafl upon mung /eqmved m do so Dy
mg miner nv occuulerafalvy Dlem\ses—
ta) Ewe a supmym mnclfluwlo mow nmnu and
(bi K: lar is may bu nouaulw fm ma| hummus‘ Drums wt-W ‘MS
av any e\ec1nc3\ planlarequlvmem
m Where any Derson reuulms 3 suvmy nl a\e::lrh:Ky undsv subsection
SIN wvvvyRDEvv\mnm:vNwA
(1)715 ihafl await: the lbwnsse I now! 5DI:NY‘W'
tame Dmmses m msasa mwmcm the sum ws rsquuea.
an the day an mm. on supphy mqmmd m mmmlnuu,
1:) nu maximum mwwurwmch may be required nuny um, and
Mme mwmum pemu forvmmh ms swbly Vs ruuulmd m be awe
53.
unluk menunjukkan bahawa aevenaan |e\ah memma avau beriaya
Selaruumya, liada kslerangan yang dvkemukakan uleh delendan
memima penyewa unluk memcrmn meter atsu akaun Dam dengan
plamur SD1 sendm mengakm bahawa aemaan fidak memakmmkan
kepada 9 ‘nm mengenai penukzran penghuni premws tersehul ataupun
bahawa premis Iarsebul «elan disewakan kspada penyewa
Sam: ad: mmapan bukll lubol b-mmmmg kt tlnglul :7
54. Dalam kelerangannya, SP2 mendakwa (emapat kabel mam
barsambung ke Imgkal 2 premis defendan semzsa pemenksaan
dualankan a\eh wakwl pmwnlii Delendan pula bemwah bahawa SP2 nanya
msmbuai (uduhan kasong dan liada buku dmam benluk gambar
dikamukakan kepada Mahkamah
55. Sernasa F757!!!-!n)$aan halas. tiedendan mencadangkan bahawa
/eeder pr//ar TNB yang dmji men spz sebenamya Iidak membenkan
sebarang indikasw bahawa arus eleklrik yang dxgunakan adalah unmk
lingkal 2 semala-mats Imam un|uk kenga-uga ungkan bangunan lersebul.
55. Plainlif berhlnah bahawa plamm max dapat mengamhil gambar di
llngkal 2 prerms levsebut kerana Ianya bevkunu.O\eh\tu‘ada1ah musoaml
unmk plamm mengamml gambar Kabel
Aingkat 2 Ianpa memecahkun kuncl umuk memasukl premis tersebm.
m yang disambungkan ke
sw wwmuzvmm...mN..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
57. Walaupun ma gambar diambil unluk menunjukkan lsrdapa| kabe\
hi'am drsambungkan ke lmgkal 2, ndak dapa| mnafiksn bahawa |erdapa1
mm: penggunaan eleklnk yang manumukkin sambungan lerus melalm
busbarTNE dan penggunaan arus nanpa mananm matsr. (‘Nah nu, lardapal
penggunaan e\eklnk secala Iidak sah a4 prerms Iersehm
55. spz dalam kelerangannya menyaukan bahawa nasu ujwan
perhandingan arus yang mlakukan o\eh behsu menumukkan bacaan arus
sebenar bag! fasa merah adalah 1018,0353 kunmg ada\ah 97 5 din lasa
Dim ada\ah mu 3. Bacaan ams sebenar yang '
ak terpapar paaa meter
jelas menuruukkan arus eleklvik masih manganr ma\a\ui meter yang
mdanarkan dengan pengguna.
59
beriainan semasa ujwan parbandmgan tflbual.
Delandan pma Imak menafikan nasu wan perbandingan arus yang
ea Da\am kes Jllu Kunsult Sdn and v Yenugu Nasionll Bhd [2022]
MLJU 3507 Mahksmah Tinggl Ialah mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah
Sasyen adalah belul da\am mamuluskin bahawa «ads kepefluan unluk
pamm mengemukakan hukll bahawa kabel versabm naxk ke Ungkal 2
memnndangkan Kama! bersambung (ems dari meter TNE
may ms Cowl comumad 2 delafled uwaw om» naamnanm given by
Ina P\aInmVa witness“ wm wem M) an. premises In candutl Ihe
Inwntlrun. From ma evidence manned them was p-nor mm wave was
«any n aired hypass made below me sxamsa an we unmna floor The
Mlnesses men teamed m |m3Va:1(ha\|7ma walltunkmg av ma bypass
cams snakmu up Intolhu plarmses mined by an. Delendam u do no|
aD:sp| an. canlsnllun rslwad upan hy aeranaa munsew mac me mnesses
marmy nssumed that In bynass cable want In ma wanaanrn
D\slr1bIlmrv Bax I find mat mm was wnilsluncy In an lvldsnca at line
syn gumDgyRDEvv\wmwcvNwA
-naa saw n-nhnrwm be used m van; me nngwnnuuy mm: dun-mm wa mum puns!
wflnesses an (N: loan may had Ilflmsd man mam was a cibla afixed
balm: ma ms|ar beam mm. bypassed u The came hypnmma me
mmav lands m my me wugmax wnnlualon wnmn Vs (Ml mere wza
umpedm co dlven ma a\a:lrIcm/ nmwy «mm pa-vim lmvwh ltm me\er
board «a a»-on Iowmmsl of scmal anmncny uamumpmen m we
Dvamllu
[171 I am: mm «naz man: 5 amunary no nacaunylunna wimmaa In
sum! mu: KM pvemluss ta lsuanmn mu mawnmm we ante/ad ma
mu Dmribmmn Box mime the P\alnM!'s mamas. u Is smrmanc Ihanhe
ma. mv has sumasamuy woven mac me trunking anyunq «na cable
D'Inais\nw ma mmsv was mad am flowed wmo ma Daremnra
Dfamliss Slrmllfly, mm x: nu nscqssny for ma vnmasse: Ia vmduoe
phmngranhs shawma we came dlrsmy wnnecind to me Dwslnbubon
am. Them Vs Emma ura\ vaaumony fmm an 3 mamas In vmva ma
P\aInlNh dlim nw emanea wan cnnsnslenl mm Ihe demmemnry
evidence an-1H.niHn see my mmive hymen m m\smnmsenlIhalar.1a
As n have said eamar, ma sc.z acoembd lnlwavtdurwa and vuuna lhsm
mama wnnanas
51. D\eh kahe\
dlssmbungkan ks Ilngkat 2 ada\aI1 pengalaan kosung aamaoa-mava.
P\aln|iI Ielah membukfikan bahawa sambungan kabe4 tersebul
ilu. dakwaan de1endan bahawa naua bukh
menumukkan vanya hsrsamhung dari mater pangguna.
62. spz \elaI1 meruelaskan ssmasa pemsnksaan yemula hahawa
bervasarkan gambsr yang dwkzmukakan Mahkamah
menunjukkan Ieedev pillar nombm 2 yang mempunyai sambungan Ierus
pada mater admah mswakil! pramis we-1-2 mmx delendan.
kepada
63. SP2 iuga dalam keterangannya menyalakan me\a\m pemenksaan
'ngka| 1 dan |ingka|
yang behau mankan, beliau Ielah mengena\pas'
aw wmvvyRDEvv\mmwcvNwA
«ma sanaw n-nhnrwm be used m mm was nrW\nnH|:I mm: flan-mm VII mum pm
aawan prerms uahanaan max bemperasidan nanya prennsnngkau 2 yang
menggunakzn beban carsebue.
64. Mahkamah berseluju dengan p\am\W bahawa SP2 adalan semang
jumteknuk benauhsh dan berkernahimn aalam bidang eleklnk dan meter
elakxrik. Berdasarkan kemshiran dan Ialman yang dlperolem alen SP2,
I; u layak dan herupaya mangessn kqanggalan alau pengusikan pada
pepasangen me|er dw prumis defendan. Kerja—kena pemsnksaan yang
dijalankan uleh SP2 dmam kes im merupakan sebahaglan daripada Iugas
hsnan behau.
55. Ma\ahan,t1efendan senmn mengakul semasa pemeriksaan mama
uanawa delendan merupakan pemmk herdaflar dan pemegang akaun
eleklnk unluk kesemmhan hangunan (srsebul. (Nah mu, delendan
merupakan pmak yang berlanggungjawab Ierhadap penggunaan s\eklr\k
secara curang m mana-manalingkal bangunan Iersebutwalaupun keuga—
hga lmgkal bangunan lersebul mempunyal akaun berasmgan.
Sam: ads plaimiflelah melakukan n--nlrm mm?
66. Deiendan mendakwa bahawa dalam |empnh anlzra 1 4.2017
mngga 31.3 2019 semasa premis uelendan disewakan kepada penyewa
yang mxenali sebagax Denlapro Encerpnse, premws lersebul kosong pads
bman Okluber 2017. O\eh nu. seharusnya Dada panggunaan mekmk
deflam bulan Dkwber 2017
e7. Defendan juga man mencadangkan kepada saksi plairml SP4
berdasarkan kepada ml-mu e\ekmk yang dilenma o\eh dedandan, bil-bx!
Iersebm menulwkkan Ifada penggunaan elekmk d1 prams tersebm.
SIN wvvwyfinzvvmwuwcwwn
-ans saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm
ea, Plavnm Dme berhujah bahawa meskipun nada penggunaan eleklrik
dlrekodkan damn bil-bxl elekvrik‘ mi bukan bermaksud liada eleklrik
dlgunakan n\eh pengguna. Tetapl berdasarkan kqanggalan yang
dibuklxkan o\eh p\a\nm, terdapal penguslkan pada meter m prsmis
dslsndan dan plairml man mengalamx kemgian bagx e\ekIrik yang ludak
direkudkan
69.
tidak Iepal ksrana uads penggunaan e\ekmk da\am salu lempoh kslnka
prams tsrsehumdak msswakan. Walau bagaumanapun‘ dslendan semin
Dslenden ma mencadsngkan bahawa pengvaan puamm aaaxan
mengzkm “Eda bum unluk menyokong dakwaan delendan dan defendan
Auga mengakul bahawa aevenaan bukan pakardaiam pengwraan kerugwan
hasxl yang dialamw oleh pxainm.
70. Da\am Kes Tan: 3 Nnlonal Ehd v Brlgm Rlml Manummrmg
Sdn Ehd [2011] 3 MLJ Mahkamah Tmggu menyalakan hahawa rsha bagi
menolak mmuvan p
n ada\ah pemhuknan spesmk dan \epa| sualu
keselahan jelas/man/"fest error pada pengiraan p\aImilo\eh devenaan.
71.
manifest snot herkenaan pengiraan p\amM O\eh im, Pengiraan Amaun
Kerugian Hasd dan Perhemnjaan dan mnnman plainllf wqardwtevlma o\eh
Mahkamah
Dalam kas Inn aevenusn gagal unluk menuruukkan sebarang
72. Da\am kes Tnnlga Nnlonnl Ehd Mn Synrikll Muar quury san
End [2023] MLJU 1557 Mahkamah msnya|akan sspem b
sw wvvwfinzvvwuw-mcvNwA
-um Sum ...m.. WW be .75.. m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
Daud (SP3), Muhammad Mustaqim bin Zulkufly (SPA) sm Nor Fadzvllah
bum Kadim dan Muhammad Hamw bin Hashim (sue).
«a Defendan iailu um Cheee Swong (SDl)had1r memben kecemngan
sanagax defendan yang msaman da\am lindakan in: sm merupakan
saksw mnggan dan (iada Saks] Vain bag: pmak defendan
K-a nlalnm
11. F'\a\nM menyalakan bahawa terdapsl bum pengusikan pads
meter/pepasangan meter an prams dslendan
I2.
dslsndan darn/avau penghum premis tersebul man menenma manfaal
Pkwltif selerusnya menyatakan bahawa daiendan flan/atau wakn
aanpaaa eleklnk yang (erkurang ca] aklbal daripada penguswkan Iersebul
hingga menysbabkan keruglan kepada plzflnlw.
13.
benanggungmwab unluk membayar mmvan yang dmmlul mar. pxamm
P\ain|i1 menyalakan hahawa defendan sebagai pengguna herdallar
Kn um-man
M.
pengusikan as Vmmws milxk deiendan.
Defender: menyatakan hahawa pwamnr gagal mambuklxkan elemen
<5. nemaan saemsnya menyalakan bahawa uaua buklx pasukan
pemenksaan plaunlxl mamaaum prams menuan.
aw wmvwyfinzvvmwuwcwwn
-ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm In: nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm Va muNG pm
[say Deiendan mm mm gens! memhuknkan hnhawa pengnan
muabm mun sahh alau axoesslva Delendzn wslaupun (shah
maflyllakan bihawi Dfimugasn agak mu dun purvannaan etskmk m
menus mum mm, mun max membulmkznnya upon! dongsn
memhzwz mm mau dukumen pam:.g.a.n W msmhuklikan
Dsmlanaln mun m-ruwl
1:91 Mankamah ml memluk kepadn kes Lei Kam Senna (wprn) yang
mafia Dfluman ax mm ken Im «em. heriaya msmbukflkan ma mas
mangan ksbarungkzlmn bahawa Dav-uusrbnan ke atas vevasanaan
matarlmah beflnku mulzl Navember 2017 berdiurkan bum-um yang
(shah Delendan kemukakan m Mflapan M.mm.n um
[40] 0‘ mm kas nu, Dafandan (flak mmgtmukakan sebarang mu
man dakumsn ynnq mu menqubah kwlan knlufilan ham) yang mm.
mm a\zm| a. dalam kas um Delsndan hnnya belgarflum mm.
klrian wemavvsnya dwbual mar-sumxan mas» ram! can nummyz
pumll din mm yang (Blah Mahlumih nyllzksn ..u.mm ml, mm.
nur-ara adalsh Ismh (spat unluk dwgunakan .1... Hraan im mm m mi
rmmasabah, wak bevtehlhan Ivan salah. mm-k kas Tsrvaaa Nzukznal
and V AWP Erflenpnle |M}5dn aw [zu15|: MLJ 2.
70. sebagm keslmpulan kensda Dersoikan sama ads terdapal manifest
ermr aieh pekeria mam , Mahkamah mendapau bahawa liada manifem
arm: benaya aumkukan o\eh deiendan |srehat1ap pla
Kulmpulan
7:. Eerdasarkan keterangan yang dlkemukakan olsh saksx-saksr,
Mahkamah mendapan hahawa p\amM lelah aaqaya memnukukan, alas
imbangan kebavangkafian, kes wawnlihemadap de1endan
sw wvvvykuzvvwuw-mcvNwA
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
74 Oleh Mu, Mahkamah memumskan nmmcan plalnlrf lemadap
defendan dwbenarkan a|as jurlflah yang dmumm ssbanyak RM35§,04l7 35,
iaadah 5% selahun alas iumlah penghakxman bermula dan larikh saman
auankan sehingga Iarikh penyexesaian penuh den kos
75. Kns perbicarasn Im dvlstapkan avas ]um\ah sebanyak RM2c,ouo.oo
dibayar weh usvaman kapada plaunlll.
Berlankn pada 25 September 2023‘
¢;§
(IS AK BAKRI)
Hakmv
Mahkamah sesyen
Pihak—Pmak'
Maizura Muhamed Amin ( Tetuan Mohanadass Parlnersmpj b/p p\am(i1
Cfinlon Nicnowas Gomez (Tainan Raiindar singn Veriah & Co.) blp
ddendan
sw wwmuzvmm...mN..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
13. Delendan sslemsnya membangkilkan isu penggunaan sa1ah
bsrkalvan Amp Tong yang digunskan oleh pasukan pemeriksaan plavmf.
17. Dafendan sexemsnya menya|akan hahawa penenman (ankh
pemmlaan bagv psngmaan jumlah (uvnman mamlil adalah salah.
13‘ Defendan
memberlkan nous awal
seterusnya menyatakan bahawa plairml gagal
kepada delendan sebelum menjalanken
pemeriksaan pada pepasangan meter/meter m premis de(endan
KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH
sum: Ida lerdapak bukll pongusnkan plda poplunnan mum dl
premls dohndan
19. Hasil pemenksaan pads pepasangan meter my premls dslandan,
p w mendekwa bahawa pepasangan melev lelah dmswk kemna
Kerdapal pandawaian yang msambung secara terns ke DB pengguna
tersebul tanpa me\a\m me|er bag: keuga-uga case. di busbar.
20 Fkamlil secerusm menyatakan bahawa pendawsxsn yang
disambung sews «ems ke DB pengguna ada\ah menggunakan kam-
kahel mam disamhung darn busbar TNB darn memasukt |a\uan lvurvkfng
berwama men |anpa melalm meler. ’ni bukan mempakan sebahagian
danpada papasangan meter yang s1am1ard yang mpasang oleh ma dn
mana-mana premis pengguna.
21 Salsx plainm Encxk wan Sharsza bin Wan Safleh (SP2) ialah Kama
Pemenksaan bagi has im. SP2 semasa memberi kelerangan av
sw wumayaumawwaywm
-ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm y.. mum puns!
Mahkamah |elah menyavakan secara terpennd berkensan penemuan
dan Kejanggalan yang msemuv pada pepasangan meter .1. prsmis
defendan.
22. SP2 dalarn kelerangan menyacakan behau lelah memawukan Lyian
perbandmgan arus menggunakan Amp Tong unluk memeriksa rmai arus
sehenar yang mengalir masuk ks me|er danpada punca hakakan p\airml
dan yang mrekoaxan aleh meter sepeni benkut:
' En}FmaIF
Ami Kunlng
was 5 91 5 m1 .3
Bocaan Am: PapTm’u§35 A 431 n ma
Mmer J
23. SP2 dalam xexerangannya Jugs mengesahkan Ierdapal penguslkan
pada pepasangan meter :1» premls larsebul kemnzi bacaan arus pada
paparan meler den bacaan ams ssbenar an busbar adalah belheza
berbanding aangan kebrasaannya waitu ssnarusnya adalah Iebm kurang
same.
24. Eerkenaan kqanggaian aan/auu psngusikan kepada pepasangan
meter. svz Ielah membsrikan kelelangan sapem benkur
ta)
1??)
maapau su cermmal melamada,
maapau mm bauan ams di paparan meter ada\ah Vshvh
rendah berhandmg mlai bacian sebenar di semua lasa. flan
(c) Ierdapal pendawaian (ems ke DB pengguna lanpa mslalui
mexer bag: semua fasa dan neutral :1: busbar.
sw ,um,,auzvmw...mN..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
25.
Kelerangan SP2 Ienlang pengusikan meter dlsckung me1a1ui hukhr
bukln benkul:
16)
lb)
(0)
(db
(6)
(1)
(9!
ganmangambar pemenksaan yang manmu oleh saksl plainm
uamu SP3.
Iaporan yang dwsedvakan ulen SP2 berkenaan penemuan
kabel sambungan Ierus ke DB pengguna da1am Eorang
Pemsnksaan 5. Pengufian Pepasangan Meaer — Arus Penuh 3
Fasa bertankh 4.10.2015.
laporan puns yang mbuat oleh SP2 nombor rumkan Sg.
Jawm/003524118 penemuan pengusnkan
pepaaangan melerdx prsmis aevenuan
Vapamn berkenaan Pernnxmman Semakan Meter Elektnk oleh
ma yang maaduakan olan SP2 benarikh 4 102015,
Vapnran bsrkenaan Surat Pembemahuan Psmanksaan dan
bsrkenaan
Pengujlan Pepasangan Meier ma yang msemakan o1eh SP2
berlankh 410 2018
Vauoran mg uisemakan o1eh spa berkenaan Surat
Pembenlahuan Pengambflan Bahan-bahan sum
1apoPan yang msemakan aleh ss=5 mm Ulasan Teknikal
barlankh 25.11 2018.
26 Damn kes Evorhomo Funicure Manufacturing (M) sun and v
kunsisten dangan
mug. Nulonnl some [2009] e MLJ 715 Mahkamah Tmggu
nlemuluskan bahawa apahlla kelerangan saksi-saksx sdalah Iegas dan
penemuanrpenemuan pengusnkan. Mahkamah
hendakxan menerima kabenaran kelerangan yang amenxan
SIN wuownumnmwavnwn
Nuns Snv1n1nnnhnvw111I>e used m mm na nv1fl1ru11|Y mm; dun-mm wa mnnc wrm
27 Berkanaan dengan xsaeranm saksi-saksw nlavrmi Ienlang bukli
penamuan pengusiksn pad: pspasagan meter. Mahkamah msndapah
kelersngan saks\-Saks: p\aInM aaaxan tags: dsn kansnstsn. mas akaian
unluk Mahkamah menolak aoau meragui Ketarangan mereka.
23 Dawn kes Tonlul N-slonal Borhad v Ail: Knlnhl Bhd
(pnvlausly known as Pnhlnno corp Bhd) [mm 5 MLJ sew
Mahkamah Rayuan mamuluskan sspem baflkul
[111Inuuru:-mdersdopwon,maummwmmovamnu-nauon mam
no me queuimn mum: ma pmmm rm xuunasdad in mm um um
mm Anslmlsflan was eampersa on a Damsal ml me avnsul record, we
ave sansnedmamvara VS unwntruvsnad awdancstcshnwlhalmu msur
mslsflahun had new (armored five mxmvevy av me mag" ccppar
nbien mm. was ‘Mensa 1.. ms msrar Vs mom Iha ram nnmanna
We sales mm lhe suhm-mun ua Named oounsm (av Ina Dlamlm that me
mm. pmduned by me p\z|mlIVf: wluvssu: wuva mn:u|an| Ind
ma.» u was am mrvnbnrsled hy me nmflucmn Mme vholagraphs‘
ms ‘Duran: Mzsslan penanman we Mv/av, ‘sum! Demakluman
iemakan metal‘, ‘rum pembsnlnhuar‘ p-ngammnan bavang key and
palm: pm On um tmnhly ol um evidence we are ol the new mm an
. balance of Dmbahuixles me mam-m had succeeded xn pmvmg Ihsx me
mslevwza lzmvswd,
29. Beldasarkan kepada kelerarlflan saksrsaksi plainmdan buk|i»buk|v
dokumen, admah jelas bahawa pepasangan malerlmeler - premxs
delendan talsh dmslk danlatau dlganggu mamandangkan Ierdapsl kabsl
lzmhahan asmg yang mgunakan umux membenkan heKa\an e\ek(r(K
secara Ierus ks prams defendan danpada sumber bekalan pwamur lanpa
melalui meler iaitu dari mcoming prsmis tersebul
N wwmuzmm..mw..m
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
70 man mu, maua keraguan bahawa menaan dan/alau waxu defendan
darn/alau penghum premis terssbul (e\ah manamna manlaal daripadn
eleklnk yang lerkurang ca} akwbat daripada panguaxkan lersebm yang
menysbabkan kemgian kepada p\a\n\iY
Jumlall (unlul-n yang uimmm
30. Pliinm berhuyah bahawa akibal penguS\kan pepasangan meter,
melerlerssbul gagal merekodkan bauazn penggunaan e\ak(nk yang belul
dan Hdak selsras dengsn bekilan exmrik yang dibekaikan pada senap
masa yang matene\ kepada delendan D\eh ilu, delendan celan dicay dan
dwsarahkan dengan jumvah bxl yang yam. barkurangan aanaaaa bekmn
e\ek(rik yang msamrkan ke prams dedendan.
31 Benkulan ilu, wsinlxflelah mengeluarkan nolis Iunhnan banankh
I1 9 zuzo yang merupakan pernyataan bemflis msnurul saxsyan 35(4)
Akla Eekalan Elekmk 1990 (“Akla aekaIan') lemadap devendan sebagai
menyckung tunmlan pwamm Lmluk Kehflangan pendapaun plaunuv
32. Esrdasarkan kepada penelilian pernyalaan benuna lerasnun, wa
mangandungl buhr-bum benkul:
(a) a menyaxakan secara spesmk deiendan ssbagaw penguuna
beldaflar,
1») perenggan 3, A can 5 pernyavaan berluhs tersebul menyatakan
;um\ah yang cemuung sebagai RM385,04D 31 dan secara
khusus menyalakan bahawa mmman admah bag: wmlah
kerug\an hasn flan perbelanjsan darn Iumutan dibual
an wVrDyyRDEW\uwuwcYNwA
-naa sanaw n-nhnrwm be used m van; me nrighuflly mums dun-mm wa mum puns!
berdasarkan kepada perunlukan Seksyen am), (4; dan (5)
ma Bekalan Elsklrik 1990‘
1:1) lampuran A menumukkan pecahan Jnmlah mg perlu dibayar
dan gamhar—gamhar penguslkan yang dllemui pad:
Dehasansian meter.
(e) deiendan dxberikan empal be\as (14; hari unluk msmhayar
jumlah yang dmyatakan dalam pernyawan beriuhs levsehul,
m pemyalaan nenuns lekah dnandslangam man pekeria p\ain1I1
SP5‘ dan
lersebut «swab cnakm den duenma o\eh
33.
menenma nous lunlulan banankh 11.
Saks: ddsndan senam Iailu SD1 rnengakux bahawa de1endanIe\ah
2020
34. Beldasarkan kepada pemyalaan berlulus lemabuc, Mamlii lelah
memanuhi hma (5) syaral yang ' ulnrkan nleh Mahkamah Rayuan da\am
kss Torugl N Ional Borhnd v Dunln Ray: Enuarprlsn sun Ehd [2015]
e cm 751 sapem bankul
Farms aw-eH-m m ve\y on nwrillen mumem, me mnmng mus| have
um mace
(G we nnpeflanl must have ca\cn\alad ms loss of VBVEVNI and reduce Il
no a document and wnltnn Iialsmunl.
(M) an EIIVDIWUI and/or dmy anlhnnsed perwn o! In: enpelmm mus|
have perused the dncumem as wen as me wmlen sta|amsnl m wwy
m. mm sxalemenh
(nu ma oumfiaa wmm. statemunt mun mm." mo aamculms slaled in
5 38(4) Of ESA 1390‘
my my . mm mmc.:._ me name More employee at zumnnsud vsrwn
alms avvalmm must appear m the slatumenl and duly um
sw wummuzmm..mw..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
(V) n 2: menu «armed slmemuu >5 lssusd‘ n needs In be served an mu
mstnmer and n ma cuslumar does now gay, man an ncltnn an be
laksn mu, n \s a uorvdllson nmaaann Iur wnnmmn cl cw man Vn
Ivhanoe ov a as Var Tenaqa In Issue a beamed wrmen stalzmem
nmmding kn xaw, balms mu action can be commenced
35. Oleh nu, Mshkamah memuuuskan bahawa pemyalaan berluhs
p\am(i1 ditenma sebagal kelerangan puma racie mengenal jurmah mg
«ernuxang uleh dsfsndan Kepada plamui bag! kemlangan pendapalan
Yiada keterangan dwkemukakan o\eh defsndan yang msmpemkaikan
pemyalaan banulis pnnnur
Pengirun hag! iumlnh lunlutnn portamn
35. Saks! pnainnvsw dalam ketarangannya menyavakan bahswa beliau
(elah menyediakan Pengvaan Amaun Ksrugnan Hasll dan Perhelamaan
sens C51 Berkawan Akibal Uslkan Papasangan Meier flan dwlumskan a\eh
pegawal acasan behau iailu srs sehagai manyokong mmman p\a\nM
unluk kehllangan pendapalan berdasarkan peluntukan Seksyen 33(3)
Akia Eekalan Emklrik 1§€D(‘Ak(a Eeka\an').
37. sm |e\ah menielaskan secara menysmruh mengenil cara behau
membuat pengiraan bagx namwan lunmtan pxanmf. SP4 jugs (um!
msmbenkan kelerangan bahawa senmng kepulusan mengenal kaedah
penglraan yang tiugunapskal dan can: menenlukan mnkh pevmwaan
penglraan kehelakang ('bar:kb:IImg') amuax berdssarkan perbmcangan
befiau dsngan pegawax axasan belnau lam: spa
as. spa msrupskan plhak yang men)/ed‘ ken penyala pengiraan
backbtlling (ekslbil P2) dam penyam pengvaan -n: disemak dan mnuvuskan
syn gmugyRDEvv\wmwcvNwA
Nuns s.nn ...n.mn be used m van; .. nrimruflly mums m.n.n wa mum Wm!
| 2,901 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
TA-83D-627-05/2022 | PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH KHAIRUL HISHAM BIN HALIM | Hukuman penjara selama 20 bulan dari tarikh tangkap 16.2.2022 dan 3 tahun pengawasan Agensi Anti Dadah Kebangsaan (AADK) - Rayuan tersebut adalah terhadap hukuman - Kepentingan awam harus diutamakan berbanding kepentingan tertuduh - Seksyen 282(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Tertuduh telah menghabiskan tempoh masa yang agak lama dalam tahanan sementara menunggu perbicaraan selesai - Tertuduh tidak pernah mempunyai sebarang kesalahan lampau dan kesalahan ini adalah merupakan kesalahan pertama tertuduh - Bicara penuh. | 08/11/2023 | Puan Noor Mazrinie Binti Mahmood | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b762b5bf-b17f-455b-898d-b2bce0535359&Inline=true |
Microsoft Word - KHAIRUL ANUAR (3)
1
DI DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI KUALA TERENGGANU
DALAM NEGERI TERENGGANU
NO. KES: TA-83D-627-05/2022
ANTARA
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
KHAIRUL HISHAM BIN HALIM
(NO. K/P: 820207115571)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PENDAHULUAN
1. Pada 21.9.2023, pihak pendakwaan telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah
Tinggi Kuala Terengganu kerana tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah
Majistret dalam menjatuhkan hukuman penjara selama 20 bulan dari tarikh tangkap
16.2.2022 dan 3 tahun pengawasan Agensi Anti Dadah Kebangsaan (AADK)
terhadap tertuduh di dalam kes ini. Rayuan tersebut adalah terhadap hukuman
sahaja.
2. Tertuduh telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan sebagaimana berikut :
BAHAWA KAMU PADA 16/02/2022 JAM LEBIH KURANG 11.10 MALAM,
BERTEMPAT DI PEJABAT JABATAN SIASATAN JENAYAH NARKOTIK IPK
TERENGGANU, DI DALAM DAERAH KUALA TERENGGANU, DI DALAM NEGERI
08/11/2023 16:03:31
TA-83D-627-05/2022 Kand. 52
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
TERENGGANU, TELAH MENYALAHGUNA DENGAN MEMASUKKAN DADAH
JENIS “METHAMPHETAMINE DAN AMPHETAMINE” KE DALAM BADAN KAMU
SENDIRI. OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN, KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU
KESALAHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 15(1)(a) AKTA DADAH BERBAHAYA 1952
(PINDAAN 2002) DAN BOLEH DIHUKUM DIBAWAH SEKSYEN 15 AKTA YANG
SAMA.
HUKUMAN: DENDA TIDAK LEBIH DARIPADA RM 5,000.00 ATAU PENJARA
TIDAK LEBIH DARIPADA 2 TAHUN DAN DIIKUTI PERINTAH PENGAWASAN
TIDAK KURANG 2 TAHUN DAN TIDAK MELEBIHI 3 TAHUN.
3. Di dalam kes ini, tertuduh telah tidak mengaku bersalah dan telah mohon untuk
dibicarakan. Di peringkat kes pendakwaan, tertuduh adalah diwakili peguam, namun
peguam telah menarik diri dari mewakili tertuduh setelah mahkamah memanggil
tertuduh untuk membela diri. Di peringkat kes pembelaan, tertuduh telah membela
dirinya sendiri.
4. Di akhir kes pembelaan, mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa tertuduh didapati
bersalah dan disabitkan bersalah terhadap pertuduhan yang dikenakan
terhadapnya. Setelah mendengar hujahan mitigasi tertuduh dan hujahan
pemberatan oleh pihak pendakwaan, mahkamah telah menjatuhkan hukuman
penjara selama 20 bulan dari tarikh tangkap 16.2.2022 dan 3 tahun pengawasan
AADK.
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
FAKTOR-FAKTOR DIPERTIMBANGKAN DALAM MENJATUHKAN HUKUMAN
5. Dalam mencapai hukuman tersebut, mahkamah telah mempertimbangkan
beberapa faktor penting yang menjadi prinsip penghukuman. Berikut merupakan
faktor-faktor tersebut :
KEPENTINGAN AWAM
6. Mahkamah mengambil pendekatan bahawa kepentingan awam harus diutamakan
berbanding kepentingan tertuduh. Kes R vs Ball (1951) 35 CR APP 164 dan PP vs
Low Choon Fatt (1976) 2 MLJ 256 adalah dirujuk. Mahkamah ini juga merujuk
kepada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Iwan Bujang Dara & Anor
v. Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 LNS 285; [2017] 3 MLJ 630 yang telah menyatakan
bahawa “But the court is not only concerned with the plea in mitigation in passing
sentence. No matter how strong the plea in mitigation is in favour of a lenient
sentence, the court's overriding consideration has always been and will always be
the public interest.”
7. Maka, kepentingan awam harus diutamakan dan didahulukan menandingi
kepentingan tertuduh. Hukuman yang dikenakan ini bukan sahaja berfungsi untuk
menghukum tertuduh tetapi juga berperanan memberi keyakinan kepada pihak
awam bahawa kepentingan mereka akan terpelihara dan dilindungi oleh undang-
undang dan sistem kehakiman negara. Hukuman yang berat juga menunjukkan
kepada masyarakat bahawa mahkamah tidak memandang remeh kesalahan yang
dilakukan oleh tertuduh.
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
TEMPOH TERTUDUH DITAHAN
8. Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan supaya hukuman pemenjaraan dikenakan
terhadap tertuduh adalah berjalan dari tarikh tertuduh ditangkap iaitu 16.2.2022.
Tertuduh telah berada di dalam tahanan sejak dari tarikh tersebut dan tertuduh tidak
pernah dijamin. Dalam hal ini, mahkamah merujuk kepada Seksyen 282(d) Kanun
Tatacara Jenayah yang menyatakan :
"(d) tiap-tiap hukuman penjara hendaklah berkuatkuasa pada tarikh yang ditetapkan
dalam hukuman itu kecuali jika mendapat perintah lain daripada Mahkamah yang
menjatuhkan hukuman itu."
9. Dalam mentafsirkan peruntukan ini, Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Tuan Mat Tuan
Lonik v. PP [2009] 4 CLJ 638 memutuskan seperti berikut :
“Under s. 282(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code it is provided that 'every sentence
of imprisonment shall take effect from the date on which the same was passed
unless the court passing such sentence otherwise directs'. The Criminal Procedure
Code thus empowers the judge with the necessary discretion when a sentence
should begin..."
10. Walaupun Seksyen 282(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tersebut menyatakan
bahawa hukuman penjara berkuatkuasa dari tarikh ia ditetapkan oleh mahkamah,
mahkamah boleh memerintahkan sebaliknya iaitu berkuatkuasa dari tarikh
tangkapan dan penggunaan kuasa tersebut adalah mengikut budi bicara mutlak
mahkamah.
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
11. Tambahan pula, di dalam kes Muharam Bin Anson V Public Prosecutor [1981] 1
MLJ 222 telah dinyatakan bahawa “In our view this period of detention, brief though
it may appear, ought to have been taken into account by the learned trial judge for
the purpose of passing sentence”. Maka, hukuman pemenjaraan yang mahkamah
berikan bermula dari tarikh tertuduh ditangkap adalah berdasarkan prinsip tersebut
memandangkan di dalam kes ini juga tertuduh telah menghabiskan tempoh masa
yang agak lama dalam tahanan sementara menunggu perbicaraan selesai.
12. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes-kes yang telah diputuskan melalui bicara penuh
sebelum ini sebagaimana berikut :
KES
HUKUMAN
PP lwn. Mohd Ruzaini
Samingan & Satu Lagi
[2023] 1 LNS 44
Mahkamah Tinggi mengekalkan
hukuman terhadap tertuduh pertama
yang telah dikenakan denda
RM5,000.00 gagal bayar 5 bulan
penjara dan pengawasan AADK selama
3 tahun.
Mustadzimaludin
Musimin v. PP [2022] 1
LNS 2289
Tertuduh dikenakan penjara selama 1
tahun dan pengawasan di bawah
Pegawai AADK selama 2 tahun.
Azhar Ibrahim lwn. PP
[2022] 1 LNS 2607
Mahkamah Tinggi menggantikan
hukuman 2 tahun penjara dari tarikh
sabitan dan perintah pengawasan
selama 2 tahun kepada hukuman
denda RM4,000.00 gagal bayar 6 bulan
penjara dan pengawasan selama 2
tahun.
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
Rashid Mohamad v. PP
[2022] 1 LNS 1633
Mahkamah Tinggi mengekalkan
keputusan Majistret iaitu penjara
selama 1 tahun dan pengawasan
selama 2 tahun.
Zul Fadzli Abdul
Rahman v. PP [2020] 1
LNS 444
Mahkamah Tinggi mengekalkan
keputusan Majistret iaitu penjara
selama 10 bulan dan pengawasan
selama 3 tahun.
13. Berdasarkan trend penghukuman yang dirujuk tersebut, mahkamah ini sedar
bahawa hukuman dikenakan terhadap tertuduh di dalam kes ini adalah lebih tinggi
jika dibandingkan dengan kes-kes rujukan tersebut. Ini adalah kerana, mahkamah
ini mengambilkira bahawa tertuduh telah berada di dalam tahanan reman sejak dari
tarikh tangkap iaitu 16.2.2022.
14. Sehingga 13.9.2023, iaitu tarikh tertuduh disabitkan bersalah dan dijatuhkan
hukuman, tertuduh telah berada di dalam tahanan reman lebih daripada 18 bulan.
Tempoh tersebut juga telahpun dipertimbangkan sewajarnya sebagai hukuman
terhadap tertuduh. Dengan mengenakan pemenjaraan selama 20 bulan bermula
daripada tarikh tangkap, mahkamah yakin bahawa tertuduh semestinya telah
dihukum dengan kesalahan yang dilakukannya.
15. Jika mahkamah ini memerintahkan supaya pemenjaraan tertuduh bermula dari
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
tarikh sabitan iaitu 13.9.2023, sudah pastilah tempoh tertuduh berada di dalam
penjara adalah lebih lama daripada peruntukan maksima pemenjaraan bagi
kesalahan Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 itu sendiri iaitu selama 2
tahun.
TIADA REKOD LAMPAU
16. Di dalam kes ini juga tertuduh tidak pernah mempunyai sebarang kesalahan lampau
dan kesalahan ini adalah merupakan kesalahan pertama tertuduh. Pihak
pendakwaan juga tidak mengemukakan sebarang rekod lampau tertuduh.
Sebagaimana dinyatakan di dalam kes PP v. Jafa Bin Daud [1981] 1 LNS
28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315 :
“…In assessing sentence, one of the main factors to be considered is whether the
convicted person is a first offender.”
BICARA PENUH
17. Kes ini bukanlah pengakuan bersalah di awal kes tetapi telah melibatkan satu
perbicaraan yang panjang, melibatkan saksi-saksi pendakwaan yang ramai dan
telah memakan masa dan kos pihak-pihak. Maka, tertuduh adalah tidak layak
terhadap satu diskaun terhadap hukuman.
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
PENUTUP
18. Mahkamah percaya bahawa hukuman dikenakan terhadap tertuduh adalah satu
hukuman yang adil dan saksama serta memenuhi prinsip penghukuman.
Bertarikh pada 8 November 2023
NOOR MAZRINIE BINTI MAHMOOD
MAJISTRET
MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET
KUALA TERENGGANU
Pihak-pihak :
Timbalan Pendakwaraya bagi pihak pendakwaan :
Puan Nur Aisyah binti Mohamad
Tertuduh mewakili diri sendiri
S/N v7Vit3xW0WJjbK84FNTWQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 10,112 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-25-35-01/2022 | PEMOHON PHILOMINA A/P F F SILVARI RESPONDEN 1. ) Daito Asia Development (M) Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Industrial Court Malaysia | CIVIL PROCEDURE: Filing of cause papers whether must be in the National Language - Filing cause papers in the English Language. O.92 r.1 of the Rules of Court 2012.CIVIL PROCEDURE: Non -compliance with the Rules of Court 2012- Abuse of the process of court - Striking out - Article 52 of the Federal Constitution - Section 8 of the National Language Acts 963/1967. | 08/11/2023 | YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b4b041e3-4928-4c59-8304-ccaf837f122b&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 17:07:59
WA-25-35-01/2022 Kand. 69
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N 40GwtChJWUyDBMyvg38SKw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
t-IL-25-z5»o1/2022 Kand. 59
DE/11/2023 17:07:59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
IBAHAGIAN RAVUAN DAN KUASA»KUASA KHAS)
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW WA—25—35—D1/2022
In the mafler ol Award No 1554 Vear
2n2I dalad Monday, 25 Oclobev 202: by
VA Tuan Paramallngam all J Domusamy
In the lnduslnaI oaun Kuala Lumpur
Case No 22/5-I324/21 and hand
dehversd an Monday 1 November 2021
And
Seclmn 20(3) ov me lndusIriaI Relalmns
Act 1957
And
Order 53 (Kaedah 2) 0! We Rules of me
HI9h Own zmz
Anlara
Philomina sin F F smri
(NRIC No 59071A«1D~55?32) . Apphcant
And
l Pengums.
Dane Asia Development (M) sun and . Responaenll
2 lmusmal calm Malaysla . Reaponaenl 2
JUDGMENT
lmruducflon
[1] Al all rnalenal limes me appncem, Philomina alp F F
Sllvan. represented herself whamar balnre me 0! al are
lnduslrlal coun whose awards she is cruauengmg m mis ludiual
review proceedmgs She was sleautasl in represenllng rrersell
and had filed all me cause papers m Ihe English Lmguage.
[2] On 31.32022, me appllcanl oblamed leave lo
commence llmiclal ravlew on In ex-pane bails fer the lolkming
prlncnpal reliefs’
lay an order al cerflorarl In quash Award No.
158412021 aalea 25 10.2021 rendered m Inauslrlal
Tne national languagn shall he «no Malay
Inngungn and snall be In such scnpl as Parllimenl
may by law pruvid
Pmvlded lnal —
all no person sneu be prahlhltad er
prevented lrern uslng lmnenmse lharl lor
omclal purposes). or from |eac|'llng or
learnlng‘ any olner language; and
(D) nolhlng In [his Clause shall preludloe lhe
rignl ol lne Faderal Gxwemment or 01
any State Govemmen| le preserve and
suslaln the use ana sludy of me
language ol any other community in me
Federallon.
Mule Anlele 152(4) ofme Federal cnnsliumon pnwlaes mat.
Nolwlunslarmlng me pmvlsluns e1 Clause (1). cm a
genes of ten years aller Merdeka Day, and
lnereaner until Pnlllamenl ulhurvtilo woman, an
rn u1GwlCMwUyflEMpg3ssKw 11
‘Nana Smnl luvlhnrwm be HIQG e my r... nflmnlllly mum: flnuavlml VI .nnna Wm!
proceemngs In the Fedeva\ Court me com ol
Appeal or a Hvgh Coun anau be m Ihe English
Vanguage:
Framed than N Iha Conn and counsel an
both shies agree, evwdence taken in the
language spoken by me wmness need not be
xranslaxea ink) or veoorded m Engfish
[15] Pamamem has specifically enacxaa m the can of section
8 ol the Nacinnar Language Acxs I963/1967 una fuflowvng:
AH pmceedmgs (other than me gwlng ol evidence
by a witness) In me Feds:-a1 Conn, Court at Appeal,
the High Conn or any Subordmale coun shalt be In
me nations! language.
Provided that me Oourl may euner of an own
muliun or on me applimlion at any pany In
any proceedings and aflel oansidenng me
vmeresls onusmoa in those pmeee gs, ordar
max me pmceedlngs (ulher man me gdvmg at
m ummcmwuynamyvalssxw ,2
mm. snn-w ...n.mn .. HIQG n may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnunmnl VI .HuNa Wm!
evldenbe by a w-lnsss) shall be panly .n we
namnal languags and panly ll'I ms Engllsh
language.
and secllon 9 01 me Nanonal Language Acts 1963/1967 the
Scrlpl D1 lhe natlonal language whlcll ls the Malay language as
(allows
The script 0! me nallonal language shall be m we
Ruml scrIp| proviued lhal lnls shall not pmhlbll lhe
usa ol ms Malay scnpl, more commsnly known as
Ihe Jawr scum. cl me nallorlal language.
[16] The Federal caun has In Dunn‘ snrl Anwu lbrahlm v.
Tun Dr M-hnhlr bin Moh-mad [mu] 1 cu 1 aoosplea me
meamng 0! me wum 'procee¢lngs“ ln secnon B ol the Nallorlal
Language Ads 1963I1967 and set uul P Ramanama Alyars
Advanced Law Lexicon at p 3745 which said-
'Fmoeedlngs' is a wom mum used In express me
buslness done ln Courls A proceeding m own 15
an and by ms aulhurlly nr dlwclmn M me count‘
m ulamcmwuynamyvgassxw 1:
‘Nat: smul ...ns.mn .. U... a way u. nnnu-y mum: flnunvlml VI nFluNa Wm!
express or implied I1 VS more comprehensive than
the word 'aclAon', but It may Include in \|s general
sense all the slaps taken ur measures adorned in
me prusecumn or defence av an action. induding
the pleadings and judgment As apphed to ECDOHS,
the (arm ‘DVODeed\ng' may Irlchlde - (1 ) the msluulvon
a! me aclmn, (2) Lhe appearance 0' the dmendanh
13) an ancillary ar pmv1smna\ steps, such as arrest.
attachment of pmpeny. gamishmerlk. imunclion‘ wnl
07 ns exam‘ (4) me plaadmgs; (5) lbs lakmg 07
leslmvany belnre Ina‘, IS) all mohons made In the
action, (7) me man, (5; me wdgmem: (9; me
PJSCWDH, (10) prooeedmgs supplemenlary m
exeounan, vn code praciice; (11) me Iakmg 01 the
appeal urwrit of error; (12) me remitlev, ar sending
back or me record «a me my Conn lmm me
appeflala or reviewing Court; (13) me enforcement
vf Ihe judgment‘ or a new lnal, as may be reared
by Iha Cnurl anas| reset‘.
[:7] Thus. the law .5 plam and clear The Mavay mnguage is
the Vanguago of me owns in Ihe High Cuurl at Malaya wh
m ummcmwuynamyvgassxw )4
‘Nan: sm-1 ...m.mm .. U... w my .. mmuny mum: flnunmnl m mum Wm!
ln \he lorm ol lne Rurnl seam. The prooeeamgs in me oourl
lncludc lh lnsmullon of an salon and mctlorls nv appllcallons
must be made in me Malay language using me Ruml acnpl. By
virlue of o 92 r. 1 or me Rules ml com 2012 aacumenls lor me
use ul ocun musl be filed in me Malay language and may be
accompanied by a (ranslaliun HI ma Engllsh language ln case:
ul urgency, mere 51 aooumenl ls Ned ln me Engllsn language,
such aacumenl must be filed in me nallonal language within (wo
weeks ovwllnln such exlended neriod as me calm may allaw.
[la] The Court ol Avpeal case or new sul Anwlr |hv-hlm
v. Tun Dv Mahulhlr Manama [mm] 1 cm 444 rejscled ma
nllng cl me mamaramlunl a1 appeal ln Ihe English language
nolalng as lullaws
[501 We caugoncally say lnal me mandalmy
pnwlsions of an. 152 ol me Federal Consmmlon
read lbsether
s s of me Nallunal Language
Ads 1963/1967 (Am :2) and a 3 or ma
lnlerprelanona Am 1943 and 1967 (Am 353) must
be adhered Io ll reqwes lne apnellanl In file the
mlmaundum av appeal Ill lhe Nallonel Language
m ummcmwuynamyvglssxw )5
ma. a.n.l luvlhnrwlll .. l... a my a. nflmnullly mum: flnunvlml VI mane wrul
No olner language wlll be enlenalrled And me
lellure pl lne eppellenl la du so anneunls la a alalanl
breach wnlsn would cpnlpsl us to mnliude that no
memorandum of appeal nas been med at all The
purponed memorandum M appeal In lne Enghsh
language nlusl accordingly be rejected eulnghl
wlmoul lunrler ado Wha| IS mandatory, muel be
smelly adhered I0. omerwlse dire eansequences
would lpllew.
ml The coun pl Appeal ln me case pl mlma Mlullumy v
Dnus Expen wlme sun Em! 5 Anal [2021] 7 cm :53 where
(he alleged delamatory words pleaded ln me Engllsn language
were not lranslaled lnlp me Malay language ln me slalemenl ol
claim was held lo he lalal (er neneempllanee wllh Arlicle 152 of
me Federal Corlsuluucrl read togelher with secllorl a el lne
Nauonal Language Aela I963/1967, Seclloll :5 cl lne
lnlerplelallpns An 1945 and 1957 and o. 92 r. 1 M the Rules of
oourl 2012.
[20] ln view ontle above, «me cam must enlarge the need to
me epun dpaumanls in me Malay language as nrdalned by me
IN ummcmwuynamyvgassxw I6
‘Nana Smnl luvlhnrwm be UIQG a may he ennn.l-l mm. flnunvlnrll VI nFl|.ING Wm!
law In lms oaurltry The lallune pl ma applicant la do sn even
arler arnpla opponunlly was given lo her |o do so is her own
laull. As a resu||, l hold Ihz| me cause papers filed by me
appllcanl cannol quallfy as a pmueedmg lor ludlclal revlew and
that lnera is no oumpelenl applicalian lm lualmal review before
lms ooun Thus, me leave granled aanlar ls sax aslda as prayed
by me 1” raspenaanl ln ma arcumslances, lnele IS nu need lnr
me la decade wnelner lne judicial revlew agalnsl lhe Dismlssal
Award is out a! lane.
[21] For lhe sams reasons alluasa Ia abuve, l nala lnal
enclosure ls, nalng ln ma Engllsh language, sufleved me same
lala as enclosula 6 I! was nel cpmpelenl as an appllcallon.
Nauanneless, I treated and dalennlnea endasule 13 as an
appllcamn amen filed In «no Engllan languige as nol |o depnya
me apnllnanlolbalng neam.
m] In her grounds. can in all, ma applloanl was slallng
amongst others, Ina! she needs lunhel and beflal paniculars ol
0 92 r 1 of the Rules of Own 2012, man awurdlng la Arlide
152 al the Federal wnslillmarl ms nallpnal language snall be
me Malay language lor offlclnl use but the Mllay language as
m ulamcmwuynamy-ag3ssKw n
ma. a.n.l luvlhnrwlll .. u... a my s. nflvlnullly mm. flnunvlnnl vi mung wnal
no lungs! in ufficial use ln Malaysia“ Her submlsslon was
equally pmllx and lnooharerll l louna that ulumalaly what ms
appllcanl was trying lo gel across was that she was anmlea ID
nle Ihe cause papers m me English language whlch is her ngm
under ma Fedaral Cunshlullon which offiolal lsxl ya. me English
In! l velecled (ms proposmonl as I had alluded In above, me
law accardlng to me vanaus pmvlslons on nlmg duwmenls In
the wurl ls clear I| must be in me Malay language The
appllcanl was glvan ample opponunlty to do so hull was
aaamanl .n he! slana I accommgly slmcx out enolasure la as
being an abuse ulme process at the court.
I «r
/
Arvlarjeeksmg Sen slngn
Judge
High Calm Kuala Lumpur
Dated. 27'“ Mac 2023
Agjmg ln Person:
Fllllamlna a/p FF Silvari
counsgrlg; hg Flrsl Resgondanl‘
Benedlcl Ngoh
muan Sheam Delamore 5. 00
m ulamcmwuynamwazlasxw '4
“Nam Sam nlvlhnrwm .. u... a mu s. nflvlnnllly mum: flnunvlml m muua Wm!
Cases relerred to.
1 Data’ Sui Anwar lhuhlrn v. Tun D7 Manamlr bin
Muhanud [201 1] 1 CLJ 1
2. Data’ sari Anwav Ibramm v. Tun Dr Mnmmr
unounua [2010] 1 cu 444
3 Rukha Mumnmy v onus Exp-n whit: Sdn Bhd
A Anor [2021] 7 CLJ 353
sm wsmcuwuyflamwgnssxw :-
nine s.n.1...m.m111... .4... w my .. m1n.1-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum M1
court case Na 22/54324/21 where an eppvmuon
(or a reference to me Hugh caun under eeeuun
33A -2! the IRA wee dlsmxssad (the sactmn 33A
Awem); and
m an urdev ol oemovari w quash Award No 455/2021
dated 1532021 In lm1us|na\ Cour! Case No
22161/4—557/20 wnerein me daxm «or dismissal
wunoux just cauee and excuse was dusrmsssd (me
D-srmssav Award)
[3] on me same day a nnuce or hsanng was Issued with a
dlreouon to serve aH me cause papers and amdauns on me 1*-
respondent (endosule sy Pames altended me firs! case
management on 14.4.2022 before me Deputy Regwstrar for one
purpose ol the sealing aramaavus and to fix a heavlng dale ior
me subsunlwe hearing that is sunapve to both pamee.
[41 Al the heunng or the case-management me appuaum
was Informed that me cause papers and amdavns were filed in
me English Language and the sppncem was given an
opparlumly m file me same in me Nahonal Language heme me
m ummcmwuynamyvglssxw 3
mu. Snr1I\lIlv1hnrwH\I>e u... u may u. uuxnuu mum: flnunmnl VI mum v-ms!
next case management heallng The 1" vesponderlfs solicllors
were also asked |o Me a nu Ice 0! appalrlImen| 07 sollclwrs and
serve me same on me eppl-can: allhwgh rlavlng filed a notice
pl appearance
[5] Al lne seoond case managemenl heanng on za 4 2u22
me 1-‘ respomenl had pprnplred wllh Ihe dlredlve pl Ihe Deputy
Regisrrar pul me epplreanl nad nol. lnslead, me applrnl had
on 21.4.2122 med an appllrzuon lpr dlscovery pl documenls
and «er a wrmen manda|e lrorn me 1-! rsspondenrs solrellars
lnal lney are acllng lur me 1* respondenl (enclosure 17) Tue
1= respondenrs epllerlore. Messrs snearn nelamore a. co had
on 4.4 2022 enlered appearance lorlne 1-I respondent and on
14 4 2u22 mes rn court a rrdlles pl appolmmerll olspliclrprs and
served me same on me applicant Therefore. me only rellel or
lls ll'| enclosure 17 were me relrel lor alsrxwery
[6] ln respect pl mlng me cause papers In the Nanonal
Language lor lne purposes or enclosure 6. bus applreanl seld
oral sne nad filed a penmsale ol urgency on 2542022
(enclosure 18) and supporlsd by an aflidavil afimled on
29 4 2022 (enclosure 20;. II was ner vlew lnal and was enllllea
rn ulsmcmwuynamyvglssxw .
nu. Smnl nnvlhnrwlll .. u... a my .. nflmnnllly mm. flnunvlml VI mung war
In law to We the cause papers and amdavlls m the Enghsh
Language The Deputy Regranrar, navermaxass gave me
appllcanl anolhu upporlunily to me me cause papers in me
Nauonal Language on or helorefl 5 2022
[1] On 1e.e2n22, a\ me we case rnanagernem dale.
sohcwors pr nna 1* reaponaem unvprrnaa ma| ma 1" respondent
had on 14.6.2022 filed an appucauan to set asme me leave
granted on 31 3.2022 The grpurma slated .n the application to
let esma ware
(a) max ma aapncarn had not filed me cause papers
and amdavns In the Nauorm Language as requved
py o, 92 r 1 pi me Rules 0! Cam 2u12 even alter
bemg given ample npponumiy to do so. and
on ma: mis Conn nas no Junsmciuon to hear me
pnauenge agamsl me Dlsmrssal Award as n was
not ananangop wmnn ma sllpmalsd no days fmm
me date at (ha award
5
r. flnulmnl VI mum wrm
[:1 The appucanc‘ on me olher hana. complained that ner
eenmcaue [or urgency (enclosure 15) was nul fixed cor naanng
The Depuly Rsgmlrarwas onne view Ihal enclnsuve 1a was not
a proper applicanon and maunere Is no appncauon belore «ms
cam m which me cenmcaxe av urgency was relaled m. on [his
pom! me anpllcanl asked an ||me m look ink: the rnauzr
[91 The malier was man axed before me Judge var me
neanng afendosure 21 and case management lnr emfiasures s
and :7 pm had ca bu adgoumed «mm lime lo me. The mauer
man came before me on 25 2 2oz: my me neanng cl enclosure
21 and case management for enclosures 5 and 17 Al the
rmdst or neanng enclosure 21‘ in pamculav the vssue o1 National
Language. I was manned av endcsure 13 by me applicant. To
cut me narrauvs anon, I dtslmssed me omecnon by counsel ov
me 1-! respondent on me apsenee 01 an appllmlion and non—
compliance of me rules of courl and vealed anclnsule 18,
which wns a canmeama ol urgency, as an eppliuaxien since
was supported by an affldavil In enclosure 20.
[10] I was of tha View mat the applicant ought to he heard on
uncbsure us and (D dxsmgard ma nun-wmphanne at me rules
w ummcmwuynamyvglssxw :
‘Nam a.nn llmhnrwm .. H... a way u. nrW\n|U|y mum: flnunmnl VI .HuNa wrm
al eoun As a resu||. I dlrected Dames no me lhelr wnllen
submlsslans on enclnsura 13 and adlwrned lna matter In
16 3.2023 lor lne hearing ol enuosure 1a lnllcmea mm
enclosure 21. Enclosures 6 and 17 were fixed for case
lrlanagemerll as belh lnase enclosures were dependent on lna
oulcome nl anclnsures 1e and 21.
[11] on 16 3 2023. afler oonslflerlng enclosures 15 and 21.
ms wnllan submlsslons and oral clanflcallnn Irom counsel and
me appllzanl I slruck oul enclosure 18 mm nu order as In costs
and allawed enclosure 21 Wllh casls of RM5.ooo.oo sublec| lo
allocalur. slnoe enclosure 21 was allowed enclosure 5
collapsed and was slvuck am In me clrcumslannesl no order
needed la be made on enclosure 17
[I21 The reasons lor my declslun are as lollows.
Analysls and doclnlon
[13] The slarling polnl VS 0. 92 r. 1 of lne Rules at Court
whloh nrmnda lor the larlgllagl cl dncumanlls used In com The
rule pmvlaea as «allows-
m u'lGwlcMwIlyDEMyvg35SKw 7
war. s.n.1 ...rr.rum .. u... u my r. nflvlnnllly mum: m.mr VI mung pm
(1) sumac: to paragraph (2). any uucunnnl
roqulrnd [or uu ln punulncl at (In Rulu
ullall be ln ma natlonal language and may be
nccompanied by a Irnnslaflcn thereof in ma
Engllah Ianguagcl excepl lhal me lranslallan lpr
ma purpose cl oruar 11, rule 5(4) and rule 7(1) shall
be prepared m accordance mun rule 5(5) pl Ihal
order:
Pvovlded that any dowmem W ma English
language may be used as an exhlbll, ml?! or
wllhuul a lrarlslallon Ihereof in the nallonal
language
(2) For sauarr and samwak, any dm>umen|
requlred lor use m pursuance pl mese Rules shall
be VII ma English language and may be
aooomparllad by a lranslallon lhereol in the nauonal
language axwpl that Ihe Irarlslallcn hr the purpose
o1order11, rule 6(4) and rule 7|1)shnI| be pmpared
.n awordarlcs wllh rule 5(5) oflhal Omar.
-
mu. Sam luvlhnrwm .. u... a mu r... nflmnullly mum: flmanvlanl VI arlurla Wm!
13)
44; In cases cl urgency, pmoeedmgs may be
oammsnosd or conducted panly m me Enghsh
Language or whcHy m we Enghsh language
pmwdsd that —
(5)
(0)
a eemncace uf urgency explaimng lhe
urgency 0! me maner ‘s filed by me
sohmlor. and
copios M all men docurnnnll in m.
nlllunal langungo man In mm wllhln
mo wuks or wlthln such exlnndod
p-vied u Iha Court may allow:
Provndedmal
(a) any document m mo nanonaw
language may 2:: used as an
exnmu,
war: or without a
lvanslalion them! in me Enghsh
Ianguags: and
(.5) any dacumenl m we Englvsh
Vanguage may be used as in
exmbu, mm ar wmuam a
lrans\almn thereof In one nauonal
language.
[14] Th: Me makes u absolutely dear that any ducumenl
reqmrea our use I“ we Hrgh com of Malaya which consist of
me Ma\ay sxanaa mus! be In ma nauonal Ianguaga and may be
accompanied by a nransxauon maranv m ma Engusn language
What .s me nations! language is pmmaa by sacllon 3 11! me
Inlevpmlalluns Aas 1943 and 1957 as (cums
‘Namna\ language‘ means me national language
provided (or by Amde 152 nf the Federal
Ccnsmuuon.
and Arlicle 15211) at me Federax Consmunen deaares what the
nauanal Vanguaga Is "1 me foHowing words
| 2,515 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-44-128-08/2022 | PEMOHON Pendakwa Raya RESPONDEN KAVINDRA A/L SUPPIAH | Permohonan Jenayah untuk melucuthak wang tunai RM90,000.00 dijumpai di bilik OKT & kereta - S.56 AMLATFPUAA 2001 - Samada harta yang disita adalah hasil aktiviti haram dibawah S4 - Samada Pihak Ketiga membuktikan beliau adalah Bona Fide - Samada permohonan ini dibuat luar masa iaitu tarikh barang dirampas atau tarikh barang diperintahkan disita - Permohonan ditolak | 08/11/2023 | YA Dato' Ahmad Bin Bache | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2c531dcd-b687-418d-a746-3898580cd328&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO.: _______________
ANTARA
KAVINDRA A/L SUPPIAH
(NO. K/P: 960104-14-5449) … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA ... RESPONDEN
[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur
Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur
Jenayah No.: WA-44-128-08/2022
Antara
Pendakwa Raya ... Pemohon
Dan
Kavindra A/L Suppiah … Responden]
08/11/2023 17:48:07
WA-44-128-08/2022 Kand. 37
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
A. PENDAHULUAN
[1] Pendakwa Raya/Pemohon telah membuat satu (1) permohonan
terhadap Responden untuk menuntut harta di bawah Seksyen 56,
Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan
Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001
(“AMLATFPUAA 2001”).
[2] Responden ialah Kavindra A/L Suppiah (No. K/P: 960104-14-5449)
yang mana telah mulanya ditangkap kerana disyakki mengedar
dadah di bawah Seksyen 39B dan kemudiannya dituduh di bawah
Seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan Seksyen 39A (2) Akta
Dadah Berbahaya 1952, kerana memiliki dadah dan telah mengaku
bersalah.
[3] Di dalam permohonan ini dua (2) harta telah dirampas iaitu kereta
Honda CRZ Hybrid yang dipandunya dengan nombor pendaftaran
PKC 2244 yang didaftar di atas nama Responden dan wang tunai
berjumlah RM90,000.00 di dalam milikan Responden yang dijumpai
di dalam bilik tidurnya.
[4] Ekoran daripada Notis Pihak Ketiga bertarikh 10.4.2023, pihak Ketiga
iaitu bapa saudara Responden telah menuntut wang tunai berjumlah
RM90,000.00 tersebut dan telah memfailkan Affidavit Jawapan pada
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
2.6.2023. Responden dan pihak Ketiga telah menentang
permohonan Pemohon ini.
[5] Setelah mendengar hujahan kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah telah
membenarkan permohonan Pemohon/Pendakwa Raya.
[6] Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut, Responden telah
memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan.
[7] Ini merupakan alasan-alasan terhadapnya.
B. FAKTA KES
[8] Pada 5.2.2021, Pengadu, Penguasa Kastam Tan Sing Chai dari Ibu
Pejabat Kastam Cawangan Narkotik yang juga Pegawai Serbuan,
berdasarkan maklumat yang diterima, telah mengetuai pasukannya
untuk satu operasi serbuan berkaitan dengan aktiviti pengedaran
dadah berbahaya. Di dalam operasi tersebut, satu bungkusan dadah
telah dijumpai di dalam sebuah kereta jenis Honda CRZ berwarna
putih bernombor pendaftaran PKC 2244 yang dipandu dan dimiliki
oleh seorang lelaki India yang kemudiannya dikenali sebagai
Kavindra a/I Suppiah (No. K/P: 960104-14-5449) iaitu Responden
kerana disyaki membawa bungkusan yang dipercayai dadah
berbahaya dan telah berlakunya kesalahan jenayah di bawah Akta
Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang
Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil daripada
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
Aktiviti Haram 2001 (AMLATFPUAA). Seterusnya Responden telah
ditangkap dan kereta dan dadah tersebut dirampas.
[9] Tangkapan dan rampasan berkaitan aktiviti pengedaran dadah
berbahaya tersebut berlaku di Stesen Minyak Petron beralamat di
No. 66, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, 50470 Kuala Lumpur.
[10] Susulan daripada tangkapan tersebut dengan dipandu arah oleh
Responden sendiri, telah membawa pasukan serbuan tersebut ke
tempat tinggal Responden iaitu premis rumah milik ibu bapa
Responden di 12A, Crescent Court, Lengkok Tun Sambanthan,
Brickfields, 50470 Kuala Lumpur. Pasukan serbuan telah menjumpai
wang tunai berjumlah RM90,000.00 di bahagian almari baju di bilik
tidur Responden dan seterusnya wang tersebut dirampas. Pengadu
seterusnya telah membuat dua (2) laporan Polis mengenai
rampasan-rampasan tersebut.
C. UNDANG-UNDANG BERKAITAN
[11] Permohonan pelucuthakan harta ini di buat di bawah Seksyen 56 (1),
Akta AMLATFPUAA (Akta 613) yang berbunyi seperti berikut:
“56. Pelucuthakan harta jika tiada pendakwaan
(1) Tertakluk kepada seksyen 61, jika berkenaan dengan apa-apa
harta yang disita di bawah Akta ini tiada pendakwaan atau sabitan
bagi suatu kesalahan membiayai keganasan, Pendakwa Raya boleh,
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
sebelum tamat tempoh dua belas bulan dari tarikh penyitaan itu, atau
jika terdapat suatu perintah pembekuan, dua belas bulan dari tarikh
pembekuan itu, memohon kepada seorang hakim Mahkamah Tinggi
untuk mendapatkan suatu perintah pelucuthakan harta itu jika dia
berpuas hati bahawa harta itu ialah-
(a) hal perkara atau keterangan yang berhubungan dengan
pelakuan kesalahan itu;
(b) harta pengganas;
(c) hasil daripada aktiviti haram; atau
(d) peralatan kesalahan.”
[12] Menurut Seksyen 56 (2) pula, sebelum membenarkan permohonan
pelucuthak, Mahkamah perlu berpuas hati bahawa kehendak-
kehendak di bawah Subseksyen ini telah diikuti.
[13] Subseksyen (2) kepada Seksyen 56 berbunyi:
“(2) The judge to whom an application is made under subsection (1)
shall make an order for the forfeiture of the property if he is satisfied-
(a) that the property is-
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
(i) the subject-matter or evidence relating to the
commission of an offence under subsection 4(1) or a
terrorism financing offence;
(ii) terrorist property;
(iii) the proceeds of an unlawful activity; or
(iv) the instrumentalities of an offence; and
(b) that there is no purchaser in good faith for valuable
consideration in respect of the property.
(3) Any property that has been seized and in respect of which no
application is made under subsection (1) shall, at the expiration of
twelve months from the date of its seizure, be released to the person
from whom it was seized.
(4) In determining whether or not the property has been obtained
as a result of or in connection with an offence under subsection 4(1)
or a terrorism financing offence or is terrorist property, the court shall
apply the standard of proof required in civil proceedings.”
[14] Pengubahan wang haram (yang mana Responden tidak
dipertuduhkan) didefinasikan seperti berikut di bawah Seksyen 4 (1)
AMLATFPUAA (Akta tersebut) seperti berikut:
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
“4. (1) mana-mana orang yang –
(a) melibatkan diri, atau cuba untuk melibatkan diri
dalam; atau
(b) bersubahat dengan pelakuan, pengubahan wang
haram melakukan suatu kesalahan dan boleh, apabila
disabitkan, didenda tidak melebihi lima juta ringgit atau
dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun
atau kedua-duanya.”
C. PENGANALISAAN DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH
[15] Ini merupakan satu permohonan perlucutan hak ke atas harta yang
telah dirampas dan kemudiannya disita oleh pihak KASTAM
terhadap Responden ekoran daripada penglibatan aktiviti haram
Responden iaitu mengedar dadah. Secara keseluruhan, ini
merupakan kes yang tidak rumit (“straight forward”) yang tidak
melibatkan isu undang-undang yang kompleks.
(i) Sama ada harta yang disita merupakan hasil daripada aktiviti
haram berkaitan dengan perlakuan suatu kesalahan di bawah
Subseksyen 4 (1) AMLATFPUAA (Akta 613)
[16] Berdasarkan keterangan melalui Affidavit-Affidavit, khususnya
daripada Penolong Penguasa Kastam Rosmawia binti Azahri
(Pegawai Penyiasat AMLA) dan Penolong Pengarah Kastam
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
(Predikat) Muhamad Ardy bin Ismail adalah jelas bahawa satu
tangkapan telah dibuat terhadap Responden iaitu tangkapan di
bawah Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 kerana terlibat
dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah dan semasa tangkapan pasukan
serbuan/rampasan telah membuat rampasan ke atas kereta Honda
CRZ bernombor pendaftaran PKC 2244 (kenderaan milik dan
dipandu Responden tersebut). Turut dirampas adalah wang tunai
sepertimana disenaraikan di dalam Notis Usul, selain daripada
rampasan dadah berkenaan. Keterangan melalui Affidavit Penolong
Pengarah Kastam di Kandungan (3) menunjukkan bahawa
Responden telah ditangkap di mana dadah dirampas adalah di dalam
bentuk parcel di dalam kereta yang dipandu dan dimiliki Responden
tersebut.
[17] Perlu ditekan di sini bahawa kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B Akta
Dadah Berbahaya adalah suatu “kesalahan serius” yang tersenarai
di dalam Jadual Kedua Akta 613 (AMLATFPUAA).
[18] Kesalahan serius di bawah Seksyen 3, bermaksud:
“5.3 “serious offence” means-
(a) any of the offences specified in the Second Schedule;
(b) an attempt to commit any of those offences; or
(c) the abetment of any of those offences;”
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(Di bawah Jadual Kedua (Akta 613) AMLATFPUAA aktiviti
pengedaran dadah berbahaya di bawah Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah
Berbahaya adalah disenaraikan sebagai kesalahan serius/berat.)
[19] Kejadian pertama iaitu aktiviti pengedaran dadah mempunyai kaitan
dan nexus terhadap kejadian kedua di mana dengan dipandu arah
oleh Responden sendiri pasukan rampasan/serbuan telah dibawa ke
rumahnya dan telah menjumpai sejumlah wang tunai berjumlah
RM90,000.00 di dalam bilik tidur milik Responden.
Mengenai kereta dan wang RM90,000.00
[20] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti segala keterangan-keterangan yang
telah dikemukakan pihak Pemohon dan Responden melalui Affidavit-
Affidavit masing-masing. Mahkamah tidak mengambil kira
pengakuan Responden seperti di dalam Percakapan Beramarannya
(Cautioned Statement) yang telah dirakamkan di bawah Akta Dadah
Berbahaya dan AMLATFPUAA kerana ia akan memprejudiskan
Responden kerana isu kerelaan membuat pernyataan pengakuan
tersebut tidak dibuktikan.
[21] Namun, daripada keterangan Affidavit-Affidavit khususnya daripada
Pegawai-Pegawai Penyiasat AMLA dan Predikat, Mahkamah
berpuas hati bahawa kenderaan tersebut iaitu Honda CRZ Hybrid
telah digunakan sebagai peralatan kesalahan dalam melakukan
kesalahan serius/berat iaitu pengedaran dadah. Ini adalah kerana
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
parcel (bungkusan) yang mengandungi dadah tersebut telah
dijumpai di dalam kenderaan tersebut semasa tangkapan.
Responden tidak membuat hujahan tentangan yang serius mengenai
harta ini.
[22] Mengenai wang rampasan RM90,000.00 tersebut, di dalam
menentang permohonan ini, Responden menekankan bahawa wang
RM90,000.00 ini adalah hasil yang sah. Responden di dalam
memberi keterangan melalui Affidavitnya telah mengikrarkan bahawa
itu adalah wang yang dihadiahkan oleh bapa saudaranya iaitu
RM30,000.00 pada bulan Januari 2020 sempena hari jadinya dan
RM60,000.00 di dalam tiga (3) transaksi (bulan April, Julai, Oktober
2020) untuk Responden menyambung pelajarannya.
[23] Mahkamah telah menimbang keterangan melalui Eksibit Responden
dan Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa tiada keterangan
dokumentari yang dikemukakan oleh Responden mengenai wang
RM90,000.00 itu adalah dari pemberian bapa saudaranya.
Contohnya adalah Akaun Banknya yang gagal dikemukakan.
[24] Dengan kegagalan ini, inferensnya ialah wang RM90,000.00 itu
adalah hasil dari aktiviti haram iaitu aktiviti pengedaran dadah.
[25] Selain daripada itu, keterangan menunjukkan Responden
merupakan seorang penganggur semasa ditangkap/tarikh kejadian
dan pernah bekerja sebagai pemandu Grab. Dengan latar belakang
bahawa Responden telah ditangkap dengan sejumlah besar dadah
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
berbahaya, maka inferens yang boleh dibuat sekali lagi adalah
Responden memang terlibat dengan aktiviti pengedaran dan
penjualan dadah dan wang RM90,000.00 tersebut adalah hasil
daripada aktiviti pengedaran dan penjualan dadah tersebut.
[26] Ini adalah kerana dari segi hukum akal, mana mungkin seorang
penganggur dan pemandu Grab mempunyai simpanan wang yang
amat banyak berjumlah RM90,000.00 jika itu bukan wang hasil
aktiviti haram iaitu penjualan dan pengedaran dadah.
[27] Setelah meneliti segala keterangan Affidavit dan dokumen berkaitan,
Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa satu kesalahan berat/serius telah
dilakukan oleh Responden iaitu di mana Responden telah melakukan
kesalahan berkaitan dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang
menyebabkan Responden dituduh di bawah Seksyen 39B Akta
Dadah Berbahaya walaupun akhirnya beliau dituduh semula di
bawah milikan sahaja di bawah Seksyen 6/29A Akta Dadah
Berbahaya.
(ii) Setelah berpuas hati bahawa harta tersebut merupakan hasil
dari aktiviti haram bolehkah permohonan di bawah Seksyen 56
(2) dibenarkan?
[28] Setelah meneliti segala keterangan Affidavit-Affidavit khususnya
daripada Pegawai Penyiasat Predikat dan AMLATFPUAA, di atas
imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah memutuskan
Pemohon/Pendakwa Raya telah berjaya membuktikan kesemua
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
harta yang dinyatakan dalam Notis Usul iaitu wang RM90,000.00 dan
Kereta Honda CRZ adalah hasil harta yang diperolehi daripada
aktiviti haram (kegiatan dadah) di bawah Seksyen 39B (1) (a) Akta
Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang mana merupakan satu kesalahan
serius/berat di bawah Jadual Kedua Akta 613.
[29] Responden telah gagal mengemukakan apa-apa keterangan
dokumentari untuk menafikan harta-harta tersebut adalah hasil
daripada aktiviti haram. Kegagalan ini menunjukkan tiada versi atau
inferens lain yang telah dikemukakan untuk menunjukkan keadaan
sebaliknya.
[30] Sehubungan dengan itu, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa semua
kehendak-kehendak di bawah Seksyen 56 Akta 613 (AMLATFPUAA)
telah berjaya di buktikan memandangkan harta-harta yang disita
tersebut adalah harta yang telah disita di bawah Akta 613 ini dan
tiada pendakwaan atau sabitan direkodkan di bawah Seksyen 4 (1)
Akta 613 ini. (Lihat PP v. Billion Nova Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 2 CLJ
763). Perintah sitaan telah dikeluarkan pada 5.8.2021 di bawah
Seksyen 45 (2) AMLATFPUAA 2021 terhadap kedua-dua harta
tersebut seperti Eksibit RA-3 dan RA-4 di dalam Affidavit Penolong
Penguasa Kanan Rosmawia binti Azahri (Affidavit AMLA) di
Kandungan (4).
[31] Justeru itu, Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan pelucuthakan
harta-harta ini.
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
PERMOHONAN PIHAK KETIGA
[32] Pihak Ketiga turut memfailkan tuntutannya terhadap harta wang tunai
RM90,000.00 tersebut, sebagai Penuntut Pihak Ketiga yang suci
hati. Bagi maksud ini pihak Ketiga perlu membuktikan kelayakan
beliau sebagai pihak Ketiga yang suci hati dengan membuktikan
kehendak-kehendak yang dinyatakan di dalam Seksyen 61 (4) (a)
hingga (e) Akta 613 tersebut.
Adakah pihak Ketiga berjaya membuktikan bahawa dia adalah pihak
Ketiga yang suci hati?
[33] Pihak Ketiga/Penuntut iaitu bapa saudara Responden yang bernama
Dato’ Sri Pulainthiran a/l Vendasamy telah memberikan keterangan
melalui Affidavitnya yang menyatakan bahawa beliaulah yang telah
memberikan wang RM90,000.00 kepada Responden di mana
RM30,000.00 telah dihadiahkan kepada Responden sempena hari
jadinya pada Januari 2020 dan selebihnya sebanyak RM60,000.00
sebagai sokongan/motivasi kepada Responden untuk menyambung
pelajarannya.
[34] Pihak Ketiga hanya mengemukakan keterangan tentang pangkat dan
juga dirinya sebagai seorang Businessman yang berjaya tanpa
mengemukakan apa-apa keterangan yang berbentuk dokumentari
seperti Penyata Bank atau sebarang bukti yang menunjukkan
bahawa wang tersebut merupakan harta sah miliknya yang telah
dihadiahkan kepada Responden dan bukannya harta daripada aktiviti
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
haram pengedaran dadah. Pihak Ketiga telah gagal mewujudkan
inferens bertentangan dengan versi Pemohon bersandarkan hasil
siasatan Pegawai Predikat AMLA dan Predikat.
[34] Berdasarkan keterangan yang ada, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa
pihak Ketiga/Penuntut bukanlah seorang yang suci hati dan gagal
membuktikan kelayakan beliau bagi menuntut harta-harta yang telah
disita atas imbangan kebarangkalian seperti diperuntukkan di bawah
Subseksyen 61 (4) (a) hingga (e) Akta tersebut, secara spesifiknya,
Subseksyen 61 (4) (c) Akta tersebut.
[35] Di akhir perbicaraan permohonan ini, Mahkamah memutuskan
bahawa kesemua harta yang disita milik Responden hendaklah
dilucuthak kepada Kerajaan Malaysia di bawah Subseksyen 56 (2)
Akta 613 seperti di dalam prayer Pertama dalam Notis Usul yang
difailkan Pemohon/Pendakwa Raya.
D. LAIN-LAIN
[36] Peguambela Responden telah membangkitkan dua (2) isu teknikal
sebagai Bantahan Awal. Pertama ialah permohonan perlucutan
harta di bawah Seksyen 56 (1) AMLATFPUAA ini kononnya adalah
di luar masa kerana perkataan “sebelum tamat tempoh dua belas
bulan dari tarikh penyitaan itu.”
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
[37] Bantahan awal kedua ialah bahawa Seksyen 6 Akta Dadah
Berbahaya 1952 (di mana Defendan telah didapati bersalah)
bukanlah aktiviti haram di bawah AMLATFPUAA 2001.
[38] Mahkamah akan meneliti bantahan pertama dahulu iaitu isu
kononnya permohonan ini di buat di luar masa. Perlu ditekankan di
sini bahawa perbezaan perlu dibuat di antara tarikh rampasan dan
tarikh sitaan untuk menentukan bila tempoh 12 bulan tersebut
berkuatkuasa dan bila ianya tamat.
[39] Adalah tidak dinafikan bahawa kedua-dua harta tersebut telah
dirampas oleh pihak Kastam pada 5.2.2021 iaitu hari kejadian dan
permohonan ini di buat oleh Pemohon/Pendakwa Raya pada
3.8.2022. Ini mengikut Responden telah melebihi 6 bulan dari had
tempoh masa iaitu sepatutnya tamat pada 5.2.2021.
[40] Setelah meneliti keterangan Affidavit khususnya Affidavit Rosmawia
binti Azhari di Kandungan (4), seorang Penolong Penguasa Kastam
yang telah mengepilkan Eksibit RA-3 dan RA-4 iaitu perintah-
perintah sitaan yang dikeluarkan di bawah “Akta ini” iaitu
AMLATFPUAA 2021, kedua-dua perintah tersebut telah dikeluarkan
pada tarikh 5.8.2021.
[41] Sehubungan dengan itu, diambil kira perintah sitaan dikeluarkan
pada 5.8.2021 dan permohonan ini di buat pada 3.8.2022, maka
permohonan ini adalah masih di dalam tempoh had masanya. Ini
perlu dibezakan dengan tarikh rampasan yang telah dibuat (di bawah
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
Akta Dadah Berbahaya) pada 5.2.2021. Justeru itu, Mahkamah
memutuskan bahawa bantahan awal ini tidak bermerit dan perlu
ditolak.
[42] Mengenai bantahan awal kedua, memandangkan harta tersebut
adalah “proceeds of an unlawful activity”, Mahkamah merujuk kepada
Seksyen 3 (Akta 613) yang bermakna “any proceeds derived or
obtained directly or in directly by any person as a result of any
unlawful activity.” “Unlawful activity” telah ditafsirkan sebagai – “any
activity which is related directly or indirectly to any serious offence.”
“Serious offence” telah didefinasikan sebagai “Any of the offences
specified in the Second Schedule.”
[43] Oleh kerana penekanan adalah “unlawful activity”, maka Mahkamah
memutuskan kehendak 56 (1) telah dipenuhi kerana Responden
terlibat dengan aktiviti pengedaran dadah sehingga dituduh di bawah
Seksyen 39B, Akta Dadah Berbahaya iaitu satu aktiviti haram.
[44] Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa walaupun kemudiannya
Responden dituduh di bawah Seksyen 6/9A Akta Dadah Berbahaya
dan bukannya di bawah Seksyen 39B Akta Dadah Berbahaya,
hakikatnya, Responden telah terlibat dengan aktiviti pengedaran
dadah itu, iaitu satu aktiviti haram.
[45] Selain dari itu, dilihat dari segi “spirit” Akta 613 itu sendiri secara
keseluruhan, Akta ini adalah mengenai pengubahan wang haram,
pelucuthakan harta sitaan yang hasilnya diperolehi dari “aktiviti
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
haram”. Ini adalah jelas kerana “preamble” Akta 613 ini berbunyi “An
Act to provide for the offence of money laundering, the measures to
be taken for the prevention of money laudering ... and to provide for
the forfeiture of property ... derived from proceeds of an unlawful
activity.” Tidak dinyatakan Responden perlu didapati bersalah di
bawah Seksyen 39B (pengedaran dadah) satu “serius offence”.
Namun apa yang nyata dari keterangan melalui Affidavit-Affidavit
pihak Pemohon, Responden memang terlibat dengan aktiviti haram
iaitu pengedaran dadah. Keterangan ini adalah memadai. Justeru
bantahan Responden mengenai perkara ini adalah ditolak.
E. KESIMPULAN
[46] Permohonan Pemohon/Pendakwa Raya dengan ini dibenarkan di
bawah Seksyen 56 (1) dan (2), Akta AMLATFPUAA (Akta 613)
kerana telah berjaya memenuhi kehendak-kehendak seksyen
tersebut di atas imbangan kebarangkalian.
Tarikh: 30 Oktober 2023
(DATO’ AHMAD BIN BACHE)
Hakim
Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 1
Kuala Lumpur.
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Pihak-Pihak
Pendakwa Raya/Pemohon: Puan Rohaiza binti Zainal
TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA
Jabatan Peguam Negara
Aras 5, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana
Presint 4
62100 PUTRAJAYA
Responden/Perayu: Encik Kitson Foong
(Cik Chew Jee San bersamanya)
TETUAN KIT & ASSOCIATES
195-1, Sri Wangsaria
Jalan Ara, Bangsar Baru
59100 KUALA LUMPUR
(Ruj. Kami: KITA/CR/KS/3/22)
S/N zR1TLIe2jUGnRjiYWAzTKA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 23,251 | Tika 2.6.0 |
T-09-79-03/2020 | PERAYU W MOHD SYAFIE BIN W MUSTAFFA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] | Seksyen 377E Kanun Keseksaan – Seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 – Keterangan saksi kanak-kanak dihadapan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah diuji di bawah seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 – Kanak-kanak seorang saksi yang kredibel dan kompeten bagi maksud Seksyen 118 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk memberikan keterangannya secara tidak bersumpah – Kebolehterimaan masuk keterangan seorang kanak-kanak – Keseluruhan keterangan yang diberikan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan terutamanya keterangan saksi kanak-kanak, tidak dapat disangkal lagi bahawa ianya adalah kukuh dan boleh dipercayai walaupun terdapat sedikit percanggahan yang remeh – Pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh Perayu dan SD2 hanyalah suatu penafian kosong, pemikiran terkemudian dan rekaan semata-mata yang tidak menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan – Hukuman memberikan keutamaan kepada kepentingan awam – Pesalah berulang (repeat offender) untuk kesalahan yang sama. | 08/11/2023 | YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Collin Lawrence SequerahYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d48bf898-a1e7-4be9-ada2-03eb9bfe8868&Inline=true |
1
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: T-09-79-03/2020
ANTARA
W MOHD SYAFIE BIN W MUSTAFFA - PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN
[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Terengganu
Kes Perbicaraan Jenayah No: TA-42JSKS-1-05/2019
Antara
W Mohd Syafie Bin W Mustaffa - Perayu
Dan
Pendakwa Raya - Responden]
15/11/2023 08:28:48
T-09-79-03/2020 Kand. 54
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
KORUM:
HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, HMR
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH, HMR
AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, HMR
PENGHAKIMAN
PERTUDUHAN
[1] Pendakwaan terhadap Perayu bermula di Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala
Terengganu, Terengganu Darul Iman di atas pertuduhan berikut:
"Bahawa kamu pada 2/6/2016 jam ebih kurang 2.00 petang sehingga
4.00 petang, bertempat di Maahad Tahfiz Al lkhwan, No. 1334, Jalan
Kenanga, Batu Buruk, di dalam Daerah Kuala Terengganu, di dalam
Negeri Terengganu, didapati telah merangsang penama xxxxxx, KPT
xxxxxx yang berumur 7 tahun untuk melakukan suatu perbuatan
kelucahan melampau. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan
suatu kesalahan yang mana boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 377E
Kanun Keseksaan.”
FAKTA KES PENDAKWAAN
[2] Mangsa (SP3) berusia 7 tahun semasa kejadian.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[3] SP3 adalah seorang pelajar di Maahad Tahfiz Al-lkhwan, Batu Buruk,
Kuala Terengganu di mana pelajar-pelajar menuntut ilmu Al Quran. SP3
menghadiri kelas mengaji tersebut sejak dari tahun 2015 iaitu ketika SP3
berumur 6 tahun lagi. Sesi pengajian Al Quran ini bermula pada sebelah
petang iaitu dari jam 2.00 petang sehingga 4.00 petang setiap hari Ahad
hingga Khamis. Pada sebelah pagi pula, SP3 belajar di Sekolah
Kebangsaan Sri Budiman Dua, Kuala Terengganu.
[4] Pada 2/6/2016 (hari Khamis) jam lebih kurang 4.00 petang, SP3 telah
menceritakan kepada ibunya iaitu Siti Aisyah binti Ali (SP5) dan bapanya
iaitu Mohd Ramlan bin Ramli (SP2) bahawa semasa SP3 berada di Maahad
tersebut, salah seorang ustaz yang mengajar di Maahad tersebut iaitu
Perayu telah memanggil SP3 masuk ke dalam bilik penginapannya di
Maahad tersebut dan Perayu memberikan telefon bimbitnya kepada SP3
untuk bermain permainan yang ada dalam telefon bimbit tersebut. Perayu
kemudiannya menyuruh SP3 meniarap di atas lantai bilik tersebut lalu
Perayu duduk di atas SP3. Perayu telah membuka kain yang dipakainya dan
membuka pula seluar yang dipakai oleh SP3. Semasa SP3 sedang
meniarap, SP3 telah menoleh ke belakang dan di masa itu SP3 nampak
kemaluan Perayu. Kemudian, Perayu telah meletakkan, memasukkan dan
menggeselkan kemaluannya ke dalam punggung SP3. SP3 dapat
merasakan kemaluan Perayu diletakkan di bahagian dubur SP3. Mengikut
SP3 lagi, sebelum kejadian terbaru ini, kejadian yang sama juga telah
berlaku terhadap dirinya sebanyak tiga (3) kali.
[5] Pengetua Maahad tersebut iaitu Badrul Salleh Burhandin Fadzlullah
bin Abdul Rahman (SP6) mengesahkan bahawa Perayu merupakan salah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
seorang tenaga pengajar di situ. SP6 juga mengesahkan telah
membenarkan Perayu bersama keluarganya tinggal di dalam sebuah bilik
belakang di Maahad tersebut (tempat kejadian). Manakala seoarang lagi
tenaga pengajar iaitu Ustaz Azmi tidak tinggal di premis maahad tahfiz
tersebut.
[6] Pada 3/6/2016, SP2 telah membuat laporan polis di Balai Polis Kuala
Terengganu terhadap kejadian yang berlaku terhadap SP3. Laporan Polis
Kuala Terengganu/005002/16 ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P3.
[7] Pada 4/6/2016, jam lebih kurang 3.30 petang, bertempat di Bahagian
Siasatan Jenayah Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kuala Terengganu, Pegawai
Penyiasat kes iaitu Inspektor Siti Aniza binti Askulali (SP9) telah
menjalankan satu sesi kawad cam bagi SP3. SP9 mengesahkan bahawa
SP3 dapat mengecam Perayu sebagai orang yang melakukan perbuatan
tersebut terhadapnya. Laporan kawad cam tersebut telah dikemukakan dan
ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P10. SP3 juga dapat mengecam Perayu di
dalam Mahkamah semasa SP3 memberi keterangannya.
[8] Pada 5/6/2016, SP3 telah dirujuk kepada SP4 (Doktor Azhar bin
Osman) di Jabatan Pembedahan, Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah, Kuala
Terengganu untuk pemeriksaan perubatan ke atas SP3 kerana dikatakan
menjadi mangsa liwat. SP4 mengesahkan tiada sebarang kesan luka pada
bahagian dubur SP3. Dubur SP3 berada dalam keadaan yang normal. SP4
berkata sekiranya seseorang pesakit diliwat, tidak semestinya akan terdapat
kecederaan pada bahagian duburnya. Terdapat juga situasi di mana pesakit
yang diliwat tidak mengalami apa - apa kecederaan. Mengikut SP4 lagi, SP3
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
ada menceritakan sedikit kepada beliau tentang kejadian yang berlaku pada
dirinya. SP4 yakin cerita tersebut adalah benar.
RINGKASAN KETERANGAN PEMBELAAN
[9] Perayu (SD1) telah memilih untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah.
[10] Perayu tidak menafikan bahawa bilik dalam gambar ekshibit P2H
adalah bilik tempat tinggal beliau.
[11] Perayu menafikan beliau ada melakukan perbuatan kelucahan
melampau terhadap SP3 dalam bilik tersebut.
[12] Perayu menyatakan bahawa SP3 tidak pernah memasuki bilik Perayu.
[13] Perayu menyatakan bahawa pelajar di Maahad Tahfiz tersebut tidak
dibenarkan untuk memasuki bilik Perayu.
[14] Perayu menyatakan bahawa pada hari kejadian iaitu 2/6/2016 jam
lebih kurang 2.00 petang sehingga 4.00 petang, beliau berada dalam bilik
penginapannya di Maahad tersebut bersama isterinya iaitu Noraini binti
Mohammad (SD2) untuk menjaga anak kecil mereka berusia lapan (8) bulan
yang demam pada masa itu.
[15] Perayu menyatakan SD2 yang bekerja sebagai guru KAFA di Sekolah
Kebangsaan Sri Budiman Dua, Kuala Kuala Terengganu tidak bertugas
pada tarikh kejadian tersebut (Khamis) kerana jadual tugasan SD2 hanyalah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
pada hari Ahad, lsnin dan Rabu jam 2.00 petang sehingga 5.00 petang
sahaja.
[16] Perayu menafikan bahawa beliau telah menggunakan tandas
sepertimana yang diceritakan oleh SP3. Tandas yang ditunjukkan itu hanya
digunakan oleh pelajar Maahad Tahfiz dan guru tidak pernah menggunakan
tandas tersebut.
[17] Perayu menafikan ada memberikan telefonnya kepada SP3 untuk
bermain "game" pada hari kejadian. Menurut Perayu, telefon bimbit yang
dipakainya bukan jenis smartphone sebaliknya hanya telefon lama jenis
3310. Oleh itu, tiada "game" dalam telefon yang digunakannya itu.
[18] Perayu juga menyatakan selain beliau, terdapat seorang lagi ustaz
lelaki bernama Ustaz Azmi yang juga mengajar di Maahad Tahfiz
berkenaan.
[19] Menurut Perayu, Ustaz Azmi tidak pernah ditahan oleh pihak polis
berkaitan kes ini dan tidak pernah diletakkan di dalam barisan kawad cam
bagi memberi peluang kepada SP3 untuk mengesahkan sama ada Perayu
ataupun Ustaz Azmi yang merupakan orang yang melakukan perbuatan
seksual terhadap SP3.
[20] SD2 pula di dalam keterangannya hanya sekadar mengesahkan
keterangan Perayu bahawa beliau ada bersama-sama Perayu pada tarikh
dan masa kejadian tersebut.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
[21] SP2 menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak bertugas pada hari kejadian itu.
SP2 dan Perayu bersama-sama menjaga anak kecil mereka yang demam
pada hari itu.
KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PEMBELAAN
[22] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen memutuskan
bahawa pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh hanyalah suatu pemikiran
semula, penafian semata-mata serta tidak menimbulkan keraguan
munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan. Pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya
membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan munasabah. Perayu didapati
bersalah dan disabitkan di atas pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 377E Kanun
Keseksaan.
[23] Perayu telah dijatuhi hukuman pemenjaraan selama 10 tahun dan 3
sebatan rotan. Hukuman pemenjaraan ini berjalan secara berturutan dengan
hukuman bagi kes TA-42S-13-09/2017.
PERAYU MENFAILKAN RAYUAN KEPADA MAHKAMAH TINGGI
[24] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, Perayu telah menfailkan rayuan
kepada Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Terengganu terhadap keseluruhan
keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Notis Rayuan yang difailkan oleh
Perayu adalah terhadap sabitan dan hukuman.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
DAPATAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI
[25] Pada 10/3/2020, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi mengekalkan sabitan
terhadap Perayu. Mahkamah Tinggi juga mendapati hukuman pemenjaraan
selama 10 tahun penjara dan 3 kali sebatan tidaklah terlalu berlebihan.
Justeru itu, Mahkamah Tinggi tidak berhasrat untuk menganggu hukuman
yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Hukuman Rayuan
Perayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman ditolak. Perintah Hakim Mahkamah
Sesyen dikekalkan.
PERAYU MENFAILKAN RAYUAN KEPADA MAHKAMAH RAYUAN
[26] Terkilan dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut, pada
10/3/2020, Perayu telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan kepada Mahkamah
Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah
Tinggi Kuala Terengganu terhadap Perayu.
PERUNTUKAN UNDANG - UNDANG
(i) Seksyen 377E Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukan seperti berikut:
Inciting a child to an act of gross indecency
377E. Any person who incites a child under the age of fourteen years
to any act of gross indecency with him or another person shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and
not more than fifteen years, and shall also be punished with whipping.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
(ii) Seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti
berikut:
"133A. Where, in any proceedings against any person for any offence,
any child of tender years called as a witness does not in the opinion of
the court understand the nature of an oath, his evidence may be
received, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of the court, he
is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the
evidence, and understands the duty of speaking the truth; and his
evidence, though not given on oath, but otherwise taken and reduced
into writing in accordance with section 269 of the Criminal Procedure
Code [Act 593] shall be deemed to be a deposition within the meaning
of that section;
Provided that, where evidence admitted by virtue of this section is
given on behalf of the prosecution, the accused shall not be liable to
be convicted of the offence unless that evidence is corroborted by
some other material evidence in support thereof implicating him."
PRINSIP UNDANG - UNDANG DI PERINGKAT RAYUAN
[27] Mahkamah dalam mendengar rayuan ini berpandukan kepada prinsip
undang-undang yang mantap di mana mahkamah di peringkat rayuan
seharusnya mengambil pendirian untuk tidak menganggu keputusan yang
telah dibuat oleh mahkamah perbicaraan melainkan ternyata keputusan
tersebut terdapat salah arah, tidak menurut undang-undang dan terdapat
keterangan kukuh yang menunjukkan bahawa hakim perbicaraan telah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
terkhilaf di dalam menilai keterangan yang telah dikemukakan semasa
perbicaraan.
[28] Di dalam kes Amri Ibrahim & Anor v. PP [2017] 1 CLJ 617,
Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan yang berikut:
“[51] It is trite law that the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of
a witness must be given proper weight and consideration. An appellate
court should be slow in disturbing such finding of fact arrived at by the
trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness,
unless there were substantial and compelling reasons for disagreeing.”
[29] Di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 2 MLRA 590,
Mahkamah Persekutuan menegaskan seperti berikut:
“Now, it settled law that it is no part of the function of an appellate Court
in a criminal case or indeed any case to make its awn findings of
fact. That is a function exclusively reserved by the law to the trial Court.
The reason is obvious. An appellate Court is necessarily fettered
because it lacks the audiovisual advantage enjoyed by the trial Court."
[30] Menyentuh mengenai prinsip yang sama, di dalam kes LCY v. TWY
[2019) 7 CLJ 158, Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat HMR (kini KHN)
menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
“[26] The principle of law on appellate intervention is settled. In Dream
Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453, the
Federal Court reiterated the principle as follows at p. 476;
[60] It is now established that the principle on which an appellate court
interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is "the plainly wrong test"
principle; see the Federal Court in Gan Yook Chin & Anor (P) v Lee Ing
Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Anor [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2005] 1 MLJ 1 (at
p. 10) per Steve Shim CJ SS. More recently, this principle of appellate
intervention was affirmed by the Federal Court in UEM Group Berhad
v Genisys lntergrated Engineers Pte Ltd /2010] 9 CLJ 785 where it was
held at p. 800; and
It is well settled law that an appellate court will not generally speaking
intervene with the decision of a trial court unless the trial court is shown
to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. A plainly wrong decision
happens when the trial court is guilty of no or insufficient judicial
appreciation of the evidence (See Chew Yee Wah & Anor v Choo Ah
Pat [1978]1 LNS 32; Watt v Thomas [1947] AC 484; and Chin v Lee
Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309”.
KEPUTUSAN KAMI
(a) KETERANGAN SAKSI KANAK - KANAK
[31] SP3 yang berusia 8 tahun sebelum memberikan keterangannya
secara terperinci di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah diuji di bawah
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen
berpuashati bahawa SP3 merupakan seorang saksi yang kompeten bagi
maksud seksyen 118 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk memberikan
keterangannya secara tidak bersumpah. Rujukan dibuat kepada Nota
Keterangan di Kandungan 11 RR Jilid 3 m/s 82-83 di mana Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen menyimpulkan seperti berikut:
“Mahkamah: Berdasarkan jawapan yang diberikan oleh saksi ini, saya
berpuashati beliau mempunyai kecerdikan yang mencukupi dan tahu
tanggungjawabnya untuk bercakap benar. Walau bagaimanapun,
saya seterusnya mendapati yang beliau tidak memahami maksud dan
tanggungjawab untuk memberi keterangan secara bersumpah. Oleh
yang demikian, saya membenarkan beliau memberi keterangan tidak
bersumpah di bawah peruntukan seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan.”
[32] Mengenai isu kebolehterimaan masuk keterangan seorang kanak -
kanak, rujukan dibuat kepada kes Muhammad Adib Sufyan Bin Azman v.
PP [ 2019] 8 CLJ 261, di mana Mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut:
“Admitting Child Evidence In Court
[23] The crux of the case rests on the reception of SP7's evidence who
at the time of the incident was 13 years old. At the time of trial, he was
over 16 years of age. The definition of a child can be found in several
legislation. Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (1989) defines children as all human being under the age of
18. The Child Act 2001 defines a child as someone below the age of
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
18. The Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 defines a child to be
someone under the age of 16.
[24] It is essential that in every trial involving a child witness, the
competency of a child testifying must be ascertained. An inquiry must
be done by the trial judge to determine if the child witness is competent
to either testify under oath and be allowed to give sworn testimony, or
be allowed to give unsworn evidence in court (see the Federal Court
case of Muharam Anson v. PP [1980] 1 LNS 137; [1981] 1 MLJ 222 at
223).
[25] Section 118 of the Evidence Act ("EA'') provides the start point
where the competency of witnesses are concerned. It provides that all
persons are competent to testify unless they are, in the opinion of the
court, unable to understand the questions put to them or unable to give
rational answers to those questions owing to tender years, extreme old
age, disease of mind or body, or any other such cause.
[26] The intellectual capacity of a child to understand questions and to
give rational answers is the sole test of his testimonial competency and
not any particular age (see Santosh Roy v. State of W.B . [1992] Cr LJ
2493 (Cal). It depends upon the exercise of the trial judge's discretion
upon exercising his judgment on the competency of the child (see
State of M.P. v. Oeoki Nandan {1987] Cr LJ 1016).
[28] The introduction of s. 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 ("s. 133A")
in 1971 saw the development of the said provision being discussed in
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
many cases. The focus of the provision is on assessing the
competency of a child witness, in particular children of tender years. In
PP v. Chan Wai Heng [2008] 5 CLJ 805 it was held that:
[15] Section 133A refers to a situation where a child of tender years is
called as a witness and does not understand the nature of an oath. In
such a situation his evidence may still be received though not given
upon oath if in the opinion of the court he possesses sufficient
understanding to justify the reception of the evidence, and the child
understands the duty of speaking the truth.
[16] The first part of s. 133A therefore governs the admissibility of the
evidence of the child though not given under oath. The proviso deals
with the way in which the evidence once admitted is to be treated, that
is, where the evidence admitted as such is given on behalf of the
prosecution, the proviso requires that the evidence is to be
corroborated by some other material evidence in support thereof in
order to implicate the accused.
Heliliah JCA went on to explain as follows:
“...Once a witness is found to be a competent witness, even if he is not
competent to take an oath or if there is an omission to take an oath that
will not invalidate the proceedings or render inadmissible the evidence.
The rule generally is in favour of admission of evidence though the
weight to be attached to it will naturally be a matter for consideration
by the Court. There is always competency unless the Court considers
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
otherwise. If a witness is not competent he will not be examined in
Court. In the case of a child, it depends on the capacity of the child, his
appreciation of the difference between truth and falsehood as well as
his duty to tell the former. The decision of this question rests with the
trial Judge, who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his
apparent possession, or lack of intelligence. The trial Judge may resort
to any examination which will tend to disclose the capacity and
intelligence and in the case of an oath, his understanding of the
obligation of an oath. See Rameswar Kafyan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan AIR [1952] SC 54: (1952 Cri LJ 547), George L. Wheeler v.
United States, 159 US 523, Krishna Kahar v. Emperor AIR [1940] Cal
182, Ram Hazoor Pandey v. State AIR [1959] A/1409: (1959 Cri LJ
796), Basu v. State of Kera/a [1960] LR Ker 256, and Ponnumani v.
State of Kera/a [1987] (2) Ker LT 1042. Oath or affirmation shall be
made by all witnesses, the only exception being the case of a child
under 12 years of age where the Court is of the opinion that though he
understands the duty of speaking the truth he does not understand
oath or affirmation. If the Court is so satisfied, oath will not be
administered to the witness. The evidence will nevertheless be
admissible (emphasis added).
[33] Menyentuh mengenai isu yang sama juga, Mahkamah Rayuan dalam
menerima keterangan tidak bersumpah saksi kanak-kanak menyatakan di
dalam kes Mohammad Zulkarnain Jemat v. PP [2016] 1 LNS 54, seperti
berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
“[123] It is also to be noted that PW5's testimony was given under oath.
But PW6's testimony was not under oath because prior to giving
evidence the learned Session Court Judge had conducted enquiry
pursuant to s. 133A of the Evidence Act 1950 to determine whether
PW6 was capable of understanding what 'oath' is and whether PW6
was able to understand the meaning of telling the truth under oath.
How ever there is no law that prohibits the Court from accepting the
evidence given in a witness box but not on oath if the Court believes
the evidence to be true. More over such evidence, as in this case, had
been tested through cross examination by the defence.”
[34] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah menjalankan inkuiri dan tapisan yang
teliti bagi menentukan kompetensi SP3 seiring dengan kehendak
peruntukkan seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 sebelum beliau
membenarkan dan menerima keterangan tidak bersumpah SP3. Melalui sesi
soal - jawab yang yang dibuat ini, kami mendapati tidak terzahir apa - apa
kekhilafan yang dilakukan oleh beliau di dalam menerima masuk keterangan
SP 3 ini. Kredibiliti SP3 sekali lagi diuji melalui sesi pemeriksaan balas oleh
peguam Perayu dan nyata SP3 berjaya melepasi ujian tersebut dengan
jayanya. Ini menambahkan lagi keyakinan mahkamah sesyen bahawa SP3
adalah merupakan seorang saksi kanak - kanak yang boleh dipercayai.
[35] Berdasarkan pemerhatian yang dibuat, kami berpendapat bahawa
SP3 adalah seorang saksi yang kredibel dan kompeten dalam memberikan
keterangannya.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
(b) PERCANGGAHAN KETERANGAN SAKSI - SAKSI PENDAKWAAN
[36] Peguambela Perayu membangkitkan isu berkaitan kewujudan
percanggahan keterangan yang diberikan oleh SP3 apabila dibandingkan
dengan keterangan SP2 dan SP5. Percanggahan ini dikatakan sesuatu
yang material sehingga mampu mengugat dan meruntuhkan kredibiliti SP3.
[37] Mengupas mengenai isu percanggahan ini, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi
di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya di dalam kandungan 9 RR Jilid 1 m/s 23-
29 telah mengambil perhatian dan pertimbangan tentang isu pencanggahan
ini dengan menyatakan seperti berikut:
“[29] Seterusnya, peguambela Perayu dalam menghujahkan isu ini
turut membangkitkan beberapa percanggahan yang dikatakan wujud
dalam keterangan SP3 apabila dibandingkan dengan keterangan
saksisaksi lain iaitu SP2 dan SP5. Oleh sebab itu, SP3 dikatakan
saksi yang tidak kredibel. Antaranya SP3 mengatakan nampak
kemaluan Perayu manakala SP2, SP5 dan SP13 mengatakan SP3
telah memberitahu mereka bahawa dia tidak nampak kemaluan
Perayu. Seterusnya SP3 mengatakan Perayu masukkan "angry
bird"nya ke dalam punggung manakala menurut SP2 dan SP5 pula,
SP3 memberitahu mereka bahawa Perayu hanya menggesel "angry
bird" pada punggung. Selain itu, SP3 dikatakan memberitahu kepada
SP2 dan SP5 bahawa kejadian tersebut hanya berlaku kali pertama
kepadanya. Namun semasa di Mahkamah, SP3 memberitahu kejadian
itu berlaku sebanyak tiga kali.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
[30] Dalam memberi pertimbangan terhadap percanggahan
percanggahan yang dibangkitkan ini, saya telah meneliti keseluruhan
keterangan SP3, SP2, SP5 dan SP13. Apa yang boleh diperhatikan
dan dibuat kesimpulan oleh saya ialah tiada percanggahan yang
ketara dalam keterangan mereka. Malah, ada penjelasan berkenaan
perbezaanperbezaan yang dibangkitkan oleh Perayu itu. Jika diteliti
keterangan SP5 iaitu ibu SP3 yang banyak mendengar aduan
daripada SP3 berbanding SP5 dan saksisaksi lain, beliau
menjelaskan bahawa pada mulanya memang SP3 tidak nampak
kemaluan Perayu dan hanya merasakan sahaja kemaluan Perayu
digeselkan pada punggungnya. Namun, kemudiannya SP3
memberitahu SP5 bahawa dia telah berpaling dan bertanya kepada
Perayu mengapa membuat perlakuan seperti itu. Pada ketika itulah
SP3 dikatakan nampak kemaluan Perayu. Keterangan SP5 di muka
surat 21 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2(a) adalah seperti berikut:
“Semasa dia main game, ustaz itu duduk di belakang anak saya. Anak
saya kata dia rasa “angry bird” ustaz itu dekat punggung dia. Saya
tanya dia jika dia ada rasa atau ada nampak. Dia kata dia tidak nampak
tapi dia rasa. Kemudian dia paling dan tanya ustaz kenapa ustaz buat
macam itu. Dia kata ustaz itu cakap "ustaz sayang Alif Iman". Anak
saya kata dia ada nampak “angry bird” ustaz itu."
[31] Selain itu, saya mendapati perbezaan penggunaan kosa kata
perkataan masuk "angry bird" dalam punggung, cucuk konet pada
punggung, letak "angry bird" pada punggung dan gesel "angry bird"
pada punggung yang dinyatakan oleh saksisaksi iaitu SP2, SP3, SP5
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
dan SP13 hanya melibatkan percanggahan yang kecil. Kesemua
keterangan saksisaksi adalah konsisten menunjukkan bahawa aduan
SP3 menyatakan Perayu ada menyentuh kemaluannya kepada
punggung SP3 semasa kejadian. SP3 juga secara konsisten dapat
menjelaskan kedudukan Perayu yang duduk di belakangnya semasa
melakukan perbuatan tersebut. Perbuatan Perayu yang diceritakan itu
memenuhi kehendak elemen dalam pertuduhan. Oleh yang demikian,
saya tidak dapat mencari alasan untuk tidak mempercayai keterangan
SP3 dengan ketiadaan ketidakmungkinan yang wujud (inherent
improbabilities) atau ketiadaan percanggahan yang material dalam
keterangannya itu (rujuk kes PP v. Mohamed Ali [1962] 1 LNS 129).
Apatah lagi percanggahan kecil sedemikian tidak seharusnya diberi
pertimbangan berat oleh Mahkamah (rujuk kes Muthusamy v. PP
[1947] 1 LNS 71).”
[38] Kami juga tidak menafikan kewujudan beberapa percanggahan antara
keterangan saksi - saksi pendakwaan sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan
di atas. Namun percanggahan sebegini bukanlah sesuatu yang
serius/material sehingga boleh memusnahkan keseluruhan kes
pendakwaan. Percanggahan sebegini adalah sesuatu yang biasa terjadi di
dalam mana - mana kes pendakwaan kerana kekuataan kuasa ingatan
(power of memory) seseorang adalah berbeza. Tidak ada seorang saksi pun
yang sempurna yang dapat mengingati sesuatu insiden yang berlaku
beberapa tahun lalu dengan terperinci dan tepat. Namun di dalam kes di
hadapan kami ini, jika diteliti keseluruhan keterangan yang diberikan oleh
saksi - saksi pendakwaan terutamanya keterangan SP3, tidak dapat
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
disangkal lagi bahawa ianya adalah kukuh dan boleh dipercayai walaupun
terdapat sedikit percanggahan yang remeh.
[39] Nas undang - undang mantap berkaitan isu percanggahan keterangan
saksi - saksi yang tidak boleh terlepas pandang sama sekali adalah di dalam
kes Public Prosecutor v. Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No. 2) [1977] 1
MLJ 16 di m/s 19, di mana Mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut:
“In this case different witnesses have testified to different parts of what
had happened or what had been said and also there are, in the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, some discrepancies, as
would be expected of witnesses giving their recollections of a series of
events that took place in 19711973. In my opinion discrepancies there
will always be, because in the circumstances in which the events
happened, every witness does not remember the same thing and he
does not remember accurately every single thing that happened. It may
be open to criticism, or it might be better if they took down a notebook
and wrote down every single thing that happened and every single
thing that was said. But they did not know that they are going to be
witnesses at this trial. I shall be almost inclined to think that if there are
no discrepancies, it might be suggested that they have concocted their
accounts of what had happened or what had been said because their
versions are too consistent. The question is whether the existence of
certain discrepancies is sufficient to destroy their credibility. There is
no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must either be believed
in its entirety or not at all. A court is fully competent, for good and
cogent reasons, to accept one part of the testimony of a witness and
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
to reject the other. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinize each
evidence very carefully as this involves the question of weight to be
given to certain evidence in particular circumstances."
[40] Keputusan di atas adalah selari dengan dapatan Mahkamah
Persekutuan di dalam kes Ong Teng For v. PP [2013] 1 CLJ 39 di mana
Raus Sharif PCA (beliau pada ketika itu) di dalam menyampaikan
penghakimannya menyatakan seperti berikut:
“[33] It is settled law that the credibility of a particular witness and the
weight to be given to his other evidence is manifestly within the
province of a trial judge. In Andy Bagindah v. PP [2000] 3 CLJ 289,
Shaik Daud JCA said that:
There is no dearth of authorities to say that in every case, there are
bound to be contradictions and discrepancies. The question to be
decided by the trial judge is whether those contradictions and/or
discrepancies are material ones so as to strike at the very root of the
charge. It is for the trial judge to consider this since he was the one
who saw and heard the evidence. In the present case the learned judge
concluded that there were discrepancies but those discrepancies were
not material ones. Since this involved the credibility of witnesses, we
held that the learned judge was a better person to decide and an
appellate court ought not to interfere with such findings.”
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
[41] Rujukan juga dibuat kepada kes Pie Bin Chin v. Public Prosecutor
[1985] 1 MLJ 234, di mana Wan Yahya J (beliau pada ketika itu)
menyatakan seperti berikut:
‘“Discrepancies are no doubt present in this case, as they do ostensibly
appear in most cases in evidence of witnesses for the prosecution as
well as the defence. The transcripts of most evidence, when thoroughly
toothcombed by any able lawyer, never failed to yield some form of
inconsistencies, discrepancies or contradictions but these do not
necessarily render the witness' entire evidence incredible. It is only
when a witness's evidence on material and obvious matters in the case
is so irreconcilable, ambivalent or negational that his whole evidence
is to be disregarded.
Forgetfulness and failure to recall exactly certain events, which did not
seem to be important to the witness, do not necessarily shake his
credibility or render other parts of his story unworthy of belief. Various
persons are endowed with varying powers of cognition, attentiveness
and perception, so that it is not uncommon for two witnesses to a
common event to describe it in slightly differing versions.”
(c) KETERANGAN SOKONGAN SP3
[42] Menyentuh isu keterangan sokongan SP3 pula, Hakim Mahkamah
Tinggi di dalam Alasan Penghakimannya di dalam kandungan 9 RR Jilid 1
m/s 23-29 menyatakan seperti berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
“[33] Perayu menegaskan bahawa keterangan SP3 tidak disokong
oleh manamana saksi bebas. Dalam hal ini, saya mengambil maklum
bahawa SP3 merupakan seorang saksi kanakkanak yang masih
mentah yang telah memberi keterangan secara tidak bersumpah. Oleh
yang demikian, keterangan SP3 memerlukan keterangan sokongan
sebagaimana kehendak Seksyen 133A Akta Keterangan 1950 (rujuk
kes Sidek Bin Ludan v. PP [1995] 1 LNS 219).
[34] Dalam hal ini, saya berpendapat keterangan SP2 dan SP5 yang
mendengar SP3 mengadu kepadanya tentang perbuatan Perayu
sebaik sahaja selepas kejadian itu berlaku boleh menyokong
keterangan SP3 untuk mengesahkan kejadian perbuatan Perayu ke
atas SP3 itu benarbenar berlaku.
[35] SP8 setelah menemuduga SP3 di Pusat Temuduga KanakKanak
menyatakan bahawa SP3 dapat menceritakan kejadian yang
melibatkan Perayu dan dirinya sendiri dengan jelas dan terperinci. SP3
dapat memahami soalan yang diajukan dan dapat memberikan
jawapan yang betul dan logik. Keadaan ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa
SP3 konsisten menceritakan kisah yang sama, sehingga menunjukkan
indikasi bahawa aduannya itu benar. Secara tidak langsung,
keterangan SP8 juga menyokong keterangan SP3. Oleh itu, saya tidak
ada alasan untuk tidak mempercayai SP3.
[36] Berdasarkan ulasan bagi keterangan serta keskes di atas, maka
jelas pada Mahkamah ini bahawa keterangan SP3 telah disokong oleh
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
saksisaksi tersebut. Justeru itu, isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Perayu ini
juga adalah tidak bermerit.”
[43] Sewajarnya ditekankan juga bahawa SP3 juga ada menceritakan
kejadian ini kepada SP2, SP4 dan SP5 dan ini disahkan sendiri oleh mereka
di dalam keterangan mereka masing - masing.
[44] Di dalam kes PP v. Mardai [1949] 1 LNS 65: [1950] MLJ 33,
Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:
“It would be sufficient, in my view, if that corroboration consisted only
of a subsequent complaint by the complainant herself provided that the
statement implicated the accused and was made at the first reasonable
opportunity after the commission of the offence.”
[45] Tiada sebab yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu mengapa SP2, SP3 dan
SP5 harus berbohong atau mereka - reka cerita di dalam keterangan mereka
untuk mengaitkan kelucahan melampau Perayu terhadap SP3.
[46] Pembohongan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu ini telah menguatkan lagi
keterangan kes pendakwaan. Mahkamah di dalam kes Kurchang Singh v.
PP [1989] 2 CLJ 442, memutuskan seperti berikut:
“corroboration may come from the other prosecution witnesses or from
the accused. Deliberate lies or incriminating conduct in a material
particular can constitute corroboration."
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
(d) KETERANGAN PEMBELAAN TIDAK BERMERIT
[47] Keterangan Perayu dan SD2 bahawa mereka bersama-sama berada
dalam bilik tempat kejadian untuk menjaga anak kecil mereka yang demam
telah ditimbulkan buat kali pertama semasa kes pembelaan. lanya tidak
pernah dicadangkan kepada SP3, mahupun kepada pegawai penyiasat kes
ini iaitu lnspektor Salwa Asyikin Binti Senin (SP13) semasa di peringkat kes
pendakwaan.
[48] Di dalam kes Ng Tiam Kok & Yang Lain lwn PP [2013] 1 CLJ 632,
Mahkamah Rayuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Ahmad
Maarop HMR (beliau pada ketika itu) menyatakan seperti berikut:
“Bagi kami, jika pembelaan mereka itu benar tidak ada sebab kenapa
mereka telah terlepas pandang untuk mengajukannya kepada saksi
saksi pihak pendakwaan. Keperluan untuk mengajukan (put) kes
mereka kepada saksisaksi pihak pendakwaan bukan sekadar kaedah
teknikal undangundang, tetapi adalah kaedah penting keadilan.”
[49] Kami berpandangan bahawa pembelaan yang dibangkitkan oleh
Perayu dan SD2 hanyalah suatu penafian kosong, pemikiran terkemudian
dan rekaan semata - mata yang tidak menimbulkan apa - apa keraguan
munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan.
[50] Di dalam kes PP v. Ling Tee Huah [1980] 1 LNS 212; [1982] 2 MLJ
324, mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
“The accused’s defence was one of denial. A mere denial without other
proof to reasonably dislodged the prosecution’s evidence is not
sufficient”.
[51] Di dalam kes Megat Halim Megat Omar v. PP [2009} 1 CLJ 154,
Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan seperti berikut:
“Although in our criminal jurisprudence, there is no burden on an
accused person to prove his innocence but merely for him to raise a
reasonable doubt as to his guilt, it is trite that his defence should be
put to the prosecution at an early stage during the prosecution case.
Failure to do so may move the trial court to dismiss a particular line of
defence as an afterthought, or a recent invention as happened in this
case."
KESIMPULAN
[52] Setelah meneliti keseluruhan rekod rayuan dan penghujahan yang
dikemukakan oleh kedua - dua pihak, kami sebulat suara mendapati tiada
terdapat sebarang kekhilafan di dalam keputusan yang di buat oleh hakim
perbicaraan mahupun Mahkamah Tinggi. Kami mendapati tiada merit dalam
rayuan ini. Sabitan terhadap Perayu di bawah seksyen 377(E) Kanun
Keseksaan adalah selamat untuk dikekalkan.
[53] Mengenai hukuman pula, adalah penting untuk ditekankan bahawa
selain daripada kepentingan individu, kami juga harus menimbangkan dan
memberikan keutamaan kepada kepentingan awam. Mahkamah di dalam
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
kes PP v. Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 1 LNS 116; [1976] 2 MLJ 186, menyatakan
seperti berikut:
“In sentencing generally the public interest must necessarily be one of
the prime consideration ... public interest should never be relegated to
the background and must of necessity assume the foremost
importance”.
[54] Di dalam kes PP v. Chung Kwong Huah [1981] 1 LNS 67; [1981] 1
MLJ 316, Mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut:
“the time has come for the courts to show their disapproval by
acknowledging that offences of this kind are grave and serious crimes,
and that those who indulge in them must expect a severe sentence.”
[55] Perayu juga merupakan seorang pesalah berulang (repeat offender)
untuk kesalahan yang sama di dalam kes yang lain. Maka dengan itu, kami
sebulat suara mendapati hukuman pemenjaraan selama 10 tahun yang
berjalan secara berturutan dengan kes TA-42S-13-09/2017 dan 3 kali
sebatan rotan serta sesi kaunseling pemulihan di bawah seksyen 295A
Kanun Tatacara Jenayah sepanjang Perayu menjalani hukuman
pemenjaraan serta 2 tahun pengawasan polis sepertimana yang
diperintahkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dan disahkan oleh Hakim
Mahkamah Tinggi sewajarnya dikekalkan.
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
[56] Rayuan Perayu atas sabitan dan hukuman ditolak.
Tarikh: 6 November 2023
- Sgd -
Azmi bin Ariffin
Hakim
Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia
Bagi Perayu : Firdaus Mohd Yusoff
[Firdaus Mohd Yusoff & Co. (Kajang)]
Bagi Responden : Aida Khairuleen Binti Azli
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
[Jabatan Peguam Negara (AGC)]
S/N mPiL1Oeh6UutogPrm/6IaA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 41,542 | Tika 2.6.0 |
BA-B52NCvC-262-10/2020 | PLAINTIF TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD DEFENDAN O-IN-ONE SHOP SDN BHD | meter tampering-sama ada TNB berjaya membuktikan meter tampering dan berhak menuntut kerugian daripada pengguna berdaftar | 08/11/2023 | Dato' Ishak Bin Bakri | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0e6bef82-910c-450c-a5bb-0bb071836ebc&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 08:34:51
BA-B52NCvC-262-10/2020 Kand. 39
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N gu9rDgyRDEWluwuwcYNuvA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
aA—zs52m:vc—262—1c/2020 Kand.
as/u/mu 2
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN D1 SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERW SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN‘ MALAVSIA
GUAMAN No. BA-B52Ncv<>2e2-10/2020
ANTARA
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD ..PLAINT\F
[No Syankal 199oa1oos29A(2noassw)]
DAN
0-|N»ONE SHOP SDN EHD . DEFENDAN
[Nu Syarikalz 1995om215Au135oB43-M)]
PENGMAKIMAN
Pnngonnlan
1. Plamuf adalah set-uah syarikat berhad yang membekalkan Ianaga
eleklnk den mperbaaanxan an bawah undang-undang Malaysxa dan
memnunyaw mama: berdailar an Pejabal Seuausaha Syankal, Tmgkal 2,
Ibu Pqabal Tanaga Nsswonal Bemsd, No 129, Ja\an Bangsar‘ 59200
Kua\a Lumpur
2, Defendan adalah pengguna berdafiar me\alm No. Akaun Pengguna
5142 220133222504 (barn) bag: sebush prerms yang mempunyaw alamal
:2. No. M, Tmgksl 2, Jalan sp ‘/1, Bandar Saujana Putra, 42510 Jeruamm,
Selangor Darul Ehsan (‘prams |erssbu|”|
3. Pada am semar 4.10 2015, p|a\'nl\fte\ah mehakukan pemenksaan
ks avas pepasangan meter/meter dw premis narsenm flan phalnlll
mendakwa hshawa malnluflelah menemm ke;angga\arI pada pepasangan
SIN wvvwfinzvvwmmwcwwn
um sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
39
-5;
meter d! PIEFNS tersebul‘ amara lamnya. hardapal pendawaian {ems ks
na pengguna |anpa memm meter nagx semua fasa den neu|ra\ a. busbar.
A. Plairml seterusnya msmiakwa bahawa akmat pengusikan dan/ahau
kqanggahn tersehul, ma|er an pram tersshm lldak dsnal bermngu
dengan pawk dan semuuma ssrva gags! merekndkan baman yang taps!
sewanas dengan bekman e\ekInk yang dwbekalkan pada semap masa yang
malsnal
5. Vni bermakna lsrdapal psrbezaan jurmah pads nu-nu serahan safiap
bulan yang dikeluarkan men p\a\nM flan h||-bu sebenar yang sspammya
dlkeluarkan me?! mamur.
a. mamm kemudwannya xerah msmbuac pengvsan den mendapall
terdapal mmxan penggunasn (snags s\ak1nk yang max airekomn
sebanyak RM335,D40 35 urvluk Iempoh dan 14 5.2015 mngga 4 10.2010
tennasuk Kos uperasi dan cukai nenkanan.
7 Me\a\u\ nous-nuns (unmlan benankh 1192020 dan 25.9 2020,
pm 0 manunlut dalendan membayar jurmah Iunlulan Iersebu| kepada
p w. Walau hagalmanapun, defsndan lelah gagaw, enggan darn/avau
wai umuk membua| pembayaran bagi ]um\an (un(u|an |erxebuL
3 Deflendan menaflkan mnuuv/an nlavmdan msmbangknkan pelbagai
isu ssbagaibanlahanlerhadap1umlah|umuIan p\amlIf.
9. semasa pemucavaan. mavllif msmanggfl 5 arang saksx mm Anzal
bun Ashan ISPU. Wan Shareia bin Wan Salleh (SP2), Mona Aswan. mu
sw wvvwyfiuzvvw-muwcvNwA
-.0» smm ...m.mm be 0;... m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
uleh SP3. (Nah flu Nada sebab untuk Mahkamah manmak Kemrangan
spa dan sws bevkenaan jumlah kerugnn yang Ie\ah uixanggung alsn
Mawnlw akibat dari pengusikan pepasangan meter dw premis defendan.
39. Mahkamah mandapau bahawa parunmkkan mm: puma [acre
berkahan psnyata penginaan backbxlling yang msmiakan oish SP4 dan
dwsemak sena dwluluskan olah SP6 Ielah memenuhl syaral perskuan
berdasarkan Seksyen 35(4) Ana Bekalan E\eku'ik1990 seperli bsrikm:
Suam psmyalsaan banulws u\sh sexenmng pekaqa pemogzng Vasen
yang dvpelukm dengnn sempumanya clan psmsaang Iwan atau mana-
mm omnu yam mbeukuasz oxen pamagang man
hendakbh memam kelalangan pnma «nae mengenm pambayarsn
yang kena mom man penggunn an nawan suhseksyen 43).
ac. Dawn kes nn, SP4 yang menyedxakan pengvaan adalah semang
eksekum (bazkbtlling calculatmn) yang (e\ah berkmdmal aengan plainlxl
ss\ama Vebwh kurang a lawn
41, spa nememmaan uazah Sanana Muda Kejuruteraan Elsklnk aan
Elekmznik dan Universm Tsnsga Nasional (UNITEN). salain Ru, beliau
wga velan memaxzni lalman-lahhan dan kursus-kulsus yang manjurkan
o\eh plainm separuang berkludmal dsngan p\a\nM
44 man nu, Mahkamah mendapah bahawa keterangan 394 den spa
wmar anamna memandangkan rnereka rnempakan orang yang
berkelayakan untuk membual pengmian backbr//fng sebegai memenuhi
syaral perakuan bedasarkan Saksyen 35(4) ma Bekalan Eleknik 1990.
an guvrDgyRDEVv\uwuwcvNwA
-naa saw n-nhnrwm be used m van; me nnmruuly mums dun-mm wa mum Wm!
sun. ad: dohndnn mm: pcnggunn herdlftnr dengun pIairIIif7
42 Mahkamah bersstum dengan p\aInM bahawa pengguna yang
berdaflar dengan Mamllf herkenaan dsngan exskuik yang dlbakalkan ke
prerms lersebut adalan delendan‘ Fakla ml hdak dwpemkawkan oxen
dafendsn
43 Plalmil berhujah bahawa plsmlll hdsk mempunyax sebarang
hubungan kunlrak anoara p\ainIN flan penyewa pramls detendan
berkenaan eleklnk yang dmekaxkan xe premls Ielsebut. Hubungan
kormak yang wugud berkenaan bekalan elsklrik Iersebut ada\ah :1. amara
plalnmdan pengguna bordaflar raitu defendan.
44 Vsu ini mun umkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes
Thomas mamas v Tnnaga Nnloml Bnrmd [2017] 4 cu 340 an mana
Mahkamah Rayuzn berseluju dengan kepumsan Mahkamah Tvnggl
aavam T-nag: Naslonal acrhad v Empayar canggih Sdn and
(dahuluny: dlkunnll sohaqai onvn Manuhclurur Sdn End) [2014] 8
MLJ 2&0 sepem berikul:
my Yhnvafon, as car 5; mnsumplian M elenmcixy V/I Ihe vmmses Vs
cnneemed‘ u was me appe\Ianl's sale msponsmny. being the
consumer under Ihe agreement to pay an umiiandlnq chimes due tn
ma. on me waence as «am by on. Vuamod sewons wull nudge and
at amma um. learned mgn Calm judge on avvem, emcmclly ma In
fan um mnsumad Gunny: the period [mm 22 September 200441
uemmnarznov u \s Irvslevzm who ar.1ua\Iy consumed ma alednmty.
my A: we‘: regulated cunsumam 1| was me app-slum‘: respmsflmlly
m emure tnauha meleral me pmrmses was not damaged ov lampersd
mm rm: uespunsmmy re-news mu ms anveflam \7vv\IuhL7u| me
syn wummummwcvnwn
-um Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m van; .. mmny mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
attreunn at me agreemanl umass by his tenancy eereernent wrtn tne
tenant rte had assigned such vesponsvblhly to me Imam Evan men
such agreement meta um {and ma, mm {mm a puny In tn. (Manny
oamsmsm
[22] Thus‘ when tne melarwas aer-aged Orhmvsvod M0! by me tenant
nv tne uewwurwvlh orwrmmn tne eppetmmz penmeeaan or hy Anyone
etee flullng tne agreement mun‘ tne apneuant mus| pay Vor tne
rerwhlnu loss ot revenue suflarsd by ms, ml because tre had anW‘|"fi
m flu wttn tne Iampenng nrdamigs uuwld In me mnlnr bul bbululrfi ne
was bound by agreemenl to My farms etecmty chan:es.T1weIn5s at
revenue under such amumslarrcss mnrrut ran on ms 5 rteea. Tna| wtu
be aroeaty urnatr m ms
45. men mu. adalah jeles bahawa setakan rnena ianya adalah
berkenaan psnggunaan eleklnk at premis defendan, tanya adalah
langgungjawsb dalendan selaku penggune bardafiar di bawah psnanjian
eexeten unluk membayar kesemua ca]-ca] yang perm dibayar at bawah
akaun Iersebut kspada p\aH1lI1. Pletntti Itdak tmteh mengembtl apa-apa
hndakan (emadep penyewe aeterman dlsshabkan ksltadaan konxrak di
aniam plairmfdan penyewa defendan.
4e. Fakla bahawa delendan merupakan pengguna berdafiar bagi
premts tereetaut puga ndak atpentxaiken dan sm mengakui bahawa
penyewa—penyewa premI$ aetenaan hukamah pengguna Vang
mdarurkan dengan me
47. Perelman 3(2) Ferammn-permursn Beketen Pemegang Lesen
mm) memperumukkan bahawa dslendan eetaku pengguna berdevtar
dengan plamtzv ada\ah hertanggungan Immk membayar kepada p\aInM
segale ca] berkenaan dengan pembekalan eleklnk pada premte defendan
N wumrnummrmvnwe
we e.n.t n-nhnrwm be used m van; ...e nrighrnflly mums dun-mm vu mune puns!
yang Iemkru seninggaxan mana—mana sam kqadxan yang dmyslakan an
snu benaku dahulu nu (1) harl ma kellga seleliis defender: |s\ah
memben nous kepadia plainm bahawa delendan \e|ah meninggalkan
prem\s(arsebuta(au(2|l1an berikulnya yang danar mane-mana meter
hendak dnenkukan acau (3) nan danpada penghunl premxs yang
benkulnya mengkehendaki plainllf membekalkan elekmk pads prenus mu
C-1.RemvsrY av e\sc1flc?9/ mamas
(1) A Vlcsmoe may recover hum 2. mnwmlv any chnrga: an. m m
m mm: aims supply alelacmulyy or in msnen Mme supmy and
owns 01 any enacmcrty meter‘ supmy um nr anecmcax equupmam.
n a mnsunux nuns any Dvlmus al mum u\oc1nc\(*/ nu um
wpphud by . huensee wmmm gmng nouns Iharenfl in ma Hnansoe
m mm m is renawad by me Hcensea al lens! was mm-»a flay5
balms he owns ms prsvmm ha mu be nausea vaytha hoensoe
an warns: m vuipea m In: supply 01 s nncrty no me prsmlsss
lcuulng up In wmcneyar M was laI\wMng W3! mama, name\y—
ta) ms mum wnmrv; day ailav rue has amen such nmlca In em
hcenseey
ma rlaxt day an mum me mg»:-gr nr any melav has m be
aseenmned‘ m
the aay horn wmch any subsequent owuvler cl ma
pranum requires me hcemee \o smmy ebcxncwy m me
pmmues
(2)
M
10}
43 Selam ilu, penelman kepada Paraluvan 312) Psra|umn-peralm-an
aekaxan Pemsgang Lem man jugs msnunjukkan bahawa mana-mans
penghuni selerusnya boleh meminla mama! unluk membenkan bekalan
eleklnk ke premis larsebul.
sw wvvvyRDEvv\mmwcvNwA
«-um smm ...m.mm be used m yaw .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm
49 olen nu, seknanya benar defendan nae menyewaken premis
(ersebul kepada penghuni baharu premls, defendan bcleh memnhon unn
sspamxnya memohan untuk menukar nama pengguna berdaflsr kepada
nzma penghum baharu prams dsfsndan.
50. Dawn kes im. adawl ielas bahawa liada sebarang keadaan dahsm
Paraturan 3(2) Pera|urin-peraluran Eekalan Pemegang Lesen 1990
barlaku yang membalehkan dsfendan unluk hsrganlung kepads yang
sama bag! mengelak danpada Lsnggungawabnya unluk membsyar
wmlah tuntuvan panama kepada plamm
51. Namun. dalendnn lelah gags‘ dan/mu cum dan/alau enggan unluk
mamasukan dan/slau menukar nama pangauna bardaflar kanada nama
panyewa se\epas menyewakan premis Ievsehul kspada penyewa. oxen
nu, defendan kekal sebagau plhak yang benanggunmewab ke alas
penggunaan bekman meklrik as pnanns tieflsndan
52. Plainlxl berhuiah bahawa hak unluk beka\an eleklrik bukanlah
amomaux semrang mmvvdu alau sesebuah syarikal hendakmu
memohon unmk dUadn<an sabagai pengguna berdahar berdasarkan
perunmkan di bawah seksyen 2A Akla Bekalan E\!kmk sepem herikul:
24 mama suvmy on r-qum
my sumun lo the Vaflmllng pnws-ions or am Pm and any mgmaunn
mane thereunden . Hcensee shafl upon mung /eqmved m do so Dy
mg miner nv occuulerafalvy Dlem\ses—
ta) Ewe a supmym mnclfluwlo mow nmnu and
(bi K: lar is may bu nouaulw fm ma| hummus‘ Drums wt-W ‘MS
av any e\ec1nc3\ planlarequlvmem
m Where any Derson reuulms 3 suvmy nl a\e::lrh:Ky undsv subsection
SIN wvvvyRDEvv\mnm:vNwA
(1)715 ihafl await: the lbwnsse I now! 5DI:NY‘W'
tame Dmmses m msasa mwmcm the sum ws rsquuea.
an the day an mm. on supphy mqmmd m mmmlnuu,
1:) nu maximum mwwurwmch may be required nuny um, and
Mme mwmum pemu forvmmh ms swbly Vs ruuulmd m be awe
53.
unluk menunjukkan bahawa aevenaan |e\ah memma avau beriaya
Selaruumya, liada kslerangan yang dvkemukakan uleh delendan
memima penyewa unluk memcrmn meter atsu akaun Dam dengan
plamur SD1 sendm mengakm bahawa aemaan fidak memakmmkan
kepada 9 ‘nm mengenai penukzran penghuni premws tersehul ataupun
bahawa premis Iarsebul «elan disewakan kspada penyewa
Sam: ad: mmapan bukll lubol b-mmmmg kt tlnglul :7
54. Dalam kelerangannya, SP2 mendakwa (emapat kabel mam
barsambung ke Imgkal 2 premis defendan semzsa pemenksaan
dualankan a\eh wakwl pmwnlii Delendan pula bemwah bahawa SP2 nanya
msmbuai (uduhan kasong dan liada buku dmam benluk gambar
dikamukakan kepada Mahkamah
55. Sernasa F757!!!-!n)$aan halas. tiedendan mencadangkan bahawa
/eeder pr//ar TNB yang dmji men spz sebenamya Iidak membenkan
sebarang indikasw bahawa arus eleklrik yang dxgunakan adalah unmk
lingkal 2 semala-mats Imam un|uk kenga-uga ungkan bangunan lersebul.
55. Plainlif berhlnah bahawa plamm max dapat mengamhil gambar di
llngkal 2 prerms levsebut kerana Ianya bevkunu.O\eh\tu‘ada1ah musoaml
unmk plamm mengamml gambar Kabel
Aingkat 2 Ianpa memecahkun kuncl umuk memasukl premis tersebm.
m yang disambungkan ke
sw wwmuzvmm...mN..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
57. Walaupun ma gambar diambil unluk menunjukkan lsrdapa| kabe\
hi'am drsambungkan ke lmgkal 2, ndak dapa| mnafiksn bahawa |erdapa1
mm: penggunaan eleklnk yang manumukkin sambungan lerus melalm
busbarTNE dan penggunaan arus nanpa mananm matsr. (‘Nah nu, lardapal
penggunaan e\eklnk secala Iidak sah a4 prerms Iersehm
55. spz dalam kelerangannya menyaukan bahawa nasu ujwan
perhandingan arus yang mlakukan o\eh behsu menumukkan bacaan arus
sebenar bag! fasa merah adalah 1018,0353 kunmg ada\ah 97 5 din lasa
Dim ada\ah mu 3. Bacaan ams sebenar yang '
ak terpapar paaa meter
jelas menuruukkan arus eleklvik masih manganr ma\a\ui meter yang
mdanarkan dengan pengguna.
59
beriainan semasa ujwan parbandmgan tflbual.
Delandan pma Imak menafikan nasu wan perbandingan arus yang
ea Da\am kes Jllu Kunsult Sdn and v Yenugu Nasionll Bhd [2022]
MLJU 3507 Mahksmah Tinggl Ialah mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah
Sasyen adalah belul da\am mamuluskin bahawa «ads kepefluan unluk
pamm mengemukakan hukll bahawa kabel versabm naxk ke Ungkal 2
memnndangkan Kama! bersambung (ems dari meter TNE
may ms Cowl comumad 2 delafled uwaw om» naamnanm given by
Ina P\aInmVa witness“ wm wem M) an. premises In candutl Ihe
Inwntlrun. From ma evidence manned them was p-nor mm wave was
«any n aired hypass made below me sxamsa an we unmna floor The
Mlnesses men teamed m |m3Va:1(ha\|7ma walltunkmg av ma bypass
cams snakmu up Intolhu plarmses mined by an. Delendam u do no|
aD:sp| an. canlsnllun rslwad upan hy aeranaa munsew mac me mnesses
marmy nssumed that In bynass cable want In ma wanaanrn
D\slr1bIlmrv Bax I find mat mm was wnilsluncy In an lvldsnca at line
syn gumDgyRDEvv\wmwcvNwA
-naa saw n-nhnrwm be used m van; me nngwnnuuy mm: dun-mm wa mum puns!
wflnesses an (N: loan may had Ilflmsd man mam was a cibla afixed
balm: ma ms|ar beam mm. bypassed u The came hypnmma me
mmav lands m my me wugmax wnnlualon wnmn Vs (Ml mere wza
umpedm co dlven ma a\a:lrIcm/ nmwy «mm pa-vim lmvwh ltm me\er
board «a a»-on Iowmmsl of scmal anmncny uamumpmen m we
Dvamllu
[171 I am: mm «naz man: 5 amunary no nacaunylunna wimmaa In
sum! mu: KM pvemluss ta lsuanmn mu mawnmm we ante/ad ma
mu Dmribmmn Box mime the P\alnM!'s mamas. u Is smrmanc Ihanhe
ma. mv has sumasamuy woven mac me trunking anyunq «na cable
D'Inais\nw ma mmsv was mad am flowed wmo ma Daremnra
Dfamliss Slrmllfly, mm x: nu nscqssny for ma vnmasse: Ia vmduoe
phmngranhs shawma we came dlrsmy wnnecind to me Dwslnbubon
am. Them Vs Emma ura\ vaaumony fmm an 3 mamas In vmva ma
P\aInlNh dlim nw emanea wan cnnsnslenl mm Ihe demmemnry
evidence an-1H.niHn see my mmive hymen m m\smnmsenlIhalar.1a
As n have said eamar, ma sc.z acoembd lnlwavtdurwa and vuuna lhsm
mama wnnanas
51. D\eh kahe\
dlssmbungkan ks Ilngkat 2 ada\aI1 pengalaan kosung aamaoa-mava.
P\aln|iI Ielah membukfikan bahawa sambungan kabe4 tersebul
ilu. dakwaan de1endan bahawa naua bukh
menumukkan vanya hsrsamhung dari mater pangguna.
62. spz \elaI1 meruelaskan ssmasa pemsnksaan yemula hahawa
bervasarkan gambsr yang dwkzmukakan Mahkamah
menunjukkan Ieedev pillar nombm 2 yang mempunyai sambungan Ierus
pada mater admah mswakil! pramis we-1-2 mmx delendan.
kepada
63. SP2 iuga dalam keterangannya menyalakan me\a\m pemenksaan
'ngka| 1 dan |ingka|
yang behau mankan, beliau Ielah mengena\pas'
aw wmvvyRDEvv\mmwcvNwA
«ma sanaw n-nhnrwm be used m mm was nrW\nnH|:I mm: flan-mm VII mum pm
aawan prerms uahanaan max bemperasidan nanya prennsnngkau 2 yang
menggunakzn beban carsebue.
64. Mahkamah berseluju dengan p\am\W bahawa SP2 adalan semang
jumteknuk benauhsh dan berkernahimn aalam bidang eleklnk dan meter
elakxrik. Berdasarkan kemshiran dan Ialman yang dlperolem alen SP2,
I; u layak dan herupaya mangessn kqanggalan alau pengusikan pada
pepasangen me|er dw prumis defendan. Kerja—kena pemsnksaan yang
dijalankan uleh SP2 dmam kes im merupakan sebahaglan daripada Iugas
hsnan behau.
55. Ma\ahan,t1efendan senmn mengakul semasa pemeriksaan mama
uanawa delendan merupakan pemmk herdaflar dan pemegang akaun
eleklnk unluk kesemmhan hangunan (srsebul. (Nah mu, delendan
merupakan pmak yang berlanggungjawab Ierhadap penggunaan s\eklr\k
secara curang m mana-manalingkal bangunan Iersebutwalaupun keuga—
hga lmgkal bangunan lersebul mempunyal akaun berasmgan.
Sam: ads plaimiflelah melakukan n--nlrm mm?
66. Deiendan mendakwa bahawa dalam |empnh anlzra 1 4.2017
mngga 31.3 2019 semasa premis uelendan disewakan kepada penyewa
yang mxenali sebagax Denlapro Encerpnse, premws lersebul kosong pads
bman Okluber 2017. O\eh nu. seharusnya Dada panggunaan mekmk
deflam bulan Dkwber 2017
e7. Defendan juga man mencadangkan kepada saksi plairml SP4
berdasarkan kepada ml-mu e\ekmk yang dilenma o\eh dedandan, bil-bx!
Iersebm menulwkkan Ifada penggunaan elekmk d1 prams tersebm.
SIN wvvwyfinzvvmwuwcwwn
-ans saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm
ea, Plavnm Dme berhujah bahawa meskipun nada penggunaan eleklrik
dlrekodkan damn bil-bxl elekvrik‘ mi bukan bermaksud liada eleklrik
dlgunakan n\eh pengguna. Tetapl berdasarkan kqanggalan yang
dibuklxkan o\eh p\a\nm, terdapal penguslkan pada meter m prsmis
dslsndan dan plairml man mengalamx kemgian bagx e\ekIrik yang ludak
direkudkan
69.
tidak Iepal ksrana uads penggunaan e\ekmk da\am salu lempoh kslnka
prams tsrsehumdak msswakan. Walau bagaumanapun‘ dslendan semin
Dslenden ma mencadsngkan bahawa pengvaan puamm aaaxan
mengzkm “Eda bum unluk menyokong dakwaan delendan dan defendan
Auga mengakul bahawa aevenaan bukan pakardaiam pengwraan kerugwan
hasxl yang dialamw oleh pxainm.
70. Da\am Kes Tan: 3 Nnlonal Ehd v Brlgm Rlml Manummrmg
Sdn Ehd [2011] 3 MLJ Mahkamah Tmggu menyalakan hahawa rsha bagi
menolak mmuvan p
n ada\ah pemhuknan spesmk dan \epa| sualu
keselahan jelas/man/"fest error pada pengiraan p\aImilo\eh devenaan.
71.
manifest snot herkenaan pengiraan p\amM O\eh im, Pengiraan Amaun
Kerugian Hasd dan Perhemnjaan dan mnnman plainllf wqardwtevlma o\eh
Mahkamah
Dalam kas Inn aevenusn gagal unluk menuruukkan sebarang
72. Da\am kes Tnnlga Nnlonnl Ehd Mn Synrikll Muar quury san
End [2023] MLJU 1557 Mahkamah msnya|akan sspem b
sw wvvwfinzvvwuw-mcvNwA
-um Sum ...m.. WW be .75.. m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm
Daud (SP3), Muhammad Mustaqim bin Zulkufly (SPA) sm Nor Fadzvllah
bum Kadim dan Muhammad Hamw bin Hashim (sue).
«a Defendan iailu um Cheee Swong (SDl)had1r memben kecemngan
sanagax defendan yang msaman da\am lindakan in: sm merupakan
saksw mnggan dan (iada Saks] Vain bag: pmak defendan
K-a nlalnm
11. F'\a\nM menyalakan bahawa terdapsl bum pengusikan pads
meter/pepasangan meter an prams dslendan
I2.
dslsndan darn/avau penghum premis tersebul man menenma manfaal
Pkwltif selerusnya menyatakan bahawa daiendan flan/atau wakn
aanpaaa eleklnk yang (erkurang ca] aklbal daripada penguswkan Iersebul
hingga menysbabkan keruglan kepada plzflnlw.
13.
benanggungmwab unluk membayar mmvan yang dmmlul mar. pxamm
P\ain|i1 menyalakan hahawa defendan sebagai pengguna herdallar
Kn um-man
M.
pengusikan as Vmmws milxk deiendan.
Defender: menyatakan hahawa pwamnr gagal mambuklxkan elemen
<5. nemaan saemsnya menyalakan bahawa uaua buklx pasukan
pemenksaan plaunlxl mamaaum prams menuan.
aw wmvwyfinzvvmwuwcwwn
-ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm In: nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm Va muNG pm
[say Deiendan mm mm gens! memhuknkan hnhawa pengnan
muabm mun sahh alau axoesslva Delendzn wslaupun (shah
maflyllakan bihawi Dfimugasn agak mu dun purvannaan etskmk m
menus mum mm, mun max membulmkznnya upon! dongsn
memhzwz mm mau dukumen pam:.g.a.n W msmhuklikan
Dsmlanaln mun m-ruwl
1:91 Mankamah ml memluk kepadn kes Lei Kam Senna (wprn) yang
mafia Dfluman ax mm ken Im «em. heriaya msmbukflkan ma mas
mangan ksbarungkzlmn bahawa Dav-uusrbnan ke atas vevasanaan
matarlmah beflnku mulzl Navember 2017 berdiurkan bum-um yang
(shah Delendan kemukakan m Mflapan M.mm.n um
[40] 0‘ mm kas nu, Dafandan (flak mmgtmukakan sebarang mu
man dakumsn ynnq mu menqubah kwlan knlufilan ham) yang mm.
mm a\zm| a. dalam kas um Delsndan hnnya belgarflum mm.
klrian wemavvsnya dwbual mar-sumxan mas» ram! can nummyz
pumll din mm yang (Blah Mahlumih nyllzksn ..u.mm ml, mm.
nur-ara adalsh Ismh (spat unluk dwgunakan .1... Hraan im mm m mi
rmmasabah, wak bevtehlhan Ivan salah. mm-k kas Tsrvaaa Nzukznal
and V AWP Erflenpnle |M}5dn aw [zu15|: MLJ 2.
70. sebagm keslmpulan kensda Dersoikan sama ads terdapal manifest
ermr aieh pekeria mam , Mahkamah mendapau bahawa liada manifem
arm: benaya aumkukan o\eh deiendan |srehat1ap pla
Kulmpulan
7:. Eerdasarkan keterangan yang dlkemukakan olsh saksx-saksr,
Mahkamah mendapan hahawa p\amM lelah aaqaya memnukukan, alas
imbangan kebavangkafian, kes wawnlihemadap de1endan
sw wvvvykuzvvwuw-mcvNwA
«ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
74 Oleh Mu, Mahkamah memumskan nmmcan plalnlrf lemadap
defendan dwbenarkan a|as jurlflah yang dmumm ssbanyak RM35§,04l7 35,
iaadah 5% selahun alas iumlah penghakxman bermula dan larikh saman
auankan sehingga Iarikh penyexesaian penuh den kos
75. Kns perbicarasn Im dvlstapkan avas ]um\ah sebanyak RM2c,ouo.oo
dibayar weh usvaman kapada plaunlll.
Berlankn pada 25 September 2023‘
¢;§
(IS AK BAKRI)
Hakmv
Mahkamah sesyen
Pihak—Pmak'
Maizura Muhamed Amin ( Tetuan Mohanadass Parlnersmpj b/p p\am(i1
Cfinlon Nicnowas Gomez (Tainan Raiindar singn Veriah & Co.) blp
ddendan
sw wwmuzvmm...mN..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
13. Delendan sslemsnya membangkilkan isu penggunaan sa1ah
bsrkalvan Amp Tong yang digunskan oleh pasukan pemeriksaan plavmf.
17. Dafendan sexemsnya menya|akan hahawa penenman (ankh
pemmlaan bagv psngmaan jumlah (uvnman mamlil adalah salah.
13‘ Defendan
memberlkan nous awal
seterusnya menyatakan bahawa plairml gagal
kepada delendan sebelum menjalanken
pemeriksaan pada pepasangan meter/meter m premis de(endan
KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH
sum: Ida lerdapak bukll pongusnkan plda poplunnan mum dl
premls dohndan
19. Hasil pemenksaan pads pepasangan meter my premls dslandan,
p w mendekwa bahawa pepasangan melev lelah dmswk kemna
Kerdapal pandawaian yang msambung secara terns ke DB pengguna
tersebul tanpa me\a\m me|er bag: keuga-uga case. di busbar.
20 Fkamlil secerusm menyatakan bahawa pendawsxsn yang
disambung sews «ems ke DB pengguna ada\ah menggunakan kam-
kahel mam disamhung darn busbar TNB darn memasukt |a\uan lvurvkfng
berwama men |anpa melalm meler. ’ni bukan mempakan sebahagian
danpada papasangan meter yang s1am1ard yang mpasang oleh ma dn
mana-mana premis pengguna.
21 Salsx plainm Encxk wan Sharsza bin Wan Safleh (SP2) ialah Kama
Pemenksaan bagi has im. SP2 semasa memberi kelerangan av
sw wumayaumawwaywm
-ma Sum ...m.. WW be used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm y.. mum puns!
Mahkamah |elah menyavakan secara terpennd berkensan penemuan
dan Kejanggalan yang msemuv pada pepasangan meter .1. prsmis
defendan.
22. SP2 dalarn kelerangan menyacakan behau lelah memawukan Lyian
perbandmgan arus menggunakan Amp Tong unluk memeriksa rmai arus
sehenar yang mengalir masuk ks me|er danpada punca hakakan p\airml
dan yang mrekoaxan aleh meter sepeni benkut:
' En}FmaIF
Ami Kunlng
was 5 91 5 m1 .3
Bocaan Am: PapTm’u§35 A 431 n ma
Mmer J
23. SP2 dalam xexerangannya Jugs mengesahkan Ierdapal penguslkan
pada pepasangan meter :1» premls larsebul kemnzi bacaan arus pada
paparan meler den bacaan ams ssbenar an busbar adalah belheza
berbanding aangan kebrasaannya waitu ssnarusnya adalah Iebm kurang
same.
24. Eerkenaan kqanggaian aan/auu psngusikan kepada pepasangan
meter. svz Ielah membsrikan kelelangan sapem benkur
ta)
1??)
maapau su cermmal melamada,
maapau mm bauan ams di paparan meter ada\ah Vshvh
rendah berhandmg mlai bacian sebenar di semua lasa. flan
(c) Ierdapal pendawaian (ems ke DB pengguna lanpa mslalui
mexer bag: semua fasa dan neutral :1: busbar.
sw ,um,,auzvmw...mN..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns!
25.
Kelerangan SP2 Ienlang pengusikan meter dlsckung me1a1ui hukhr
bukln benkul:
16)
lb)
(0)
(db
(6)
(1)
(9!
ganmangambar pemenksaan yang manmu oleh saksl plainm
uamu SP3.
Iaporan yang dwsedvakan ulen SP2 berkenaan penemuan
kabel sambungan Ierus ke DB pengguna da1am Eorang
Pemsnksaan 5. Pengufian Pepasangan Meaer — Arus Penuh 3
Fasa bertankh 4.10.2015.
laporan puns yang mbuat oleh SP2 nombor rumkan Sg.
Jawm/003524118 penemuan pengusnkan
pepaaangan melerdx prsmis aevenuan
Vapamn berkenaan Pernnxmman Semakan Meter Elektnk oleh
ma yang maaduakan olan SP2 benarikh 4 102015,
Vapnran bsrkenaan Surat Pembemahuan Psmanksaan dan
bsrkenaan
Pengujlan Pepasangan Meier ma yang msemakan o1eh SP2
berlankh 410 2018
Vauoran mg uisemakan o1eh spa berkenaan Surat
Pembenlahuan Pengambflan Bahan-bahan sum
1apoPan yang msemakan aleh ss=5 mm Ulasan Teknikal
barlankh 25.11 2018.
26 Damn kes Evorhomo Funicure Manufacturing (M) sun and v
kunsisten dangan
mug. Nulonnl some [2009] e MLJ 715 Mahkamah Tmggu
nlemuluskan bahawa apahlla kelerangan saksi-saksx sdalah Iegas dan
penemuanrpenemuan pengusnkan. Mahkamah
hendakxan menerima kabenaran kelerangan yang amenxan
SIN wuownumnmwavnwn
Nuns Snv1n1nnnhnvw111I>e used m mm na nv1fl1ru11|Y mm; dun-mm wa mnnc wrm
27 Berkanaan dengan xsaeranm saksi-saksw nlavrmi Ienlang bukli
penamuan pengusiksn pad: pspasagan meter. Mahkamah msndapah
kelersngan saks\-Saks: p\aInM aaaxan tags: dsn kansnstsn. mas akaian
unluk Mahkamah menolak aoau meragui Ketarangan mereka.
23 Dawn kes Tonlul N-slonal Borhad v Ail: Knlnhl Bhd
(pnvlausly known as Pnhlnno corp Bhd) [mm 5 MLJ sew
Mahkamah Rayuan mamuluskan sspem baflkul
[111Inuuru:-mdersdopwon,maummwmmovamnu-nauon mam
no me queuimn mum: ma pmmm rm xuunasdad in mm um um
mm Anslmlsflan was eampersa on a Damsal ml me avnsul record, we
ave sansnedmamvara VS unwntruvsnad awdancstcshnwlhalmu msur
mslsflahun had new (armored five mxmvevy av me mag" ccppar
nbien mm. was ‘Mensa 1.. ms msrar Vs mom Iha ram nnmanna
We sales mm lhe suhm-mun ua Named oounsm (av Ina Dlamlm that me
mm. pmduned by me p\z|mlIVf: wluvssu: wuva mn:u|an| Ind
ma.» u was am mrvnbnrsled hy me nmflucmn Mme vholagraphs‘
ms ‘Duran: Mzsslan penanman we Mv/av, ‘sum! Demakluman
iemakan metal‘, ‘rum pembsnlnhuar‘ p-ngammnan bavang key and
palm: pm On um tmnhly ol um evidence we are ol the new mm an
. balance of Dmbahuixles me mam-m had succeeded xn pmvmg Ihsx me
mslevwza lzmvswd,
29. Beldasarkan kepada kelerarlflan saksrsaksi plainmdan buk|i»buk|v
dokumen, admah jelas bahawa pepasangan malerlmeler - premxs
delendan talsh dmslk danlatau dlganggu mamandangkan Ierdapsl kabsl
lzmhahan asmg yang mgunakan umux membenkan heKa\an e\ek(r(K
secara Ierus ks prams defendan danpada sumber bekalan pwamur lanpa
melalui meler iaitu dari mcoming prsmis tersebul
N wwmuzmm..mw..m
um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
70 man mu, maua keraguan bahawa menaan dan/alau waxu defendan
darn/alau penghum premis terssbul (e\ah manamna manlaal daripadn
eleklnk yang lerkurang ca} akwbat daripada panguaxkan lersebm yang
menysbabkan kemgian kepada p\a\n\iY
Jumlall (unlul-n yang uimmm
30. Pliinm berhuyah bahawa akibal penguS\kan pepasangan meter,
melerlerssbul gagal merekodkan bauazn penggunaan e\ak(nk yang belul
dan Hdak selsras dengsn bekilan exmrik yang dibekaikan pada senap
masa yang matene\ kepada delendan D\eh ilu, delendan celan dicay dan
dwsarahkan dengan jumvah bxl yang yam. barkurangan aanaaaa bekmn
e\ek(rik yang msamrkan ke prams dedendan.
31 Benkulan ilu, wsinlxflelah mengeluarkan nolis Iunhnan banankh
I1 9 zuzo yang merupakan pernyataan bemflis msnurul saxsyan 35(4)
Akla Eekalan Elekmk 1990 (“Akla aekaIan') lemadap devendan sebagai
menyckung tunmlan pwamm Lmluk Kehflangan pendapaun plaunuv
32. Esrdasarkan kepada penelilian pernyalaan benuna lerasnun, wa
mangandungl buhr-bum benkul:
(a) a menyaxakan secara spesmk deiendan ssbagaw penguuna
beldaflar,
1») perenggan 3, A can 5 pernyavaan berluhs tersebul menyatakan
;um\ah yang cemuung sebagai RM385,04D 31 dan secara
khusus menyalakan bahawa mmman admah bag: wmlah
kerug\an hasn flan perbelanjsan darn Iumutan dibual
an wVrDyyRDEW\uwuwcYNwA
-naa sanaw n-nhnrwm be used m van; me nrighuflly mums dun-mm wa mum puns!
berdasarkan kepada perunlukan Seksyen am), (4; dan (5)
ma Bekalan Elsklrik 1990‘
1:1) lampuran A menumukkan pecahan Jnmlah mg perlu dibayar
dan gamhar—gamhar penguslkan yang dllemui pad:
Dehasansian meter.
(e) deiendan dxberikan empal be\as (14; hari unluk msmhayar
jumlah yang dmyatakan dalam pernyawan beriuhs levsehul,
m pemyalaan nenuns lekah dnandslangam man pekeria p\ain1I1
SP5‘ dan
lersebut «swab cnakm den duenma o\eh
33.
menenma nous lunlulan banankh 11.
Saks: ddsndan senam Iailu SD1 rnengakux bahawa de1endanIe\ah
2020
34. Beldasarkan kepada pemyalaan berlulus lemabuc, Mamlii lelah
memanuhi hma (5) syaral yang ' ulnrkan nleh Mahkamah Rayuan da\am
kss Torugl N Ional Borhnd v Dunln Ray: Enuarprlsn sun Ehd [2015]
e cm 751 sapem bankul
Farms aw-eH-m m ve\y on nwrillen mumem, me mnmng mus| have
um mace
(G we nnpeflanl must have ca\cn\alad ms loss of VBVEVNI and reduce Il
no a document and wnltnn Iialsmunl.
(M) an EIIVDIWUI and/or dmy anlhnnsed perwn o! In: enpelmm mus|
have perused the dncumem as wen as me wmlen sta|amsnl m wwy
m. mm sxalemenh
(nu ma oumfiaa wmm. statemunt mun mm." mo aamculms slaled in
5 38(4) Of ESA 1390‘
my my . mm mmc.:._ me name More employee at zumnnsud vsrwn
alms avvalmm must appear m the slatumenl and duly um
sw wummuzmm..mw..m
-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm
(V) n 2: menu «armed slmemuu >5 lssusd‘ n needs In be served an mu
mstnmer and n ma cuslumar does now gay, man an ncltnn an be
laksn mu, n \s a uorvdllson nmaaann Iur wnnmmn cl cw man Vn
Ivhanoe ov a as Var Tenaqa In Issue a beamed wrmen stalzmem
nmmding kn xaw, balms mu action can be commenced
35. Oleh nu, Mshkamah memuuuskan bahawa pemyalaan berluhs
p\am(i1 ditenma sebagal kelerangan puma racie mengenal jurmah mg
«ernuxang uleh dsfsndan Kepada plamui bag! kemlangan pendapalan
Yiada keterangan dwkemukakan o\eh defsndan yang msmpemkaikan
pemyalaan banulis pnnnur
Pengirun hag! iumlnh lunlutnn portamn
35. Saks! pnainnvsw dalam ketarangannya menyavakan bahswa beliau
(elah menyediakan Pengvaan Amaun Ksrugnan Hasll dan Perhelamaan
sens C51 Berkawan Akibal Uslkan Papasangan Meier flan dwlumskan a\eh
pegawal acasan behau iailu srs sehagai manyokong mmman p\a\nM
unluk kehllangan pendapalan berdasarkan peluntukan Seksyen 33(3)
Akia Eekalan Emklrik 1§€D(‘Ak(a Eeka\an').
37. sm |e\ah menielaskan secara menysmruh mengenil cara behau
membuat pengiraan bagx namwan lunmtan pxanmf. SP4 jugs (um!
msmbenkan kelerangan bahawa senmng kepulusan mengenal kaedah
penglraan yang tiugunapskal dan can: menenlukan mnkh pevmwaan
penglraan kehelakang ('bar:kb:IImg') amuax berdssarkan perbmcangan
befiau dsngan pegawax axasan belnau lam: spa
as. spa msrupskan plhak yang men)/ed‘ ken penyala pengiraan
backbtlling (ekslbil P2) dam penyam pengvaan -n: disemak dan mnuvuskan
syn gmugyRDEvv\wmwcvNwA
Nuns s.nn ...n.mn be used m van; .. nrimruflly mums m.n.n wa mum Wm!
| 2,901 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
WA-25-248-07/2021 | PEMOHON Tan Sri Dato' Dr. Rozali Bin Ismail RESPONDEN 1. ) Ketua Pengarah / Ketua Hakim Syarie, Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia 2. ) Ketua Hakim Syarie Mahkamah Syariah Wilayah Persekutuan | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application to quash Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia's decision in refusing to direct judge to take conduct of continued trial of nusyuz summons - Whether decision made on question of Islamic law - Whether application went against Art. 121(1A) of Federal Constitution - Whether decision administrative decision based on s. 128 of Syariah Court Civil Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1998 - Whether there was element of public law - Whether there was infringement of applicant's constitutional right to fair trial ISLAMIC ADMINISTRATION LAW – Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 – Section 44 – Whether this Court can direct the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint a Judge of the Syariah Subordinate Court and issue the tauliah | 08/11/2023 | YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=41082860-a752-4ec5-a789-2c50da3913d7&Inline=true |
08/11/2023 12:09:47
WA-25-248-07/2021 Kand. 133
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N YCgIQVKnxU6niSxQ2jkT1w
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
sm Vcuwuvxruunnusxnivknw
WA—25—24E—fl7/2021
Kand.
133
an/mznza 12:09-a7
DALAM MAHKAMAH TIMGGI MALAVA DI KUALA LUMPUR
DALAM WILAVAH FERSEKUYUAN. MALAVSIA
(anrmnmu KUASA.-KuAsA KHA5)
PERMOHON5u §EMA§AN KEHAKIMAN 59 yygzgzas-07/2021
Dalnm parlor: wllu parmahunnn unluk
kebedmran hag! mamohun semaluan
kanaklman elah nu Sn um Dr man am
Vsman
Dan
u. m v-mu Mahkamlh Rsndnh Symuh
Ku aLumvurSamanNo 1wn9—u5a-nw2-
zun (sebemm IN Nu uuuaruseroasw
zomm amara Tan Sn Data‘ Dr Rozalx Em
Vsnun dun Jnslynn Cassandra Emu
Momma!) Fwdaus
Dan
Dnlnm pnvk a lush; permennnan clan r...
Sn um Dv muzan Em ‘small man. swat-
surzl bensnkh 1232021 can 542021
mun mtmbalehkm Tuin mm Sanhmih
Em Hannah terns mendengardan mengamlv
Muhkimlh Randih Syn n Kuala lumvur
Ssman Na M003-053—04D2—ZOI71sebelun
ml No. «oowsamswam
Dan
cam pemam kepmusan uleh Kama
Fanqarah / Kama Hmm Sylvia‘ Jabavan
Kahaklman Syanah Malayiu manm
muse:
Dan
Dalam Derkara Amw 5, 3 dan 121
Psmmbawuan Persekmu-n
n...
Dzlam Delkara ssksyen 25(2) Akm
Mahkamnh Kahuklmsn ws4
0...
x
mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!
Dalim perkara Perenogen 1 mam Jsuuax
kepada ma Mnhlramah xanamman 1964
Dan
Dzdam wxaa Aluran sa Kaedah-Kasdah
Mamummh 2m 2
ANTARA
‘IAN SRI nA1'o' DR. ROZALI am ISMAIL
(NO. KIP: 571109-10-5997)
DAN
1. KETUA PEMGARAH /KETUA HAKIM SVARIE.
JABATAN KEHAKIMAN SVARIAH MALAYSIA
2. KETUA HAKIM sum: MAHKAMAH SVARIAH
WILAVAH PERSEKUTUAN ‘..RESPONDEN- RESPOIIDEN
JUDGMENT
m The zpplncanrs use can be summarised as vonaws.
[2] The 1*‘ respnndent atwvenamed us me D1rec|crGeneral and Chis!
Judge, Deparlmem cl Syanah Judknary Malaysia The 2"’
rssponaem ws me me! Syanah Judge cf me Federal Temxones
131 On 4 52017. the applicant wok oul :4 summons (er msnbemenoe,
known m we Vslamxc Tami y Vaw as nu:yuz('(he nusyuz summons').
agamsl ms second we, Juslynn Cassandra mu Mahamad Fvdaus
(‘Juslymfj at Ihe Kuala Lumpur Syanah Subordinate Cuurl (“MRS
Kuala Lumpur). The sub1ec1 matter a| the MRS Kuala Lumpur was
Ihe afleged moments 0! ammiem behaviour by Juslynn from
5 3 2014 unm 25.4 2m 7.
1
sw VDn\uvKruL1nmSxGZvkY1w
mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm
[45]
[471
lnllrely In agreement wilh lhls line of subrmsslavl. Whal i7 a ma}
judge nalnas? What If a lnal ludge ls incapacnaled or passes away»
What Ihs lrial ludge ls lranslelved. as In (ms case. In a dlflerem
nonju lclal capaclif’
1 5| on me same lnal ludge la oonlinu: hearlrlg a case at all
cosls desplla ll belrlg legally lmpvactcal Is akin lo (mum snoppmg.
Tnls ooun ls not prepared to do so.
Eu: the camplalnl made by me appilcanl Is also on the basis lhal
Tuan Rusdi was lne presmlng judge on lna divorce prooeedings
ln aled by Jus|ylln. Glven such a soenano, Tuan Rosdl IS the same
lnal judge who would praslaa In both (he dlvcwe umcsaamga and
ma wrltlrlusd neanng ofthe rlusyuz proceedlngs. Swen ma nalure
0' [he dlspule bslween (hes: Iwo proceedlngsl whlch lnvolvsd
Islamlc iamlly law, I am of the cnnsldered vlaw ll would bu derslrahle
lay me nusyuz pmoeedlngs to be heard by another luuga other than
Tuan Rasdl
Flnulnga
[43]
In the realm, I am lssulrlg ma lullaunng orders
la) The impugned declslon V5 amenable to lndlcial revlew lo lna
extent than the dlrecllon to velaln man Rosdl Is IaIrl|ed wlln
Wadnasbury lmraasanablerless.
lo; nus coun ls nn| prepared lo lssue an alder larTuan Sallullah
la oonlirlue presidlng an ma nusyuz pmaaauings, Slrlce Tuarl
sanullan ls no longer In (he judlclal service. lne only posslble
mule lor hum lo wnnnue hearing the nusyuz summons IS lor
hlm lo be reappointed by lna Vang di-Parluarl Agorlg. on me
reoommandatlon oflhe Chief Swnah Judge under a 44 allna
AIL Aal. Hallowed. an order M lnls nature would mean lnal
lhal «ms coun uarl «men the Vang Perluarl Agnng ll)
appulnl Tuan sallullan as a Judge nuns Syarlah Subordinate
com. 4 do nal mink nus Court has me power to do su.
(C) However, as I Indlcaled eanlar, lne dlclate of a falr lnal
raqulna ma nusyuz case to be heard by another judge al
campalanl luflsdlchcrl ulnar (hm Tuarl Reid: and I so under
11
am V5fi\QvKnxUln|SxGZlkY1w
“Nana Smnl nuvlhnrwm be u... w may he nflfllnnllly snn. dnuuvlnnl VII munc wax
(.1) All other reliels sought by me apphcanl are aasmssea
To lhal mam‘ Ihls Judiclfl review appli
[491 There snaH be no order as no costs
Ynrlkll: 3 Mnvlmbu 2023
LA
(WAN mum mam am wm SALLEH)
Hakum
Mahkamah Tlnggl Kuzla Lumpur
Pumwplak
Eauv Hhak Pemohon um an n Kmm raaznan hvnlv Mona hm
zrmm mun Md snmnme Ma um
Dun Van max mm cum Kay ow.
m u.,.nm.x Hung bun Damal Lang
T:|u.nnCK Llm uw Dvamhus
Eng» Fmuk Ruxwnd-n Ahmad Harm hm NBNIDIW a Mm sn:
mmmmaa Smhluuddnn bm Maw 75
Janaun Flwlm my mum.
:2
sm Vcuwuvxruunnusxnivknw
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
lion ws uarny avowed.
[4]
[5]
[5]
[7]
[5]
[91
H0]
[11]
aeiore me final disposal of tne nusyuz summons, Justynn had nieo
en application tor eontirniatien oi diuoroe tpengesahan carat)
(‘canflmtaliun uldlvotce summons“jon is 5 mi 7 al |he MRS Kuala
Lumpur. The riusyuz summons was assigned to Judge lzzal Syazll
bin Mursnid t-men lzzal“) II was fixed tor tne firsi mention belave
Tuan Iual on 25.5.2017
on 11.9 2017, Tuan Izzat ordered mat .lustynn's oonfirlvla|t0rl el
dtvama Summons be disposed ct lintt. The attendant consequence
of that direction is that the nusyuz summons is stayed.
Aggrtevad by the stay order, tne applicant tiled en applicahon at itio
Kuala Lumpur syariah High CourI1“MTS Kuala Lumpur)to review
tne said decision. The review application was allowed by the Mrs
Kuala Lumpur consequently, the rmsyuz summons was ordered to
oe tieard oeture another iudge at the MRS Kuela Lumpur.
The nusyuz summons was then assigned to oe heard oelore Judge
soilultah Bin Hamzati (‘Tuan sailullow). After the pleadings and
other cause papers, including the bundles of documents, had oeen
exhausted. the rlusyuz summons pmceeded to trial petore Tuan
sailulleli. The trial commenced on ta.t2.2o17 lor numerous days
intermittently tor more than 30 days until 22.10.2019
in the meantime. Juslynn‘s oanfirmallon at divorce summons was
dismissed by MRS Kuala Lumpur on 4.5 zulla
During the trial dltne nusyuz summons before Tuan settulluh, the
applicant and three other witnesses completed their evidence.
voluminous documents were produced dunno ttie trial The
applicant finally closed his use on 310 2019.
on 4.10 2019, Justynn nled tier wnness statement and bundle ol
documents
In the course pl tne eontrnued Irlal, Jttslymt applied lor the notes oi
evldencai which appllcaflnn was sallowsd by ‘man saitullah. on
tu.1o 2019, Justynn filed an appication at the MTS Kuale Lumpur
to review men sailullatrs decision to dismiss hel appllcaltnn lor ttie
notes a1evldenoe(“JusIynl't‘s review appli lion")
1
srw VD1]lQvKnxUln|SxGZlkT1w
«war. s.n.i nunhnrwlll be u... M may i... aniimiiu MIMI dnuunnnt n. nFluNG mi
[12]
[13]
[H]
[15]
[16]
Unlormnatew, man sanuuan was unamo to proceed wnn the
oonlmued lnal cl the nusyul summons after 4 VI) 2019 as he was
Iranslenad tn tha prosacuhon dnvman 07 the Attorney GefleI1|‘!
Chambers mcsc") When man sawuuans transfer came to me
aoouoanrs knowiedge, ma aoonoan: insuuoned nis syanan oounse:
In apply In the AGC to release Tuan Salfullah so that he may
continue with the trial and adjudicafion 01 the rmsyuz summons.
By a letter damd 201! 2019. the AGC stated Iha| it had no
amectinns |u man sawuuan ralummg to the MRS Kuam Lumourco
oandude the hearing o« the nusyuz summons sumaox to the
cnndlhun that Ms “tau/ish“ as the wdge at me MRS Kuala Lumpur
was extended
The nusyuz summons was ass\gnad lDJudge Huzwan Bin Mohamed
Nnr (“Tuan zwan“) The continued tnal 07 the nusyux summons
mu mt resume betcre Tuan Huzwan, u was adpumed (or about a
yeav pending the outcome nfJus1ynn‘s review apouaauon behave mo
MTS Kua\a Lumpur on the osue or the notes of Dmeeedmgs.
man Hlzwan was men (ransfervsd and rephaoed by Judge Room bm
Hanapx (“Tuan Roam on 17.3 2020 The rmsyuz wmmons was
caued up (of menuon before Tuan Rosdi tor the firsl ume on
3 112020, more man one year altar ruan sa-ruuan was (tanstevrad
to the Ace. Dunng the me on olthe me. me aoolicanrs Syariah
unwise! made an app ‘canon to have Tuan sanuuan to continue
hoanng and adgudncaling the nusyux summons. Tuan Rusm
ouannsseo the appl «on on me ground that man sawuuan needed
me requisite ‘1auliah'to continue hearing the nusyuz summons. He
man auoccou var the ms! to oonnnuo to be heard belcre mnn.
me mal at the nusyuz summons proceeded uonxe Tuan Rosa. on
3 1| 2020 and 6.12021 wwth the axammalmn VI me! and cross—
examination of Juslyrvl, On 12.1 2021. the continued cross-
exammauon of Juslynn was ad)oumsd as me aooucanc nad
Instmcmd hi Syariah counsel In file an Ipplicalinn tor the vecusal
of man Rosdi on «no grounds at aven|s Dual transpired m ano|her
sepamte Wuoeedlng taken out hyJustynn at me MR5 Kuala Lumpur
(-me dworce proceadmgs") pursuant to s 47 oi ls\anuc Family Law
(Fsdera\Tamtories)Ac|198-1 was heard by Tuan RUSH!
o
am VDu\uvK:uunnusxGZvkT1w
“None sum nmhnrwm o. u... w my n. annn.uu mm: dnuumnl wa mum v-ms!
[17]
[181
[19]
12°]
[21]
Foiiowing ma application fix rewsal oi Tuan Rosdi in ma nusyuz
summons, ine apphcanl, Ihvough ms soiuoimrs. apphed to me 1*‘
nssponflem. vide ianer new 12,: 2021. to nava Tuan Saflullah
iesumas hearing and adjudlcaling ine rmsyuz summons l‘lha racau
application") The naiumi oansequsnce oi allowing ine reaau
|pp||ca|inn wuuld require me iaspamanis and/M lhe syanan coun
io pmcure me lauhah lar Tuan saiiuueh |o haar me nusyuz
summons. There was no response imm me 1“ respondent
By a leller daled 54.2021. ma apphcant renewed ms aluesaid
application According Ia ma applicant. the men sppnaeuan was
the M0 Wailers dated 12.3.2021 and 5 4 202\ above was plemlsed
on me following grounds
(3) The nusyuz summons had reached an idvlncsd scaga before
Tuan saimuan with lhe campisiion onna piainmrs case
in) Tuan saiiunah had me advanlage oi seeing and neanng ma
piainmrs wiinesses and ma demeanour oi |he witnesses He
is better positioned to appreciate me lacls before mm and to
complete hearing ol ine nusyuz summuns.
As ammea in eai1ier.Ihe AGC had no obpeclions is releasing Tuan
saiiuuan lor nasnng me Kuala Lumpur Nusyuz Summons sumem |o
ihe requuemeni oi a vaiid "IauIi‘aIi“.
By a iener aaieu 14.4.2021, me 1-’ iesponueni. lhruugh his cum
registrar. reiecled me applicanfs recau anfllicalicn (‘the -mpugned
Decision‘). The Said leaner inter alia states as ioumvs:
Suhubungan denaan nu. Jlbavzn m kekal
dengnn pendinan sepem yang Izrdalvuiu
s.n.».. minim bicam sebegaiman: ying iann
dipelselujkl one» peguarwpequam kedua-dun
belah pm barmwn kn: .n. .un isms anmai
Gan dlpmuskzm fli hadavan beiiau [man may
Hui-rail.
Aggneved. me appiicant commenced this name: review ilpplicannn
inter nlia my me ieiiwing orders
(a) A deuarauon man he appiicenis iundameniai ngmsio have a
is" man and to a law procedure under Ans 5(1|and 8|1)olme
5
sm VD1]\QvKnxUlnGxGZikY1w
“Nair s.n.i ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he min.u-y mini: m.n.n VII mum Wm!
Federal oonsululron have been violened by lne impugned
Decision.
0.) A dlrecllan in one nature 0! cerlloran la qoasn lne impugned
decision
(:2) A drreonion in ma non cf a write! mandamus no conroen nne n-
respondenn to appruve and allaw me recall applicsllorl.
Id) A lurlherdlrecllan in nnelorrn Ma wnn oi mandamus |a mmpel
lne respondenns no lake all necessary steps, including but non
nlrnrled lo inc prowremenl of a valid leulian no enable Tuan
sanullan no lesunre lneanng and adjudicane ins nusyuz
summons.
(el A dnreonron in nne lcnn cl e wrl| oi oernnaran no quasn Ihe
dnvorce proceedings an me MRS Kuala Lumpur.
[22] Leave no commence judicial review was granled by inns coun on
17.1.2022.
Thu Judicial Review
[231 This acclicauon ivr judicial review is succarned bylheamdanvii olnne
app‘ ann in End 3 (‘AIS-3"). rnere were vanous exchanges oi nne
affidavils bslweern the parties, which will be referred IO as and when
me need arises.
[24] Learned counsel lov the applicant submitted that the appllcenfs
challenge to the impugned decision Is not a challenge on the
uuesllon at Islamic law. Ralher, lhe avpllcanlqueslloned the lemsal
07 \he 1‘ respondent 10 cause Tuan Saflullah (0 resume hearing of
lne nusyuz summons. Ancooming no learned oounsel, me relusal
vlola|es lne aoollcenrs guaranleed rlgh| under Ans 5 and a on nne
Federal Conslllmian
[25] The line 07 submission V1 learned counsel lav me appllcarn Is that
mis Coun has supervisory nurisorctnon Learned counsel relied on
me majority yudgment at me Federal courn In Iki Pull: bin
Muburak VKII-jun Nuqorl Sollrlgar 5 Anal [2021] 1 MLJ :2:
Fc. Tonoku Malmun CJ‘ In delnvenng Her Ladyshnos ludgmenl, neld
s
snn VDuluvKnxunnisxGZlkTlw
“None s.n.n nuvlhnrwm .. u... w may i... nflnlnnflly mini: dnuuvlnnl vu .nuus v-mxl
lhal In llghl of lhe ludgmerlis 01 Federal Court In Slmonyih Jayn
Sdn Bhd v Fenlildbir ranalr naeraii Hulu Lnngal and another
can [2017] J MLJ 551 FC and Irldlrl Glndhl I/p Mmha V
Perlgarih Jatman Aglnll man. Pnrak is Drs and othur lppuls
[2a1a] 1 ML: 545 rc, in all cases, me civil superior couns retain
supervisory ]unsdtc|larl ' h ts lnhelenl in their lunctlon under Ans
4(1) and 12I(1)aflhe Federal constitution.
[26] Secondly, laamed counsel invitao this Calm to draw a oisunoliori
between the law ilssll and the enlorcerrient or such law. The
extension ol the argument is that the validity M the law does not
aulornalioally render the enlorcanieni action valiu, ll Funllullona
Sdn Bhd 5 Anor Mn ./abalan Ag-rm mun Salangor A Dr:
[2013] 5 IIIIJ lm CA.
[27] Thiroly, the applicant ounlanded that the responderns are
eonsroereo public authorities wripse uecisions are arrienatzle to
iuoiaial reuiew within the purview ol 0 53 more Rules pt Calm 2ol2
(“R06”).
[251 The line at argumenl ol learned counsel is that the \“ respundenl
has a duly to protect the applinanfs tunoaniantal riglila guaranteed
under the Federal Conshlullcn
Art 5(1) ul the Federal Curlsmuflon
[29] Art 511 ) at the Federal constitution prouioes lnat no perscln sliall be
deprlved at his live or personal Itberly save in acooroanoe with law
Learrieo oounsel tor the applicant suhmllled that the provision in Art
511) is wlde enuugh so as to pover the protection at a ps1san‘s lile
in the wioest sense or his persona rty in the wldesl sense. These
rights may not be deprived save in accordance with the ac1mn or a
public aulnonty that is iair both in point olproosdure and substance:
see Ln Kwln won v PP [zone] 5 MLJ 3411 re.
[an] Aoocrdlrlg In learned counsel, the applicant's constitutional right to
«air trial was violated sin
la) The trial had gone on (or more than 30 days am the appltcanl
had closed his case Yuan saitullah had the auoiouisual
r
srn VCn\QVKnxLllnlSxGZVkY1w
«nu. a.n.i In-vlhnrwm be ii... a may i... aiiiii.ii-v MVMI dnnnvlnrll VII .riunc wrul
advanlage ol accessing the demeanour ol lne aoplioanrs
witnesses,
(o) I115. lnerelore. in me rnleresl onne applicant and Juslyrln lo
nave Tuen sallullan oonnnue oresrdlng over me pan-heard
one o! ine nusyuz summnrls slnoe ll nas reeened an
advanoed siege.
(E) in any evenl, lne AGC nad perrnrned Tuan sallullen lo
oonllnue hearing me nusyla summons
[SI] Given ine advanced siege dl ine ddnllnued lrlal ol ins nusyuz
summons and me permission granled by lne AGC, learned oounsel
suhmlfled lhal no reasoneoleaulnoniy seized wlin lnese iacls would
nave made me irnougned decrelon me: me 1" respondenr dld
132] Learned oounsel inen qussllonefl lne assenlon made by ine 1"
respondenl III ine l4.4.2u2l leiier (1ne lmpugned lellerl lnel lne
syariah counsel (or me applicant nad purponedly agreed in Tuan
Rusdl presiding lne nusyuz summons, ll lndeed mere was sum an
agreement, lne appllcanl would not nave argued lor ms recueel due
to me volenllal odnliiei ol irneresl
[33] in any eveni, according lu learned counsel, lire eoollcani nad a
legrirrnale expec1a|iun1ha|Tuan senullan would conllnue hearing
me nusyuz summons urnll ils conclusion.
The nspondentf response
[34] In objecllng Io lnls ludimal review alalzluztlon, me learned senior
Federal counsel (“SFC“) suhmifled met me conduct 0! lne nusyuz
prooeedrngs before ine MRS Kuala Lumpur IS wilnln lne iurlsdloliun
and power o1 Tuan Rosdi. II ls me eonlenlron ol the learned SFC
lnel lhls coun has no junsdlcllon lo intervene slnoe lne uonducl ol
the nusyux pmcesdmgs is not amenable |u ludlclal ruvlew
srn VDuluvKnxL1nrlsxGZlkTlw
“None Smnl mnlhnrwlll r. o... m min r... oflnlnnllly sun. dnuuvlnrll wn .nuno vlmxl
[35] My atlenlion was lnan drawn to An 12I|1A) cl ins Fedmal
constitiilion llpiovides:
The edirns Manse in in Clause iii snail have
nu junsdlalnn in iespeu nlnny nnilerwilninins
iunsd-aionoiina Symiah Dfillfl!
rlia learned src submitted trial I mead lne applicam is aggrieved
wilri Tuan Rosdis decision In ponlinue presvaing wiln lna trial. he
applicanl should have mallenged the said decision pursuant |o s
51(1) oi lna A in slraticn pl Islamic Law (Federal Tainloilas) Act
1993 (“AIL Ac1)or an appeal under s as M liia same
[35] According lo the learned SFC, the mere lactlnatall syanari Judges
in Kuala Lumpur are public senranls does not render their actions
amenable to judicial review by are civil courts
[37] In so iei as me righl of are applicarll to a lair lnsl IS poncamad, lne
learned SFC submllled ltial lne ngnl lo a lair tnsl does not include
a ilgrit to have me case lieard pelone tne sanie iudga tram me
heglnnlng unlil |he end, reg-idlue clwliat tiappena. By exlensloni
me last ttial ltie nusyuz summons was not continued to be presided
by ‘man sailullan does not ainoiinl lo a uiclaiion nllne nglit |(: a lair
trial.
Thu Annlyull
[as] nie cerilral issue more me I believe, is wnatner ina impugned
leIIe( is amenable le iudicial renew. The approach in deleniiining
lne issue is, in my mind, llrsl up idenuiy wnetnei lne decision is an
Idmlnishaliva one or a judicial ene. Para 3 of the BE mpugnad
letter states as (allows:
Walnu pun bnunu suavu tmdakzrl miai man
dhual se ra Denladhlmn mgi nlrlgenal vast:
kn lsieaaiii dan me pnli ban-wu Did: as
Nuvemhal zuza, kes in. dlsehm bagl sambung
ind... di iiaaapan riaxini uiaaia ham iaiiir man
Rdsdi Hanlpl caiaian mahkarllah pada ulikh
leieeirut nieniiriiiisiinn tuiiawa alas paiseiuiuan
ptfiunm-pawulm ledul-dua mini piniili
uaiselulu ties Ielsebm dlsambulg uicaia di
ludlplrl naiilni aiaara ssuapninim klhlndak
9
SN VDuluvKrlxUln|SxGZlkY1w
“Nair s.ii.i nuvlhnrwm be in... M vufly i... nflnlnnllly siiii. dnumlnril Vfl nFluNG Wm!
uksvnrl \28 ma Talacam Mal lMnhk-nah
Syanan Wflaynh-Wlhyah wareemuanl ms.
[39] to begin wrln, me 1' respondent conceded |haI he was exercising
his admlrllslrallva f|JVIC1lnnl This can be sun when he employed
lne words “sualu lindarran wajer relan dmual secara perlladblrarl“
wnlon danores lhal wnalever decision he made was in lne
adm Ira|ive capaclly. In short, the 1" respondent was nO|
exercising a judrclal lunonon
[AD] In lne errcunrelaneael me issue 04 a revision oy or an appeal In me
ms Kuala Lumpurdoes nol ansa. llrevlslon or appeal 15 me proper
avenue‘ me 1*’ respondenl would have said so in me lmnugned
laller
[41] slnoe the impugned deo on was made in lne admlnlslrauve
capacity, I! is amenable lo ,u reral review under 0 53 onne ROG
[42] But even ll we assume «or one momenl met me impugned decision
was made In me iudlcral caoaellyl is n elrll arneneole no in oal
review The learned SFC was ollne View lhal ll I! not He relied on
An l21(1A) at me Federal Consll|u|l0rl.
[43] on me olner nand, relying on /id Pulre, learned oounsel for me
appllcanI,su|1ml!1ed|haI|hls coun nae lnalurlsdiolron The learned
cruel Jusxioe, in Her Ladyshlp's ludgmeru VI Ikl Pulra, reierred la
lndna Gandhi ln Indira sarrdrn, me Federal courl held that olauses
(I) and (1A) oi Arl lzl oi lne FC rllualrale lnal bum lne evil and
Syariah coune ed-exlel rn lhelr respaeliva spheres, even ll lney are
rsslrrnlar in lne extent of lneir powers and lurisdlwon. Thus, me
arnendmenl needing a (1A] in N1 121. aooardrng no me Federal
coun. did nor ousl |ha iunsdlollon ollne uvll couna, nor did l| eonler
judicial power on me syarlan courls.
[441 Now, having and man whal is me gisl oi the complaint oi lire
apolicanl? The applicant‘: oornplarrn 15 mal he would not be
accorded a [all lrral In me rlusyuz proceedrngs and mac lrns had
lnlrlnged his eonsmurional ngnl under An 5.
[45] However. as l alluded to earlier, me learned SFC conlended met a
lair «rial does nel include a nghl id have lne case heard berore me
sarne ludge lronr |he beginning unlil lrre end will: respeell I am
ID
am VDuluvKnxL1nnlsxGZlkT1w
«nu. a.n.l nuvlhnrwlll .. u... m min r... nrwlrrallly MVMI dnuuvlnrrl v.. .nuue WVM
| 1,621 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
BA-A53F-13-11/2020 | PLAINTIF ROZITA BINTI MOHD FAJAR ALI DEFENDAN 1. ) HABIBULLAH @ REMY BIN BAKTIAR 2. ) ROMLI BIN ISHAKPIHAK KETIGA1. ) ZAWIYAH BINTI ABDUL SHUKOR 2. ) DATO' DR. ABDUL RAZAK BIN KECHIK 3. ) PENDAFTAR PERTUBUHAN MALAYSIA | Kontrak perkhidmatan, sama ada defendan gagal menyiapkan kerja-kerja, sama ada berhak menuntut kesemua jumlah yang dibayar oleh plaintif kepada defendan | 08/11/2023 | Dato' Ishak Bin Bakri | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=72e3463e-2cb8-4eed-94d6-aa2c51a31db7&Inline=true |
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI SHAH ALAM
DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
GUAMAN NO: BA-A53F-13-11/2020
ANTARA
ROZITA BINTI MOHD FAJAR ALI
(NO. K/P: 630910-08-5012) …PLAINTIF
DAN
1. HABIBULLAH @ REMY BIN BAKTIAR
(NO. K/P: 780916-10-5807)
2. ROMLI BIN ISHAK
(NO. K/P: 670329-02-5717) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN
DAN
1. ZAWIAH BINTI ABDUL SHUKOR
(NO. K/P: 570623-08-5886)
2. DATO’ DR. ABDUL RAZAK BIN KECHIK
(NO. K/P: 480128-02-5625)
3. PENDAFTAR PERTUBUHAN MALAYSIA…PIHAK-PIHAK KETIGA
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
08/11/2023 08:43:07
BA-A53F-13-11/2020 Kand. 80
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
1. Plaintif adalah seorang individu dan mempunyai alamat penyampaian
di Blok E-P-1, Villa Duta Condominium, Jalan Bukit Mulia 2/1, Taman Bukit
Antarabangsa, 68000 Ampang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
2. Defendan pertama adalah seorang individu dan mempunyai alamat
penyampaian di No. 15, Jalan 1/8B, 43650 Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor.
3. Defendan kedua adalah seorang individu dan alamat penyampaian di
Lot 5229-10, Batu 26 ½, Kampung Jenderam Hilir, 43800 Dengkil, Selangor.
4. Pihak Ketiga Pertama juga adalah seorang individu dan mempunyai
alamat penyampaian di Ibu Pejabat Briged-Briged Malaysia (“BBM”) di No.
92, Jalan Bangsar, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. PKP juga adalah mantan
Setiausaha Agung BBM Kebangsaan.
5. Pihak Ketiga Kedua juga adalah seorang individu dan mempunyai
alamat penyampaian di No. 74, Kg Melayu, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor
dan merupakan Presiden Briged Bakti Malaysia. Pihak Ketiga Kedua tidak
memasukkan sebarang kehadiran terhadap Notis Pihak Ketiga yang
difailkan oleh defendan-defendan.
6. Pihak Ketiga Ketiga ialah Pendaftar Pertubuhan Malaysia yang
bertugas di Jabatan Pendaftar Pertubuhan Malaysia dan mempunyai alamat
penyampaian di Aras 8 & 9, Blok D7, Kompleks D, Pusat Pentadbiran
Kerajaan Persekutuan, 62546 Putrajaya.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7. Defendan-defendan walau bagaimanapun telah memfailkan Notis
Pemberhentian bertarikh 9.3.2021 terhadap Pendaftar Pertubuhan Malaysia
yang dinamakan sebagai Pihak Ketiga Ketiga.
8. Melalui saman dan pernyataan tuntutan plaintif bertarikh 23.11.2020,
plaintif mendakwa bahawa pada 31.8.2020 defendan pertama dan defendan
kedua (“defendan-defendan”) telah bersama-sama mengarang dan
menerbitkan fitnah yang merujuk kepada plaintif melalui surat rasmi Briged
Bakti Malaysia Cawangan Selangor (“BBMS”) yang dihantar kepada
Presiden Briged Bakti Malaysia (“BBM”), Dato Dr. Abdul Razak b. Kechik
dan disalinkan kepada seluruh cawangan utama BBM termasuk Yayasan
Al-Khalifah yang merupakan majikan plaintif.
9. Defendan-defendan pula dalam pembelaan mereka menafikan
tuntutan plaintif dan memfailkan Notis Pihak Ketiga terhadap Pihak Ketiga
Pertama dan Pihak Ketiga Kedua dan Pihak Ketiga Ketiga.
10. Semasa perbicaraan, plaintif dan Pihak Ketiga Pertama (“PKP”) telah
memanggil empat (4) orang saksi memberi keterangan iaitu Noor Syahida
Binti Shaharuddin (SP1), Nur Nadhirah Binti Abdul Majid (SP2), Zawiah Binti
Abdul Shukor (SP3) dan Rozita Binti Mohd Fajar Ali (SP4)
11. Defendan-defendan pula memanggil dua (2) orang saksi iaitu
Habibullah Bin Bakhtiar (SD1) dan Romli Bin Ishak (SD2).
Prinsip undang-undang
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12. Berdasarkan kepada prinsip undang-undang, plaintif perlu
membuktikan elemen-elemen tort fitnah yang didakwa dilakukan oleh
tdefendan-defendan. Dalam kes Ayob Saud v Ts Sambanthamurthi
[1989] 1 CLJ 152 Mahkamah telah menyatakan elemen-elemen tersebut
seperti berikut:
In our law on libel, which is governed by the Defamation Act 1957, the burden of
proof lies on the plaintiff to show (1) the words are defamatory; (2) the words refer
to the plaintiff; and (3) the words were published.
13. Dalam kes Raub Australian Gold Mining v Hue Shieh Lee [2019] 3
CLJ 729 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa elemen-elemen di atas perlulah
dipenuhi dan dibuktikan oleh plaintif terlebih dahulu sebelum beban bukti
untuk membangkitkan pembelaan beralih kepada defendan.
KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH
Sama ada kandungan surat tersebut merujuk kepada plaintif dan telah
diterbitkan?
14. Sama ada kandungan surat tersebut merujuk kepada plaintif dan telah
diterbitkan, kandungan surat tersebut mengandungi butir-butir seperti
berikut:
MEMORANDUM GESAAN: MENUBUHKAN SUATU JAWATANKUASA
SIASATAN PENYALAHGUNAAN KUASA DAN PELANGGARAN ATURAN
PERLEMBAGAAN BRIGED BAKTI MALAYSIA (BBM) OLEH:
1. ROZITA BINTI MOHD FAJAR No. KP 630910-08-5012
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2. ZAWIAH BINTI ABDUL SHUKOR No. KP 570623-08-5886
2. Gesaaan ini dibuat kerana BBM Selangor telah mendapati bahawa kedua
dua individu yang berkenaan telah terlibat dan bersubahat terhadap
perkara perkara berikut:
a. Salahguna Kuasa Dan Peraturan Kerja Pertubuhan BBM:
i. Kedua-dua pemegang jawatan BBM Pusat iaitu Cik Rozita Binti
Mohd Fajar Ali dan Puan Zawiah Binti Abdul Shukor telah dengan
sengaja tanpa kebenaran;
1. Memproses borang keahlian BBM Selangor;
2. Meluluskan permohonan keahlian BBM; dan
3. Memuatnaik data keahlian BBM Selangor.
Kedua-dua individu ini telah melakukan kesalahan demikian walaupun
mereka menyedari dan memahami bahawa kerja-kerja tersebut bukannya
didalam skop tugas hakiki mereka yang dibenarkan oleh Perlembagaan
BBM kepada mereka berdua dan juga, mereka berdua tidak pernah
diberikan kebenaran melakukan kerja-kerja tersebut oleh BBM Selangor...
b. Memunggut wang yuran Pemohon Keahilan BBM Selangor:
i. Kedua-dua pemegang jawatan BBM Pusat iaitu Cik Rozita Binti
Mohd Fajar Ali dan Puan Zawiah Binti Abdul Shukor telah dengan
sengaja memungut wang yuran Pemohon Keahlian BBM Selangor
(daripada kira-kira 79 orang pemohon) secara tidak sah, dan
menyembunyikan maklumat wang yuran tersebut daripada
Bendahari BBM Cawangan Selangor...Wang tersebut dimaklumkan
telah dimasukkan akaun BBM Pusat, bukannya BBM Selangor.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Sayugia diingatkan bahawa Tindakan Mengambil Milik dan Menahan Yuran
Keahlian BBM yang dipungut atas nama BBM Cawangan Negeri Selangor
adalah suatu pelanggaran terhadap AKTA PERTUBUHAN 1966 FASAL 9
(f) dan merupakan kesalahan yang boleh didakwa dimahkamah dan
diseksa".
c. Memalsukan Maklumat Rasmi Keahlian BBM Selangor
i. Kedua-dua pemegang jawatan BBM Pusat berkenaan iaitu Cik
Rozita Binti Mohd Fajar Ali dan Puan Zawiah Binti Abdul Shukor
telah dengan sedar dan sengaja memalsukan rekod Keahlian BBM
Negeri Selangor di mana mereka berdua telah memuatnaik (upload)
atau mengarahkan kerja memuatnaik rekod Keahlian Pemohon BBM
Selangor yang belum diluluskan, didalam sistem rekod Keahlian
BBM".
7. Hasil makluman yang kami terima serta siasatan yang dibuat, adalah
dipercayai bahawa kerja-kerja pemalsuan keahlian BBM Selangor melalui
tindakan MEMPROSES, MELULUS dan MEMUATNAIK (upload) NAMA
AHLI KE DALAM SISTEM REKOD KEAHLIAN BBM ini dilakukan bersama
secara sedar oleh:
a. Cik Rozita bt Mohd Fajar Ali; No. KP: 630910-08-5012 yang
mengaku dirinya sebagai CEO BBM dan telah mengarahkan
kakitangan perkeranian BBM yang berkaitan memuatnaik nama-
nama tersebut kedalam sistem rekod keahlian BBM.
8. Urutan dari kerja kerja pemalsuan keahlian BBM ini, pihak Urusetia
BBM Selangor telah mengesan melalui aduan awam dan mendapati
penyamaran diri yang sangat membahayakan BBM Selangor oleh
dua orang “ahli tidak sah” iaitu yang bernama:
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
a. PRABAKARAN A/L KESAVAN, No. KP 680810-08-6603-
yang menyamar diri sebagai Pengarah Bantuan dan
Sumbangan Korporat BBM Selangor dengan memakai
Pangkat Lt Kol (BBM).
Serta
b. MUZIZAT BIN ABD MANAN, No. KP: 760406145071- yang
menyamar diri sebagai Timbalan Pengarah BANTUAN dan
SUMBANGAN KORPORAT BBM Selangor dan memakai
pangkat MAJ (BBM).
10. Urutan dari pemalsuan keahlian (ketika aduan dibuat kepada
Urusetia BBM Selangor) dan penyamaran ini juga, Pihak Polis Diraja
Malaysia telah menghubungi Urusetia BBM Negeri Selangor dan
memaklumkan mengenai beberapa rekod jenayah orang yang
berkenaan yang juga sedang diburu oleh pihak Polis Diraja
Malaysia.
16. Sehingga menanti keputusan JK Siasatan, BBM Selangor menuntut
supaya kedua dua ahli BBM tersebut iaitu Cik Rozita binti Mohd Fajar
Ali dan Puan Zawiyah binti Abdul Shukor digantung tugas di dalam
BBM, serta merta dan jika didapati bersalah, Mesyuarat AJK Pusat
BBM hendaklah memecat keahlian kedua-dua mereka dari BBM”
(Secara kolektif dirujuk sebagai “pengataan-pengataan tersebut”).
15. Ternyata defendan-defendan telah merujuk kepada plaintif dan PKP
dengan menamakan plaintif dan PKP secara peribadi. Oleh itu, adalah jelas
dan tiada keraguan bahawa plaintif dan PKP adalah individu-individu yang
dirujuk dalam Memorandum tersebut.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16. Defendan-defendan sendiri turut mengakui semasa pemeriksaan
balas bahawa Memorandum tersebut berserta kandungan dan pengataan-
pengataan di dalamnya adalah merujuk secara khusus kepada plaintif dan
PKP.
Sama ada pengataan-pengataan tersebut disebarkan kepada Pihak
Ketiga?
17. Memorandum tersebut dihantar kepada Presiden BBM Kebangsaan
dan disalinkan kepada Yayasan Khalifah yang merupakan majikan plaintif
dan Tetuan Saiful Kasri & Associates.
18. Defendan kedua dalam pembelaannya menafikan bahawa beliau
terlibat dalam membuat hantaran ke dalam kumpulan Whatsapp BBM
Kebangsaan tersebut tetapi sebaliknya defendan pertama yang
bertanggungjawab membuat hantaran tersebut kepada Pihak Ketiga.
19. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tiada keraguan bahawa Memorandum
tersebut telah disebarkan kepada ahli dan jawatan kuasa BBM dan Yayasan
Khalifah
20. Defendan-defendan juga bertindak membuat hantaran Memorandum
tersebut dalam kumpulan Whatsapp BBM Kebangsaan pada 18.9.2020
yang mempunyai 145 ahli termasuk plaintif dan PKP di dalamnya. Ini diakui
sendiri oleh defendan pertama semasa pemeriksaan balas.
21. Tiada keraguan bahawa defendan pertama dan kedua adalah
pengarang bersama Memorandum tersebut yang telah disebarkan. Ini
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
dibuktikan melalui tandatangan kedua-dua defendan pertama dan kedua
pada Memorandum tersebut.
22. Defendan pertama dan kedua mengakui bahawa mereka
sememangnya mengarang dan menandatangani Memorandum tersebut.
Oleh itu, Mahkamah mendapati defendan pertama dan defendan kedua
telah menyebarkan pengataan-pengataan di dalam Memorandum tersebut
kepada Pihak Ketiga.
Sama ada pengataan-pengataan tersebut mengandungi fitnah?
23. Sama ada pengataan-pengataan tersebut mengandungi fitnah,
Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Presiden BBM Dato Dr Abdul Razak telah
memaklumkan kepada mesyuarat bahawa beliau telah memberikan
jawapan bertarikh 14.9.2020 kepada defendan pertama dan defendan kedua
dan menyangkal dakwaan tersebut dan menyatakan bahawa tomahan-
tomahan yang dibuat terhadap plaintif dan PKP adalah tidak berasas dan
tidak benar.
24. Seperti yang direkodkan dalam mesyuarat bertarikh 3.10.2020,
walaupun jawapan sudah diberikan oleh Presiden BBM, Memorandum yang
membuat dakwaan tersebut masih ditularkan di WAG BBM Kebangsaan
pada 18.9.2020 jam 15:05pm.
25. Minit mesyuarat tersebut bertarikh 3.10.2020 telah merekodkan
seperti berikut:
5.0 Hal-hal Lain
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5.1 YDP Terengganu membawa perhatian mesyuarat bahawa AJKP perlu
bertindak atas ‘Memorandum Gesaan’ yang membuat tuduhan yang serius
dan berat terhadap AJKP, iaitu Rozita binti Mohd Fajar Ali dan SUA Zawiah
binti Abdul Shukor, yang sudah ditularkan dalam grup WA Kebangsaan,
grup YDP negeri-negeri dan juga Yayasan Al-Khalifah (Perdana utama
BBM dan majikan bagi Cik Rozita, selaku CEO Yayasan Al-Khalifah.) TDP
Pahang juga memberitahu mesyuarat bahawa beliau pun telah menerima
memorandum tersebut.
Pengerusi mesyuarat, Presiden BBM Dato Dr Abdul Razak memaklumkan
kepada mesyuarat sebagai Presiden BBM, bahawa beliau telah
memberikan jawapan bertarikh 14 September kepada Tn Habibullah bin
Bakhtiar dan Datuk Romli bin Ishak, kedua penuduh yang menulis dan
menyebar Memorandum tersebut untuk menyangkal dakwaan tersebut,
bahawa tomahan-tomahan yang dibuat tidak berasas dan tidak benar.
Walaupun jawapan sudah diberikan, Memorandum yang membuat
dakwaan yang berat itu masih ditularkan di WAG BBM Kebangsaan pada
18 September (Jam 15:05).
Cik Rozita, sebagai ahli AJK BBM Pusat, dan CEO Yayasan Al-Khalifah,
mengambil berat tentang tuduhan-tuduhan yang berunsur fitnah (termasuk
pemalsuaan/fraud, mengutip duit yuran dll) yang sangat ketara mencemar
reputasinya dan reputasi SUA Zawiyah Abdul Shukor. Dia juga tidak ada
bantahan jika AJKP menubuhkan jawatankuasa sisatan atas tuduhan-
tuduhan berat ini, dan memaklumkan kepada mesyuarat akan segala
tuduhan ini adalah tidak benar sama sekali dan menganggap memorandum
ini adalah fitnah yang besar terhadap dia dan terhadap SUA Pn Zawiah
Abdul Shukor.
Memandangkan jawapan Presiden yang bertarikh 14 September 2020 tidak
diambil endah oleh penuduh-penuduh, malah tuduhan itu ditularkan juga,
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
maka mesyuarat mengambil maklum bahawa Cik Rozita akan mengambil
tindakan undang-undang ke atas kedua-dua penuduh ini: Tn Habibullah bin
Bakhtiar dan Datuk Romli bin Ishak. Menurut beliau, kalau jawapan
Presiden BBM tidak mencukupi, penuduh-penuduh akan dituntut untuk
membuktikan tuduhan-tuduhan yang dibuat sewenang2nya itu di hadapan
hakim mahkamah. Tetapi adalah lebih wajar penuduh-penuduh lebih takut
berhadapan dengan Allah SWT atas fitnah yang disebarkan.
Tindakan: SUA akan memberikan cabutan minit ini kepada penuduh dan
postkan kepada grup WA AJKP
Keputusan:
Presiden memaklumkan bahawa lantikan TDP BBM Selangor yang dibuat
pada 15 Februari 2020 tidak sah. Oleh itu, Dato’ Seri Paduka Ramle bin
Mat Dali dilantik sebagai Pemangku BBM Selangor sehingga Mesyuarat
Agung akan datang. Perkara ini menepati Perlembagaan BBM.
26. Berdasarkan kepada pengesahan individu tertinggi iaitu Presiden BBM
dan direkodkan dalam minit mesyurat, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa
plaintif-plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan, atas imbangan kebarangkalian
bahawa pengataan-pengataan yang terkandung dalam Memorandum
tersebut adalah tidak benar dan bermaksud secara biasa dan adalah fitnah
terhadap plaintif-plaintif.
Pembelaan defendan-defendan
27. Berdasarkan kepada kes Raub Australian Gold Mining (supra)
apabila elemen-elemen fitnah libel telah dipenuhi dan dibuktikan oleh plaintif,
maka beban bukti untuk membangkitkan pembelaan beralih kepada
defendan.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28. Berkenaan tuntutan plaintif, defendan-defendan telah bergantung
kepada pembelaan-pembelaan justifikasi (plea of justification), komen
berpatutan (fair comment) dan kepentingan awam.
29. Dalam pembelaan dan tuntutan balas defendan-defendan, mereka
mendakwa bahawa mereka telah menjalankan siasatan dan mendapati
bahawa plaintif dan PKP terlibat dalam salah laku dan jenayah yang
melibatkan BBM. Defendan-defendan secara bersama-sama telah
mengarang Memorandum tersebut dengan niat supaya Presiden BBM
menyiasat perkara tersebut.
30. Merujuk kepada kes Noor Asiah Bte Mahmood v Randhir Singh
[2000] 5 CLJ 407) Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa prinsip undang-undang
bagi fitnah “libel” adalah jelas bahawa suatu pengataan fitnah (libel) tidak
bergantung kepada niat pengarang/pemfitnah pengataan tersebut.
31. Oleh itu, niat dan tujuan defendan-defendan bukan satu isu yang perlu
diberi pertimbangan oleh Mahkamah. Isu yang penting ialah sama ada
pengataan-pengataan dalam Memorandum tersebut secara sifat
semulajadinya boleh terjumlah kepada fitnah terhadap plaintif dan PKP.
32. Meneliti kepada penggunaan bahasa pengataan-pengataan dalam
Memorandum tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa sekiranya dibaca,
adalah difahami bahawa pengataan-pengataan dalam Memorandum
tersebut membawa kepada tuduhan-tuduhan berat terhadap plaintif dan
PKP. Pengataan-pengataan tersebut bukanlah suatu aduan sepertimana
yang dibangkitkan oleh defendan-defendan dalam pembelaan mereka.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33. Sekiranya benar terdapat siasatan dijalankan seperti yang dinyatakan
dalam Memorandum tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati tiada bukti yang
menunjukkan bahawa defendan-defendan pernah, sebelum penerbitan
fitnah tersebut pada 31.8.2020, mendapatkan atau cuba untuk mendapatkan
klarifikasi dan penjelasan daripada plaintif dan PKP sendiri berhubung
dengan tuduhan-tuduhan tersebut. Sebaliknya defendan-defendan terus
menerbitkan Memorandum tersebut.
34. Oleh yang demikian, pembelaan defendan-defendan untuk justifikasi
penerbitan dan penerbitan semula pengataan-pengataan fitnah tersebut
yang didakwa berdasarkan siasatan mereka yang diterbitkan dan
disebarkan kepada PIhak Ketiga gagal dibuktikan oleh defendan-defendan.
35. Plaintif dan PKP berhujah bahawa defendan-defendan langsung tiada
berniat untuk mengesahkan kebenaran pengataan-pengataan mereka
sendiri dan hanya berniat untuk bersama-sama mengarang dan menerbitkan
serta menyebarkan pengataan-pengataan fitnah tersebut berhubung plaintif
dan PKP.
36. Walaupun plaintif dan PKP menafikan penglibatan mereka seperti
pengataan-pengataan dalam Memorandum tersebut, defendan-defendan
tidak pernah dalam mana-mana pliding mereka mahupun semasa
perbicaraan mengemukakan bukti-bukti atau keterangan berhubung dengan
penglibatan plaintif dan PKP dalam salah laku dan jenayah yang didakwa
oleh mereka.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37. Defendan-defendan sebenarnya tidak mempunyai apa-apa
pembelaan terhadap tuntutan plaintif dan oleh itu memfailkan Notis Pihak
Ketiga yang sebenarnya tidak ada kena mengena dengan tuduhan
defendan-defendan. Pihak Ketiga Kedua langsung tidak terlibat dalam
mengarang, menerbitkan dan menyebarkan Memorandum tersebut malah
Memorandum tersebut ditujukan kepada Pihak Ketiga Kedua.
38. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pembelaan justifikasi dan komen
berpatutan gagal dibuktikan memandangkan tidak ada kebenaran dalam
pengataan-pengataan defendan-defendan dalam Memorandum tersebut.
Plaintif dan PKP sebenarnya tidak terlibat dalam memproses dan
memuatnaik senarai keahlian, memalsukan keahlian serta memungut yuran
keahlian secara tidak sah seperti yang didakwa oleh defendan-defendan.
39. Dalam kes City Team Media Sdn Bhd v Saravanan Murugan [2020]
1 LNS 1906, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa pembelaan komen
berpatutan tidak boleh digunakan terhadap defendan yang gagal mematuhi
keperluan di bawah Aturan 78 Kaedah 3 (2) KKM.
40. Pengataan-pengataan yang diterbitkan oleh defendan-defendan
tersebut bukanlah komen tetapi penegasan fakta yang jelas tanpa bukti
bahawa plaintif dan PKP telah mengutip yuran keahlian secara menyalahi
undang-undang, memalsukan senarai keahlian atau mengarahkan
kakitangannya untuk memuat naik ahli yang tidak diluluskan atau
membenarkan ahli baru yang mempunyai rekod jenayah menyusup masuk
ke dalam BBM.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41. Berkenaan pembelaan defendan-defendan berdasarkan kepentingan
awam, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa hal ehwal dalaman BBM yang
dirujuk dalam pengataan-pengataan dalam Memorandum tersebut bukan
kepentingan awam. Sekiranya defendan-defendan mempercayai
pengataan- pengataan merekat, mereka sepatutnya membuat laporan polis
memandangkan dakwaan defendan-defendan merupakan kesalahan di
bawah Kanun Keseksaan dan Akta Pertubuhan yang boleh dihukum dengan
hukuman penjara.
42. Oleh itu, pembelaan defendan-defendan bahawa Memorandum
tersebut adalah berdasarkan kepada kepentingan awam gagal dibuktikan
oleh defendan-defendan.
Lain-lain isu.
43. Berhubung keahlian defendan pertama dan defendan kedua dalam
Briged Bakti Malaysia Negeri Selangor (“BBMS”) yang menggambarkan
mereka adalah Setiausaha dan Pengerusi BBMS, mereka bukanlah ahli
BBMS berdasarkan surat Presiden bertarikh 14.9.2020 yang jelas
menyatakan bahawa Briged Bakti Malaysia (“BBM”) tidak mengiktiraf
pelantikan mereka sebagai AJK Kanan BBMS.
44. Kandungan surat President diperturunkan di sini.
Saya dengan hormatnya merujuk kepada perkara di atas dan ingin
memaklumkan bahawa saya tidak perlu melayan surat Dato’/tuan kerana
BBM tidak mengiktiraf pelantikan tuan sebagai AJK Kanan BBMN Selangor.
Tuan menyatakan tuan menjunjung perlembagaan BBM, tetapi hakikatnya
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
tidak. Mengikut perlembagaan BBM, Yang Dipertua, Setiausaha dan
Bendahari Negeri dilantik oleh Presiden tetapi pihak tuan telah
membelakangkan presiden dalam perlantikan penyandang-penyandang
ini.
45. Perenggan 3 surat Presiden menegaskan bahawa kuasa
jawatankuasa BBMS telah luput tarikh dan pelantikan jawatankuasa baru
termasuk defendan-defendan sebagai Setiausaha dan Pengerusi BBMS
tidak sah:
3. Isu pihak pusat memproseskan borang keahlian BBM Selangor.
Tuan sedia maklum tempoh kuasa JK BBMN Selangor yang lalu adalah
untuk sesi 2017-2019. Pada tahun 2019 BBMN Selangor tidak
mengadakan Mesyuarat Agung Tahunannya (MAT) untuk melantik JK baru.
Ini telah disahkan oleh ROS Negeri Selangor dan seorang mantan ahli
EXCO Kanan BBM Selangor sesi tersebut. Mengikut ROS dan penasihat
undang-undang kami, JK untuk sesi tersebut tidak lagi berfungsi dan kuasa
yang ada hanya diberi kepada mantan Setiausaha untuk memanggil MAT
sahaja. Saya telah mengarahkan mantan Setiausaha Agung untuk
menghubungi mantan Setiausaha BBM Selangor bagi mengatur MAT untuk
tahun 2020 mengikut perlembagaan BBM. Walau bagaimanapun, arahan
saya tidak dilaksanakan dan pihak BBMN Selangor telah mengadakan MAT
tanpa pengetahuan saya. Saya patut hadir dalam MAT ini kerana pertama,
saya adalah ahli BBMN Selangor tetapi tidak dijemput (ramai lagi ahli yang
tidak dijemput) dan kedua saya selaku Presiden yang mempunyai hak
untuk melantik 3 orang pegawai EXCO Kanan BBM Selangor
memandangkan MAT kali ini ada lantikan JK.
46. Defendan-defendan sendiri mengaku semasa pemerisaan balas
bahawa nama mereka tidak wujud dalam senarai keahlian BBMS pada
tahun tahun 2017 sehingga tahun 2020.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
47. Berkenaan isu dua (2) individu yang mengutip dana menggunakan
nama BBMS, Presiden menyatakan melalui suratnya bertarikh 14.9.2020
bahawa perkara ini telah selesai di mana BBM telah dihubungi oleh pihak
polis dan kedua-dua individu tersebut telahpun meletakkan jawatan dan
keahlian BBM mereka.
48. Berkenaan isu keahlian baru BBMS, Presiden juga dalam surat yang
sama bertarikh 14.9.2020 menyatakan bahawa BBM Pusat telah
menguruskan kemasukan ahli baru BBMS memandangkan BBMS tidak lagi
berfungsi ketika iselaras dengan Perlembagaan BBM.
49. Dalam keterangannya, defendan pertama menyatakan bahawa beliau
telah menemubual staf BBM Pusat tetapi beliau tidak mengemukakan
sebarang bukti. Ternyata defendan pertama hanyalah mengeluarkan
kenyataan kosong semata-mata tanpa bukti sokongan.
50. Defendan-defendan sendiri yang mana adalah jelas telah
menandatangani Memorandum tersebut. Plaintif dan PKP juga
menghujahkan bahawa perbuatan defendan-defendan menggunakan
kepala surat (letterhead) BBMS adalah dengan niat jahat (malice) untuk
memberikan kesan dan impak maksimum berhubung pengataan-pengataan
fitnah didalamnya terhadap plaintif dan PKP.
51. SP2 dalam keterangannya menjelaskan bahawa ketika defendan
pertama menghubunginya berkenaan muatnaik keahlian BBMS, SP2
menjawab perkara ini adalah atas arahan Ahli Jawatankuasa BBM Pusat
termasuk Presiden. SP2 menjelaskan bahawa beliau menyebut nama
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
plaintif dan PKP hanya kerana didesak oleh defendan pertama dan sekadar
ingin menamatkanperbualan kerana didesak oleh defendan pertama dan
bukan mengesahkan plaintif yang memuatnaik keahlian BBMS tersebut.
52. Sekiranya benar defendan-defendan berniat baik, mereka tidak perlu
menyebut dan merujuk nama plaintif dan PKP jika mereka sendiri tidak pasti
dan memohon siasatan dijalankan ke atas plaintif dan PKP.
53. Malahan defendan-defendan mempertikaikan surat Presiden bertarikh
14.9.2020 atas alasan ianya pra-matang dan tidak memadai diputuskan oleh
Presiden tetapi harus diputuskan melalui penubuhan jawatankuasa siasatan
seperti yang digesa. Walau bagaimanapun, defendan-defendan kini
bergantung kepada surat Presiden bertarikh 14.9.2020 untuk membenarkan
dakwaan-dakwaan mereka terhadap plaintif dan PKP.
54. Plaintif dan PKP berhujah bahawa defendan-defendan tidak boleh
blowing hot and cold dan approbate and reprobate terhadap surat balasan
Presiden bertarikh 14.9.2020 apabila mempertikaikan surat tersebut dan
kemudiannya bergantung kepada yang sama untuk mempertahankan
tuntutan mereka (lihat Boustead Trading Sdn Bhd V Arab Malaysia
Merchant Bank Berhad [1995] 4 CLJ 283)
55. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, PKP menyatakan surat tersebut telah
dihantar kepada defendan-defendan pada 14.9.2020. Oleh itu, dakwaan
defendan-defendan bahawa surat tersebut tidak dihantar kepada mereka
adalah dakwaan kosong semata-mata.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
56. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, defendan pertama bersetuju bahawa
plaintif tidak terlibat dalam memproses keahlian seperti yang didakwa dalam
Memorandum tersebut.
Notis Pihak Ketiga
57. Berdasarkan kepada keterangan di Mahkamah, Mahkamah mendapati
defendan-defendan gagal membuktikan bahawa mereka berhak kepada
indemniti atau sumbangan daripada Pihak Ketiga seperti yang
diperuntukkan di bawah Aturan 16 Kaedah 1 (a) KKM 2012.
58. PKP ialah Setiausaha Agung BBM manakala Pihak Ketiga Kedua ialah
Presiden BBM dan Pihak Ketiga Ketiga ialah Pendaftar Pertubuhan. Mereka
langsung tiada kaitan dengan fitnah libel yang dikarang bersama dan
diterbitkan oleh defendan-defendan berkenaan plaintif dan PKP.
59. Tiada perkaitan atau nexus dalam undang-undang untuk sebarang
kemungkinan indemniti atau sumbangan oleh Pihak Ketiga untuk fitnah libel
yang dilakukan oleh defendan-defendan terhadap plaintif dan PKP
Ganti rugi
60. Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa plaintif telah memenuhi tiga (3)
elemen utama yang dinyatakan dalam kes Ayob Saud (supra).
61. Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa pengataan-pengataan fitnah tersebut
telah merosakkan reputasi plaintif dan PKP berdasarkan respon dan
maklumbalas dalam kalangan ahli kumpulan Whatsapp BBM Kebangsaan
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
yang berlarutan selama beberapa hari. Malah, isu ini juga telah dibangkitkan
oleh YDP Terengganu dalam mesyuarat bertarikh 3.10.2020.
62. Berdasarkan bukti dokumen dan keterangan saksi bahawa reputasi
plaintif dan PKP sememangnya terjejas dan tercemar. Pengataan-
pengataan dalam Memorandum tersebut adalah pengataan yang membawa
maksud perbuatan jenayah oleh plaintif dan PKP.
63. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, plaintif menyatakan bahawa kumpulan
Whatsapp BBM Kebangsaan bukan kumpulan tertutup atau confidential
tetapi sebaliknya adalah untuk semua ahli BBM termasuk penderma. Oleh
itu, penerbitan oleh defendan-defendan adalah penerbitan kepada orang
awam atau pihak ketiga lain yang bukan sebahagian daripada BBM Pusat
seperti yang didakwa oleh defendan-defendan.
64. Adalah jelas dan self-evident bahwa Memorandum tersebut tidak
dipadam dan masih kekal disitu berdasarkan tangkap layar kumpulan
Whatsapp BBM Kebangsaan.
65. Dalam kes Dato’ Kamaruzaman Muhammad Arif v Rasidah Abdul
Rahman [2023] 7 CLJ 19 Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan tuntutan
plaintif dan menetapkan ganti rugi sebanyak RM200,000.00 dibayar oleh
defendan kepoada plaintif di mana plaintif merupakan seorang peguambela
dan peguamcara dan merupakan senior partner firma guaman
Kamaruzaman Arif Amran & Chong.
66. Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan pengataan-pengataan melalui surat
rayuan defendan bertarikh 23.02.2016 yang ditulis kepada Menteri Besar
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Selangor pada masa itu iaitu Dato’ Seri Mohamed Azmin bin Ali merupakan
pengataan-pengataan fitnah dan defendan gagal membangkitkan apa-apa
pembelaan bermerit.
67. Plaintif dan PKP berhujah bahawa tingkah laku defendan-defendan
terhadap plaintif dan PKP sepanjang perbicaraan tidak menunjukkan
penyesalan dan adalah wajar mereka diberikan gantirugi yang setimpal
untuk membersihkan nama dan reputasi mereka.
68. Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa nama dan reputasi plaintf dan PKP telah
tercemar dan pengataan-pengataan fitnah telah tersebar kepada pihak
ketiga dalam jumlah yang besar.
69. Mahkamah juga bersetuju bahawa defendan-defendan tidak
menunjukkan sebarang penyesalan dan pengataan-pengataan fitnah yang
disebarkan tidak dipadamkan oleh defendan-defendan.
70. Walaupun jawapan sudah diberikan, Memorandum yang membuat
dakwaan yang berat itu masih ditularkan di WAG BBM Kebangsaan pada 18
September (Jam 15:05).
71. Dalam minit mesyuarat bertarikh 3.10.2020, telah direkodkan bahawa
plaintif mengambil berat tentang tuduhan-tuduhan yang berunsur fitnah
(termasuk pemalsuaan/fraud, mengutip duit yuran dll) yang sangat ketara
mencemar reputasinya dan reputasi SUA Zawiyah Abdul Shukor. Malahan
plaintif juga tiada bantahan jika AJKP menubuhkan jawatankuasa sisatan
atas tuduhan-tuduhan berat terhadap beliau dan memaklumkan kepada
mesyuarat akan segala tuduhan ini adalah tidak benar sama sekali dan
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
menganggap memorandum ini adalah fitnah yang besar terhadap dia dan
terhadap SUA Pn Zawiah Abdul Shukor.
72. Minit mesyuarat tersebut juga merekodkan bahawa memandangkan
jawapan Presiden yang bertarikh 14.10.2020 tidak diambil endah oleh
defendan-defendan malah tuduhan itu ditularkan juga, maka mesyuarat
mengambil maklum bahawa plaintif akan mengambil tindakan undang-
undang ke atas defendan-defendan. Sekiranya jawapan Presiden BBM tidak
mencukupi, defendan-defendan akan dituntut untuk membuktikan tuduhan-
tuduhan yang dibuat di hadapan hakim mahkamah. Tetapi adalah lebih
wajar defendan-defendan lebih takut berhadapan dengan Allah SWT atas
fitnah yang disebarkan.
73. Mnit mesyuarat tersebut juga merekodkan tindakan SUA akan
memberikan cabutan minit ini kepada penuduh dan postkan kepada grup
WA AJKP.
74. Adalah jelas bahawa defendan-defendan tidak menunjukkan sebarang
kekesalan atau keinsafan di atas penyataan-penyataan fitnah terhadap
plaintif. Malahan, defendan-defendan membela diri terhadap tuntutan plaintif
dan seterusnya memfailkan prosiding Pihak Ketiga terhadap PKP dan PKK
tanpa sebarang asas.
75. Oleh itu, berdasarkan kepada tingkah laku defendan-defendan dan
kegagalan defendan-defendan untuk membuktikan pembelaan defendan-
defendan, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa ganti rugi yang setimpal akibat
kerosakan reputasi plaintif wajar dibayar oleh defendan-defendan kepada
plaintif.
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
76. Dalam masa yang sama, Mahkamah mengambilkira bahawa
Memorandum tersebut dihantar kepada kumpulan Whatsapp BBM
Kebangsaan pada 18.9.2020 yang hanya mempunyai 145 ahli termasuk
plaintif dan PKP di dalamnya. Oleh itu, penyebarannya hanyalah dalam
kalangan ahli BBM sahaja.
Kesimpulan
77. Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan yang diperjelaskan di atas,
Mahkamah mendapati bahawa plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan, di atas
imbangan kebarangkalian, kes plaintif terhadap defendan-defendan.
78. Oleh itu, Mahkamah memutuskan tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan-
defendan dibenarkan dan defendan-defendan diperintah secara bersesama
membayar ganti rugi am kepada plaintif berjumlah RM120,000.00, faedah
5% setahun atas jumlah penghakiman bermula dari tarikh saman difailkan
sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh.
79. Berkenaan tuntutan defendan-defendan terhadap PKP dan PKK,
Mahkamah mendapati defendan-defendan telah gagal membuktikan, di atas
imbangan kebarangkalian, kes defendan-defendan terhadap PKP dan PKK
80. Oleh itu, Mahkamah memutuskan tuntutan defendan-defendan
terhadap PKP dan PKK ditolak dengan kos.
81. Berkenaan kos perbicaraan, defendan-defendan bertanggungan
secara bersesama membayar kos perbicaraan yang ditetapkan berjumlah
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
RM25,000.00 kepada plaintif, RM15,000 kepada Pihak Ketiga Pertama dan
tiada kos terhadap Pihak Ketiga Kedua memandangkan tiada kehadiran
difailkan oleh Pihak Ketiga Kedua.
Bertarikh pada 5 Oktober 2023,
………s.g.d……..
(ISHAK BIN BAKRI)
Hakim
Mahkamah Sesyen
Pihak-Pihak:
Rosnida Che Ibrahim bersama Siti Nor Azwani (Tetuan Shahabudin &
Rozima) b/p plaintif dan Pihak Ketiga
Ku Amirul Faiz Kuseman bersama Wan Shaifudin Ab Wahid (Tetuan Kama
& Wan) bb/p defendan-defendan
S/N Pkbjcrgs7U6U1qosUaMdtw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 35,924 | Tika 2.6.0 |
W-02(W)-949-05/2022 | PERAYU MOHAMED APANDI BIN ALI RESPONDEN LIM KIT SIANG | Civil Appeal - The appellant (plaintiff) brought an action for defamation against the respondent (defendant) in relation to words written and published by the respondent in an online news portal known as 'Malaysiakini High Court dismissed the appellant's claim with costs on four grounds as follows:(i) The contents of the impugned words were not capable of bearing the defamatory meaning pleaded by the appellant and hence not defamatory of the appellant.(ii) The contents of the impugned words were capable of bearing the lesser meaning pleaded by the respondent(iii) The respondent have successfully proven his defence of justification in that the lesser meaning were substantially true and justified.(iv) The respondent have successfully proven his defence of qualified privilege in that he had a duty to make the impugned article to the public at large and the public had a right to receive the information given the 1MDB scandal is a case of public interest.Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and found there was no error of law or fact warranting appellate intervention - Court of Appeal held the impugned words was proved to be substantially true and justified - It must necessarily follow that if the plaintiff's reputation is injured, it was due to his own conduct - In the event the Court of Appeal are wrong on the issue of liability, the plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages in the sum of RM10,000.00. | 07/11/2023 | YA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c3f48f20-9488-4371-be3c-1f140cca2498&Inline=true |
1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.W-02 (W)-949-05/2022
BETWEEN
MOHAMED APANDI BIN ALI - APPELLANT
AND
LIM KIT SIANG - RESPONDENT
[In the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur
Civil Suit No.WA-23CY-37-07/2019
Between
Mohamed Apandi bin Ali - Plaintiff
And
Lim Kit Siang - Defendant]
CORAM:
HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, JCA
M.GUNALAN, JCA
AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, JCA
07/11/2023 08:09:10
W-02(W)-949-05/2022 Kand. 42
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Introduction
[1] The appellant (plaintiff) brought an action for defamation against
the respondent (defendant) in relation to words written and published
by the respondent in an online news portal known as ‘Malaysiakini.”
[2] To succeed in his claim for defamation, the appellant had to
prove three elements as follows:
(i) The words are defamatory;
(ii) It referred to him; and
(iii) It was published, that is, communicated, to a third party.
See: Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v Raub Autralian Gold
Mining Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 ML J 79; Ayob Saud v TS
Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 CL J Rep 321; Kian Lup
Construction v Hongkong Bank Malaysia Bhd [2002] 7 CL J
32.
[3] The respondent conceded that the words complained of refer
to the appellant and that they were published to a third party. Thus,
the second and third elements have been proven by the appellant. This
leaves the court to decide on the first element, i.e, whether the
impugned words was defamatory. The learned Judge held the words
are defamatory. In this appeal, both parties have conceded that there is
no challenge on this particular decision of the learned Judge and whether
the words were defamatory is a non issue in this appeal.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
[4] The test whether the words complained of were defamatory of
the appellant is whether the words published in their natural and
ordinary meaning impute to the appellant any dishonourable or
discreditable conduct or lack of integrity on his part? If the question
invites an affirmative answer, then the words complained of are
defamatory; see Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v The China Press
Bhd [1990] 1 ML J 371 CA.
[5] After a full trial, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim
with costs on four grounds as follows:
(i) The contents of the impugned words were not capable
of bearing the defamatory meaning pleaded by the
appellant and hence not defamatory of the appellant.
(ii) The contents of the impugned words were capable of
bearing the lesser meaning pleaded by the respondent.
(iii) The respondent have successfully proven his defence of
justification in that the lesser meaning were substantially
true and justified.
(iv) The respondent have successfully proven his defence of
qualified privilege in that he had a duty to make the
impugned article to the public at large and the public had
a right to receive the information given the 1 MDB scandal
is a case of public interest.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
[6] Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant
appealed to this court.
[7] In this judgment, we shall refer to the appellant as the plaintiff
and the respondent as the defendant.
Background Facts
[8] The plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of
Malaya with over 45 years’ experience in the legal field. In the said
period, the plaintiff had been a Magistrate; the Director of Legal Aid
Bereau Kota Bahru, Kelantan; Deputy Public Prosecutor; Legal Advisor
to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry; Judicial Commissioner of
the High Court; High Court Judge; Judge of Court of Appeal of
Malaysia; Judge of the Federal Court of Malaysia and later appointed
as the Attorney General of Malaysia. He held the position as Attorney
General from 27.7.2015 until 4.6.2018.
[9] The defendant is a Member of Parliament for the Iskandar
Puteri, Johor constituency. The defendant is a well known politician who
holds the position of advisor to the Democratic Action Party (DAP), a
major political party in Malaysia.
[10] The defendant agreed that on 6.5.2019, he had written and
published an article entitled “Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia’s
on the road to integrity” in his blog and the said article was
republished in an online news portal known as “Malaysiakini”.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[11] The full article (the publication) is about three pages long. The
words complained of by the plaintiff relate to the last paragraph of
the publication which is highlighted in bold and it reads as follows:
“….I must thank Pandikar for finally identifying his role in the
1MDB scandal in his continuing attempt to whitewash the 1MDB
scandal, belonging to the group referred to by the prime
minister in Ipoh, who felt the Pakatan Harapan government
should not continue but that the country should go back to the
corrupt government of the past which made Malaysia a
kleptocracy.
Pandikar has turned the Sandakan by-election into a touchstone
about Malaysia’s commitment to get to the bottom of the heinous
1MDB scandal and to transform Malaysia from a global kleptocracy
to a leading nation in integrity or to go back to the old corrupt ways.
Former Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali said yesterday
that concerns that ratifying the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court would affect the Federal Constitution and Malay
Rulers led the Attorney General Chambers during his time to
reject the treaty. This was during the BN administration.
Apandi, who was appointed Attorney General in July 2015
when Abdul Gani Patail was summarily sacked from his office
when word went around that Gani was preparing to charge
Najib with corruption, should explain why he aided and abetted
in the 1MDB scandal.”
(the impugned words)
[12] 1 MDB scandal is a financial scandal wherein there were allegations
that the sum of RM2.6 billion deposited into the personal bank account of
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
the former prime minister, Najib Razak were monies siphoned from the
sovereign wealth funds of 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a
public investment fund.
[13] The plaintiff, in his evidence agreed that the 1MDB scandal involves
public funds. That it is a case of public interest and was widely publicized
both locally and internationally.
[14] The plaintiff pleads at paragraph 6 and 7 of his statement of claim
that the impugned words in their natural and ordinary meaning and by
innuendo are libelous against him and were understood to mean that he
was:
(a) A person involved in, assisted and was complicit in the
1MDB scandal;
(b) A person involved in criminal activity especially in the
1MDB scandal;
(c) A person devoid of any integrity and who is immoral;
(d) A person devoid of the ethical nature of professional
responsibility and other ethics which are important when
holding the position as Attorney General of Malaysia at the
material time;
(e) A person who has committed abuse of power and/or
omissions and/or dereliction of duty and responsibility in
carrying out his duties and all responsibilities as the
Attorney General of Malaysia at the material time;
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
7
(f) A person practicing double standards in carrying out and/or
execution of his duties and responsibilities especially in the
plaintiff’s position as Attorney General at the material time
and generally as an individual;
(g) A person who is incompetent, devoid of the knowledge and
expertise required when holding the position as the
Attorney General of Malaysia at the material time.
[15] The plaintiff contended that the impugned words are not true,
malicious and were written and published with an intention to tarnish his
good name. He also contended that the defamatory article had
undermined his dignity and credibility as the former Attorney General of
Malaysia.
[16] The defendant denied the impugned words were defamatory of the
plaintiff. He contended that the impugned words are incapable of bearing
the meaning ascribed by the plaintiff in paragraph 6 and 7 of the statement
of claim.
[17] The defendant pleads that the impugned words understood in the
context of the publication as a whole, with or without reference to
notorious events at the time of the publication of the same, would
reasonably have been understood to mean (the lesser meaning):
“That the plaintiff had assisted the perpetrators of the 1MDB
scandal by lending himself to the cover up of wrongdoings, and had
thereby abused his role as the Attorney General.”
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
8
[18] The defendant also raised the defence of justification, fair comment
and qualified privilege.
The Appeal
[19] The plaintiff raised four (4) grounds of appeal as follows:
(i) The learned High Court Judge erred in law and or fact in
accepting and allowing the defendant’s lesser meaning.
(ii) The learned High Court Judge erred in allowing the
defendant’s defence of justification.
(iii) The learned High Court Judge erred in allowing the
defendant’s defence of qualified privilege.
(iv) The learned High Court Judge erred in failing to award
the plaintiff general damages, aggravated damages and
costs.
Meaning Of The Impugned Words
[20] In determining whether the impugned words are capable of bearing
a defamatory meaning, the primary role of the court is to focus on
how the ordinary reasonable reader would construe the words.
Meaning was to be determined according to how it would be understood
by the ordinary reasonable reader. It was not fixed by technical,
linguistically precise dictionary definitions, divorced from the context in
which the statement was made; see Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
9
[21] On the very same issue, the learned High Court Judge relied
on the case of Chong Chieng Jen v Government of State of Sarawak
& Anor [2019] 3 ML J 300 wherein the Federal Court said:
“The steps of the inquiry before the court in an action for
defamation was succinctly explained by Gopal Sri Ram JCA
(later FCJ) in Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v The China
Press Bhd [1999] 1 ML J (CA) ,at pp 374-375:
It cannot, I think, be doubted that the first task of a court
in an action for defamation is to determine whether the
words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory
meaning. The ordinary and natural meaning of words may
be either the literal meaning or it may be an implied or
inferred or an indirect meaning: any meaning that does
not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond
general knowledge but is a meaning which is capable of
being detected in the language used can be a part of the
ordinary and natural meaning of words (see Lewis v Daily
Telegraph Ltd [1963] 2 ALL ER 151). The ordinary and
natural meaning may therefore include any implication or
inference which a reasonable reader, guided not by any
special but only by general knowledge and not fettered by
any strict legal rules of construction..”
[22] The plaintiff took offence with the words ‘aided and abetted’ in
the article. In his evidence, the plaintiff said aided and abetted in the
said article would surely mean that he had facilitated and assisted
in the commission of a criminal offence which is untrue. He did no
such thing. He also said he certainly did not assist anyone in the 1MDB
matter nor did he cover up any wrongdoings. He further said he did not
abuse his position as the Attorney General of Malaysia.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
10
[23] Before us, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the
words complained of essentially are: “Apandi… should explain why
he aided and abetted in the 1MDB scandal.” It is submitted that this
is a positive assertion. The words aid and abet are clear in what
they mean. The normal dictionary meaning of aid and abet is used
in conjunction with the commission of an offence even from the point
of view of the ordinary reasonable man. They literally mean the
plaintiff participated, encouraged or assisted the offenders in the
wrongdoings or offences pertaining to the 1MDB scandal. But, there
was not a single piece of evidence which showed that the plaintiff
participated, encouraged or assisted in the 1MDB scandal. Therefore, the
impugned statement is not true and had defamed the plaintiff.
[24] With regard to the lesser meaning, in view of the clear meaning
of the words ‘aided and abetted’, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submitted:
(i) there is no room for the lesser meaning;
(ii) the lesser meaning is not reasonable; and
(iii) the impugned words are incapable of bearing the
lesser meaning.
[25] Having said all that, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted
that the learned High Court Judge had erred when she failed to
find that the words complained of should be ascribed their clear
natural and ordinary meaning instead of applying their lesser meaning
ascribed by the defendant.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
11
[26] On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant submitted
that in determining the meaning of the impugned words, the court
must took into consideration of the following:
(i) The impugned words must be read in whole.
(ii) It is not open for the plaintiff to select words of the sentence.
(iii) The impugned words must be read in the context of the
entire publication.
(iv) The relentless publications in the media criticising the
plaintiff’s role in the investigation of the 1MDB scandal.
[27] Our task is to determine whether the impugned words are
capable of bearing the defamatory meaning ascribed by the plaintiff
or the lesser meaning as understood by the defendant.
[28] We agree with the defendant’s submission. In this case, the
impugned words consist of 44 words in one sentence i.e “Apandi, who
was appointed the attorney general in July 2015 when Abdul Gani Patail
was summarily sacked from his office when word went around that
Gani was preparing to charge Najib with corruption, should explain why
he aided and abetted in the 1MDB scandal”. It is trite law that in
giving meaning to the words, the impugned words have to be
considered as a whole in the context of the entire publication. The
plaintiff cannot pick and choose certain phrases from the impugned
words which are favourable to him (see Keluarga Communication
Sdn Bhd v Normala Samsudin & Another Appeal [2006] 2 CL J 46).
[29] In this case, the plaintiff had picked and chosen the sentence
‘Apandi … should explain why he aided and abetted in the 1MDB
scandal’ (12 words), which standing alone would fit the dictionary
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
12
meaning and was defamatory of the plaintiff. In our view this approach
is wrong because the court must not look at the actual words used
but the context the said words is used in relation to the publication.
This is especially so when the plaintiff himself agreed that with the
exception of the words ‘aided and abetted’, the publication is not
defamatory of him.
[30] Having read the publication as a whole, we find it reveals as follows:-
(i) First, the denial by an exalted personality, the former Dewan
Rakyat Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia that there was or that
anybody knows or cares about the 1 MDB scandal when he
campaigned for PBS in the Sandakan by-election.
(ii) Pandikar had been singly responsible for the subversion
of the 13th Parliament in preventing it from performing its
patriotic duty to save Malaysia from being condemned by
the world as a global kleptocracy.
(iii) There was neither a trace of regret nor a tinge of
contrition from Pandikar for what he did as the speaker of
the 13th Parliament in suppressing parliamentary debate or
probe into the 1 MDB scandal.
(iv) Instead, he is furtively trying to pull the wool over the
eyes of the Malaysian people by denying that there is
such a thing as a 1 MDB scandal.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
13
[31] To our minds, an ordinary reasonable reader who reads the
publication casually would understand that the information the
defendant wanted to convey is there was lacked of transparency in
the manner in which people in prominent positions performed their
duties and responsibilities. Their integrity was criticized. In the case of
the plaintiff, his spectacular failure to perform his duties as the
Attorney General in handling the enormous financial scandal.
[32] We cannot see how the impugned words, when read in the
context of the publication as a whole were capable of giving the
impression that the plaintiff had assisted the offender in the
commission of a criminal offence or 1MDB scandal. In our view, it is
unrealistic to think that an ordinary reasonable reader would pause
and reflect on the precise dictionary meaning of the words aided
and abetted.
[33] This publication was written on 6.5.2019. From 2015 to 2019, three
(3) major events happened that would have been within the general
knowledge of Malaysians. The first event was about the plaintiff’s
predecessor, Gani Patail being sacked when he was preparing to
charge Najib for corruption. The second event was during the tenure
of the plaintiff as the Attorney General, he publicly announced that
Najib did not commit any criminal offence on the basis that the
monies deposited into Najib’s personal bank account were a donation.
He then decided to close the investigation of the 1MDB scandal (SRC also
included) and cleared Najib’s name. The third event was, his decision to
close the investigation which had caused, not only relentless publications
in the media asking the plaintiff not to close the investigation but also a
court action was commenced to challenge his decision to close the
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
14
investigation. The court action was dismissed. The plea to conduct
further investigation fell on deaf ears. So much so, that during the
plaintiff’s tenure as the Attorney General, no one was charged in
relation to the 1 MDB scandal.
[34] These three major events revealed that it was the plaintiff
himself, using his name and his position as the then Attorney
General of Malaysia to clear Najib’s name. Isn’t that not lending his
name? When the plaintiff hastily decided to close the investigation
when he himself agreed investigation was not complete, isn’t that an
abuse of his position. When he decided to abruptly close the
investigation, didn’t it cement the public perception that he was
covering up the 1MDB scandal. In short, in our view, the only
reasonable meaning to be inferred from the impugned words is the
plaintiff had abused his position as the Attorney General.
[35] For the aforesaid reasons, it is our decision that the impugned
words are capable of bearing the lesser meaning. The lesser meaning
is also a reasonable meaning and was rightly accepted by the learned
High Court Judge. Thus, we find there was no error of law or fact
warranting appellate intervention.
Justification
[36] In Lucas Box v News Group Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 147, the English
Court of Appeal held that a defendant must set out in his/her
statement of case the defamatory meaning he/she seeks to prove
to be essentially or substantially true. This is known as Lucas Box
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
15
meaning. The defendant must give proper particulars of the facts on
which he relies to justify that meaning.
[37] At paragraph 5 of his defence, the defendant pleaded the Lucas
Box meaning of justification. Paragraph 5 reads as follows:
“5.The defendant avers that, on the basis of the lesser meaning,
the impugned words were true in substance and in fact.”
[38] The defendant gave nine (9) particulars to justify the lesser
meaning. They are:
5.1 The plaintiff took office as the Attorney General after the
summary removal of his predecessor, Tan Sri Abdul Gani
Patail.
5.2 At the time of his removal, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail
was, in his capacity as Public Prosecutor, preparing to prefer
charges against the former Prime Minister, Datuk Sri Najib
Razak in relation to SRC International Sdn Bhd, a company
connected to 1MDB. As Prime Minister, Datuk Sri Najib
Razak had been instrumental in the removal of Tan Sri
Gani Patail as Attorney General, and thus Public
Prosecutor, and the appointment of plaintiff as such.
5.3 In his capacity as Attorney General, the plaintiff took no
active steps to meaningfully pursue any line of enquiry
into the 1 MDB scandal. Conversely, the plaintiff sought to
exonerate Datuk Sri Najib Razak and to downplay the
controversy surrounding the 1MDB scandal, which by then
had come to be recognized as an international affair.
Amongst other things, the plaintiff had in or about January
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
16
2016 closed Malaysian investigations into the transfer of
hundreds of millions of Ringgit Malaysia into Datuk Sri
Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts. The plaintiff
publicly insisted that the said monies were a donation
from the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
5.4 The plaintiff thereafter refused to meaningfully cooperate
with foreign investigative agencies who were enquiring into
related wrongdoings within their respective jurisdiction. In
or about April 2016, the Swiss Attorney General commenced
investigations and had not received cooperation from the
plaintiff despite requests. The plaintiff stated in the media that
he had been merely following the law strictly and had not
wanted to jeopardise the Malaysian investigations.
5.5 The Department of Justice of the United States of America
(the ‘US DOJ’) have made a request for mutual legal
assistance in or about September 2017 to no avail. He
had also refused requests by the Malaysian Anti Corruption
Commission to seek foreign assistance to further their
investigations.
5.6 In or about June 2017, the US DOJ commenced civil
recovery proceedings in connection with monies said to
have been siphoned off from 1 MDB. The US DOJ
investigation revealed a high level fraud involving a number
of Malaysians connected to 1 MDB. Datuk Sri Najib Razak
was identified as a person of interest. The plaintiff was
dismissive of the US DOJ claim.
5.7 The plaintiff was placed on garden leave in or about
14.5.2018 pending an enquiry into his role in the affair. A
new federal government under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
had been established on 10.5.2018.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
17
5.8 Mr Tommy Thomas was appointed the Attorney General on
4.6.2018. Since then, charges have been preferred against a
number of individuals in connection with 1MDB in Malaysia.
Additionally, other persons have been made the subject of
criminal proceedings in other jurisdictions due to their
involvement in the 1MDB scandal, some of whom have
pleaded guilty. A table setting out the details of some of these
criminal proceedings is set out in Schedule 2 to this defence.
5.9 The conduct of the plaintiff described above could not
reasonably be considered to have been the conduct of a
responsible Attorney General.
[39] It is settled law that justification is a complete defence. The burden
lies with the defendant to prove the truth of the particulars to justify
the lesser meaning. If the defendant succeeds in proving the truth of the
particulars pleaded, then the impugned words are not defamatory of the
plaintiff because what is true cannot be defamatory. The exposure of truth
must be paramount when compared to that of reputation.
Para 5.2 - Tan Sri Gani Patail Was Preparing To Charge Najib
[40] Plaintiff submits that the particulars in para 5.2 are not true
because the defendant did not produce in court the said charge
sheet or a statutory declaration by Tan Sri Gani Patail stating that
the charges were being drafted. The plaintiff also relied on the police
report lodged by PW2 stating there were no charges against Najib.
[41] In his evidence, the defendant said he had relied on a news
report i.e. exhibit D10.In D10, it was reported by the Edge Markets
that the then Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir had said that ‘Gani
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
18
Patail was preparing to charge Najib before he was removed’. Exhibit
D10 was never denied by Gani Patail. Therefore, the defendant has
qualified his statement by including the words,’ when words went
around’, to show that he was relying on what had been reported. The
defendant never said that he personally knew there was a charge sheet.
[42] With regard to the existence of the charges, the defendant also
relied on the oral testimony of Pengarah Bahagian Operasi Khas SPRM,
Dato’ Bahri Mohamad Zain (DW2). In his evidence, DW2 said that MACC
was satisfied that there was a strong case to charge Najib with two
offences. But when he went to see the plaintiff to brief him on the MACC
investigation, the plaintiff showed little interest in the investigation.
Instead, the plaintiff focused on how the draft charges against Najib had
been disclosed to the media to the extent of demanding the names of
the officers involved in the drafting.
[43] In cross-examination,DW2 was asked if the charge sheet had
been produced in court. His answer was:
“Hari ini tak adalah, tak payah tanyalah soalan itu. Semua orang
tahu tidak ada dan tidak boleh semana-mana orang pegang benda
itu kerana dia rahsia rasmi kerajaan.”
[44] In re-examination, DW2 said:
“Draf charge itu ada dalam IP berkenaanlah dan menjadi satu
kesalahan besar sekiranya draf charge itu dibawa terutama
sekali oleh bukan SPRM. Saya sekarang bukan SPRM lagi.”
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
19
[45] DW2’s evidence was not challenged. His evidence was credible.
There is no reason for him to make up a story. Based on exhibit
D10 and the oral testimony of DW2, in our view, in all probability,
the charges against Najib did exist despite their non production in court.
If the charge sheet had been classified as ‘rahsia rasmi kerajaan’, it
is impossible for anyone to produce it in court. We therefore, find the
averment in para 5.2 substantially true.
Para 5.3 - The Plaintiff Insisted The Monies Transferred Into Najib
Razak’s Personal Bank Accounts Were A Donation,
Exonerate Najib’s Name And Closed The Malaysian
Investigations.
[46] On 26.1.2016, the plaintiff publicly issued a press release
stating, amongst others, that he was satisfied: (i) that the RM2.6 billion
which entered into Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts was a
donation; (ii) that Najib Razak had not committed a criminal offence.
He then decided to close the investigations on the 1 MDB with
abbreviation NFA/KUS. NFA reads as No Further Action. KUS means
Kertas Untuk Simpanan. All these facts are not denied by the plaintiff.
[47] With regard to the allegation of donation, the evidence elicited in
cross-examination of the plaintiff, revealed the following facts:-
(a) On 3.8.2015, MACC issued a media statement stating
the result of their investigation is the RM2.6 billion
entered into Najib’s personal bank accounts was a
donation. The plaintiff relied on this media statement to
conclude it was a donation.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
20
(b) The MACC team, headed by Datuk Seri Azam Baki, went
to Riyadh from 27th November 2015 to 29th November
2015 to record statements of the donor on the plaintiff’s
instructions as at that time investigations into the issue
of donation was not complete yet.
(c) The delegation was unable to meet the Prince and instead
met with someone who represented the Prince and speaks
on behalf of the Prince.
(d) There was no documentary evidence such as bank
statement or remittance documents obtained to substantiate
the assertion that the monies deposited was a donation.
(e) No statement was taken from the purported donor.
(f) He cannot remember the name of the donor.
(g) In his press release dated 26.1.2016, the plaintiff said
‘pihak SPRM telah sendiri di dalam siasatan telah
menemui dan merakamkan percakapan saksi-saksi
termasuk pemberi sumbangan dana tersebut yang
mengesahkan sumbangan tersebut diberikan kepada YAB
PM secara peribadi.’
[48] His oral testimony in court when tested with his statement at
the press release led us to ponder how could the plaintiff be
satisfied it was a donation when there was not an iota of evidence
to support his allegation.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
21
[49] The plaintiff had further relied on 2 flow charts in his press
release on 26.1.2016 to clear the former PM. It would appear that the
flow charts clearly showed that his press release was not credible.
[50] Based on all the evidence adduced, we find the plaintiff’s statement
at the press release that the monies were a donation from Saudi
Royal family was not true. Not only the evidence of donation was
seriously lacking, but his statement also is in contradiction with the
flow charts in his hand. The donation’s version was to make way to
clear Najib’s name.
[51] We now move on to the investigation issue. In his oral testimony,
the plaintiff admitted he had caused for the investigation file pertaining
to 1MDB scandal (SRC included) to be marked as NFA/KUS. He agreed
that in the press release dated 26.1.2016, he did not mention that
the MACC can investigate further should there be any new evidence.
Therefore, he gave the impression that the file is closed for good.
[52] However, now, we are told that he never prevented the MACC from
investigating further if new evidence surfaced. We find his evidence
could not be believed and must be rejected for the following reasons:
(a) PW3 who was formerly a Deputy Public Prosecutor was
one of the members of a task force formed by the
plaintiff to conduct investigations and report to him. In
his evidence, PW3 said towards the early part of
January 2016, the task force had recommended further
investigations. But, he does not know whether the
recommendations were carried out or not.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22
(b) Pengarah Bahagian Operasi Khas in MACC, Dato’ Bahri
(DW2) told the court that he was involved in both the
1MDB and SRC investigations initially but then focused
solely on the SRC investigations. It is his evidence that
the MACC had a meeting with the Attorney General and the
MACC had recommended two charges against the former
PM as they were satisfied there is a prima facie case
on the recommended charges. He, together with the
investigating officer and Ketua Siasatan Bahagian Operasi
Khas went to see the plaintiff to give a briefing. The briefing
took about 20 minutes and the plaintiff seemed to be more
interested to know how the draft charges were leaked to the
public. The plaintiff told them to leave the file and
asked them to go back. The plaintiff returned the file with
instruction to close the matter. Dissappointed upon the
case being closed, DW2 tendered his resignation.
(c) The Star Online article dated 16.5.2018, titled ‘MACC
wanted to probe 1MDB Najib link but the AG said ‘No’.
In the said article, Dato’ Lim Chee Wee (DW6) who
was a panel member of the MACC review panel was
quoted as saying “The MACC found evidence in late
2015 that RM42 million was transferred from a former
subsidiary of 1 MDB into an account of former Prime
Minister Datuk Sri Najib Razak. However, the MACC’s
recommendation for further investigation was rejected by
the Attorney General”. In his oral testimony, DW6
confirmed that he did make those statements as
published in the Star Online.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
23
(d) The Malaysian Bar had filed a Notice of Motion at the
Kuala Lumpur High Court, challenging the decision by
the plaintiff to close the investigation papers, seeking a
declaration that it was unlawful for the Attorney General
(plaintiff) to impede the investigations by the MACC and
an order of mandamus directing the Attorney General
to reconsider the requests by the MACC for mutual
legal assistance. The Motion was dismissed by the
High Court on 8.11.2016 on a point of law that the
Attorney General’s discretion could not be challenged
in court. The High Court’s decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.
[53] The evidence thus far presented to the court appears to suggest
that despite having the evidence in his own hand to charge Najib,
the plaintiff chose to close his eyes. Despite the requests and
recommendations by the MACC which were directly under the
Attorney General to charge Najib and conduct further investigations,
the requests fell on deaf ears. The plaintiff did not take any meaningful
steps to investigate. He was content to summarily close the investigations.
[54] Therefore, we find the particulars in para 5.3 are true.
Para 5.4 - Plaintiff Refused To Cooperate With Foreign Jurisdiction.
[55] In an article published by Free Malaysia Today dated 17.4.2019
entitled “Our offer to help in 1 MDB probe turned down, says Swiss
envoy “(exhibit D6). The Swiss envoy, Michael Winzep said his
government had asked for Malaysia’s cooperation in its own
investigations into the scandal. But Winzep said the Malaysian
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
24
government had then claimed that cooperating with Swiss authorities
over the 1 MDB investigations could have a negative effect on local
investigations.
[56] When the article (D6) was referred to him, the plaintiff said the
article did not specifically mention his name or the Attorney General
and that the defendant had not adduced any evidence to prove that the
Swiss Government had indeed offered assistance.
[57] In cross-examination, the plaintiff was asked to confirm whether the
Swiss government had in fact offered assistance. His answer was ‘they
did not offer assistance’. He was then asked with the following question:
Q : So, you indeed refused cooperation?
A : I refused cooperation and I gave my reason and I
corrected the perception by the Swiss AG that I did not
cooperate, that’s all.
[58] Whatever may be his reasons to refuse cooperation with the
Swiss Government, his answer proved that he refused to cooperate
with a foreign jurisdiction. Thus, the defendant’s averment in para 5.4 is
true.
Para 5.5 - Plaintiff Refused To Make A Request For Mutual Legal
Assistance (MLA) From Foreign Jurisdiction.
[59] In an article published by The Edge dated 24.5.2018 entitled
“FBI, DOJ to give full cooperation to 1MDB special task force “
(exhibit D8), the said article revealed:
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
25
(i) On 13.11.2016, the FBI had sent an application letter to
the then chief commissioner of the MACC, Tan Sri Dzulkifli
Ahmad, but the application has yet to receive a reply
until now.
(ii) On 22.9.2017, the DOJ had made a request through a
MLA to the Attorney General, Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi
Ali. This request was not fulfilled and delayed, the reason
given was that it would affect ongoing investigations by
Malaysian enforcement authorities.
[60] In his evidence, the plaintiff said he was aware that the money
from 1MDB had been taken outside the country. He agreed that
confining investigations to the 4 corners of Malaysia would be
insufficient. He knew that seeking or providing legal assistance to foreign
investigating agencies was imperative to bolster local investigation by the
police or the MACC. He also agreed that neither the MACC nor the PDRM
have the power to seek mutual legal assistance from other foreign
jurisdictions. He further agreed that only he, in his capacity as the
Attorney General, had the power to seek mutual legal assistance from
foreign jurisdictions.
[61] In this case, there was evidence of requests being made by
the MACC to the plaintiff to get mutual legal assistance from foreign
countries. The MACC, had in fact asked a panel member of the
MACC Review Panel, Dato’ Lim Chee Wee (DW6) to write a letter
to the plaintiff, requesting the plaintiff to get mutual legal assistance
from foreign countries.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
26
[62] Despite there being compelling reasons for him to seek or
provide mutual legal assistance (MLA), the plaintiff agreed he refused
to do both. The only explanation he gave for refusing MLA is a
mutual legal assistance from a foreign government or agency would
prejudice the local investigation. He relied on Section 20 (1) (i) of the
Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act 2002 which provides as
follow:
“Refusal Of Assistance
20.(1) A request by a prescribed foreign State for assistance under
this Part shall be refused if, in the opinion of the Attorney General-
(a) …
(l) the provision of the assistance could prejudice a criminal
matter in Malaysia;”
[63] The plaintiff was also quick to say:” if anybody is not happy
with his decision, they can always challenge it in court”. But, we all
now know that his decision (in exercising his discretionary power) is
not justiciable nor reviewable. But, that does not mean his decision
cannot be criticized.
[64] In our view, his oral testimony is to be tested with his press
statement on 26.1.2016 where he said:
“I am satisfied that as no criminal offence has been committed,
there is no necessity for Malaysia to make a mutual legal
assistance in criminal matters request to any foreign States for
the purpose of completing the criminal investigation conducted
by the MACC in relation to the said RM2.08 billion donation.”
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
27
[65] So, on 26.1.2016, the reason he gave for refusing MLA is
because there was no criminal offence committed. Not because it
would prejudice the local investigations. What prejudice is caused if at
the same time investigations were also closed. Noticing the plaintiff’s
tendency to give contradictory answers, the learned High Court Judge
made the following remark at para 114-115 of the judgment:
“So the plaintiff himself cannot make sense of his own mind
whether the mutual legal assistance is imperative or is it a
hindrance. This tenacious insistence to adopt confusing and
contradictory stances further blemishes the plaintiff’s credibility
as witness. The plaintiff was evasive until he could no longer
evade the inevitable conclusion that he could not explain his
reluctance to offer or accept mutual legal assistance. In fact, the
plaintiff’s purported concern of prejudicing local investigation is
contradictory to his own eager insistence to close local
investigation.”
[66] We agree with the conclusion reached by the learned High
Court Judge on the credibility of the plaintiff. His contradictory
answers only go to show that the real reason behind his refusal
to offer or to get mutual legal assistance from foreign countries was
simply because he had made up his mind that there was no criminal
offence committed by the former Prime Minister. He was satisfied that
investigation is not required and hence, he closed the investigation.
Closed investigation means no more investigation. This being the case,
his answer that MLA would prejudice local investigation could not be true.
[67] For the aforesaid reasons, we find the defendant’s averment in
para 5.5 is true.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
28
Para 5.6 - The US DOJ Investigation Revealed A High Level
Fraud Involving A Number Of Malaysians Connected To
1 MDB. The Plaintiff Was Dismissive Of The US DOJ
Claim.
[68] It is an undisputed fact that during his tenure as AG, the
Department of Justice in United States had also initiated civil recovery
proceedings relating to monies and assets siphoned from 1 MDB. The
plaintiff agreed he was aware of this fact.
[69] The US DOJ civil proceedings revealed the involvement of
Malaysian personalities in the 1MDB scandal. The plaintiff said he was
aware of this fact. Despite the obvious, the plaintiff admitted he did not
communicate with the DOJ. His reason for not communicating with the
DOJ was because local investigations were going on at that material
time.
[70] For the same reasons we have stated earlier, we find the
plaintiff’s conduct in refusing to communicate with the US DOJ solely
because local investigation was going on at the material time is
unreasonable. Instead, his refusal had impeded the MACC’s
investigation.
[71] So, again, we find the defendant’s averment in para 5.6 was
substantially true.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
29
Para 5.9 - The conduct of the plaintiff could not reasonably be
considered to have been the conduct of a responsible
Attorney General.
[72] In his oral testimony, the defendant said the plaintiff had practically
not taken any meaningful steps to get to the bottom of the 1MDB
scandal. It was also his evidence that the plaintiff practically had done
nothing at all.
[73] We fully agree with the defendant. The plaintiff’s actions or inactions
in handling the 1MDB scandal gives the impression to the Malaysian
public that he had covered up the 1MDB scandal for reasons best
known to himself. His conduct showed he had failed to discharge his
duties and responsibilities as the Attorney General as reasonably
expected by the Malaysians i.e, honestly and without fear or favour. For
these reasons, we find the particulars in para 5.9 is also true.
[74] The defendant had successfully proven all the 9 particulars of
justification. It means the lesser meaning was substantially true i.e
the plaintiff had abused his position and cover up the 1MDB scandal.
Now, the defendant had asked the plaintiff to explain why did he cover
up the 1MDB scandal. Asking for explanation for matters that truly
happened, in our considered view is not defamatory even though it
injures the plaintiff’s reputation. The right of the Malaysians to know
the truth must prevail over the plaintiff’s right to protect his reputation.
[75] Accordingly, we find the learned trial judge did not err in
upholding the defence of justification.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
30
Qualified Privilege
[76] The defendant’s plea of qualified privilege is pleaded in
paragraph 7 of his statement of defence as follows:-
“7. Further and/or in the alternative, if and insofar as the
impugned words bear the meanings in paragraph 6 and
7,which is denied, or the lesser meaning, the defendant
avers that the impugned words were published on an
occasion of qualified privilege.
Particulars
7.1…
7.2. The defendant was under a moral and social duty
to communicate his views on the subject to Malaysians.
The defendant has been a Member of Parliament for the
present term since 10.5.2018 and for the previous term
since 6.5.2013. He was ,at the time of the publication of
the impugned words, the Member of Parliament for
Iskandar Puteri, Johor. As a Member of Parliament, the
defendant had sworn to preserve, protect and defend the
Federal Constitution.
7.3 The Publication contained views that Malaysians
had an interest in given that it pertained to matters of
national importance.”
[77] An often-quoted definition of qualified privilege is to be found
in the speech of Lord Atkinson in Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309:
“A privileged occasion is, in reference to qualified privilege, an
occasion where the person who makes the communication has
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
31
an interest or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the
person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so
made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This
reciprocity is essential.”
[78] Qualified privilege operates only to protect statements which
are made without malice i.e spitefully, or with ill will or recklessness
as to whether it was true or false. Therefore, the defence of qualified
privilege can be defeated by the presence of malice on the part of
the defendant. The burden of proving malice is on the plaintiff (see
S. Pakianathan v Jenni Ibrahim [1988] 2 ML J 173; Pang Fee Yoon
v Piong Kien Siong & Ors [1999] 3 ML J 189.
[79] In Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor v Nurul
Izzah bt Anwar & Anor [2018] 3 ML J 726, a case involving a
politician, the Court of Appeal held:
“[55] A defence of qualified privilege is founded on the need
or duty on the part of the alleged defamer to impart information
to the public at large and that there is a duty on the part
of the public to receive that information. In a defence of qualified
privilege, unlike justification, truth is not a pre-requisite but it
can only succeed if there is no malice in such publication. If
untrue defamatory allegations are published on an occasion of
privilege, they will be protected from a claim for defamation.
Although the law of defamation exists to protect reputations, it is
recognized that in situations it is to the benefit of society generally
for people to be able to communicate without the fear of being
sued for defamation .This is so despite the risk that a person’s
reputation will be damaged and they will not be able to restore
it by bringing a claim for defamation. Its resides in the wider
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
32
consideration that a general public good in such exercise overrides
the need to protect individual reputation.”
[80] In dealing with the defence of qualified privilege, what the
learned trial Judge did was first to determine whether the defendant
had acted reasonably in publishing the impugned statement to the
media. She then found as a fact that complaints for further investigations
into the 1MDB scandal through the proper channels have for years
fallen on deaf ears until the Barisan Nasional Government fell in
the 14th General Election. She was satisfied that all reasonable and
forseeable channels have been exhausted and thus the defendant is
well within his rights to voice out his thought to the public at large.
[81] For the aforesaid reasons, the learned trial judge held that the
defendant had a duty, legal , social or moral to publish the impugned
statement in his blog.
[82] Before us, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that
this additional hurdle placed over the defendant was not required
within the principles of the traditional qualified privilege. We agree
with the defendant’s submission. The concept of ‘reasonableness of
conduct’ has no relevance or application to the traditional defence
of qualified privilege. All the defendant needs to prove in his defence
of qualified privilege is he has a duty to convey the information to
the public; the public had a duty to receive the information conveyed
and there was no malice on the part of the defendant. In this case,
the learned trial judge had erred when she put an unnecessary
extra burden on the defendant to prove his reasonable conduct in
publishing the article. However, this error did not prejudice the defendant
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
33
because subsequently the trial judge was satisfied that the defendant
had a right to communicate his thoughts to the public.
[83] The plaintiff complains that the learned trial judge had conflated
the Reynold’s privilege and the traditional qualified privilege. According
to the plaintiff, the law did not recognize an interest in the public
strong enough to give rise generally to a duty to communicate in
the press and such a duty can only arise on ‘special facts’. Further,
it is submitted that the defendant had failed on this score because
he had not pleaded such ‘special facts’ and therefore it is argued
that the defence of qualified privilege must fail. The plaintiff further
submitted that, what ought to have been pleaded is Reynolds
Privilege. As this was not done, that defence also fails.
[84] We are not inclined to agree with the plaintiff’s line of argument. The
case of Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd v Tony Pua Kiam
Wee [2015] 8 CL J 477, relied upon the plaintiff is a case where
the defendant pleaded Reynolds privilege. In the case before us, the
defendant did not plead Reynolds privilege. Therefore, the case of
Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor is not applicable to the case before
us. The defendant in this case only pleaded traditional qualified
privilege which he is entitled to do so. At this juncture, it is instructive
for us to refer to the case of Dr Syed Azman bin Syed Ahmad
Nawawi & Ors v Dato’ Seri Haji Ahmad bin Said [2015] 5 ML J 141.
In that case, the Court of Appeal explained that the Reynolds
privilege is a separate and distinct defence from the traditional
defence of qualified privilege as follows:
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
34
“[51] The controversy has however lingered on whether the
Reynolds privilege was a new substantive defence or merely
a specie of defence under the conventional defence of qualified
privilege. In Grant v Torstar [2009] 3 SCR 640,the Supreme
Court of Canada termed it a new defence of ‘responsible
communication’ (Reynolds’s factors for analysis) and went on
to observe that it produced an uneasy fit with the traditional
qualified privilege defence. Lord Phillips MR (as he then was) in
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1805;
[2002]1 ALL ER 652 commented that Reynolds privilege was
‘a different jurisprudential creature’; it is not the occasion which
is protected but the material itself. Lord Hoffman and Baroness
Hale in Jameel took the position that ‘responsible journalism’ could
not be assimilated to traditional qualified privilege.
[52] The argument has been that ‘responsible’ or ‘reasonable’
journalism, whether as a new defence or otherwise, obviates
any further enquiry into the issue whether the impugned statements
were tainted with actual or express ‘malice’ when made. It is
pertinent to note here that in the United Kingdom, by s 4 of
the recently introduced Defamation Act 2013, the so called
Reynolds’ common law defence has been abolished and replaced
by a new ‘public interest’ defence (the explanatory notes to the
bill states that it was nevertheless to reflect the principles
established in the Reynolds’s case and subsequent case law).
This statutory defence requires the publisher to show that he
or she ‘reasonably believed that publishing the statements
complained of was in the public interest’ (a shift, as it would
appear ,from tests of responsible journalism to reasonableness
of belief).
[53] The above discussion was to place in perspective the
Reynolds privilege. The developments surrounding that area of
law show that the ‘Reynolds privilege’ as a defence was
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
35
always treated and recognized as a separate and distinct
defence in contrast to the conventional common law defence
of qualified privilege.
[54] In the instant case before us however, the Reynolds
privilege was not raised as a separate or even as a specie
of the defence of qualified privilege; what was pleaded was the
defence of qualified privilege per se. Both parties conducted the
trial on that basis. Save that in their submissions, the plaintiffs
had made reference to the decision in Reynolds’s case to show
that the writer of Harakah itself had a duty to verify the
material published, both parties accepted that the principal
defence of the defendants was the traditional common law
defence of qualified privilege and the plaintiff had the obligation
to establish express ‘malice’ to defeat that defence if found
in favour of the plaintiffs. This was the position all along even
in this appeal; see the supplementary submissions of both
parties.”
[85] In this case, the plaintiff agreed that the public has a right to
know how this financial scandal was being managed and investigated
by the authorities. He also agreed that as a Member of Parliament,
the defendant had a duty to inquire into what was going on with
regards to the investigation in relation to this 1MDB scandal. He
further agreed that there were many other writers who have been
writing and criticizing the manner he handled the investigation
process in the 1MDB scandal. But, he had no complaints with the other
articles because they never mentioned that he aided and abetted.
In short, the plaintiff had no issue with criticism from the public. But he
took offence with the words ‘aided and abetted’.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
36
[86] At the risk of repeating ourselves, the 1MDB scandal is a
phenomenal financial scandal involving public funds where the former
Prime Minister himself was involved. It is considered as the biggest
financial scandal that the country has faced. As a Member of Parliament
who was concerned with integrity, transparency and accountability, the
defendant had a moral duty to convey his thoughts that the plaintiff,
being the Attorney General entrusted with power to direct investigations
to get to the bottom of the case and charge the perpetrators without
fear or favour, but instead he tried to impede and obstructed the
investigations of the 1MDB scandal. His actions and inactions were
indeed unreasonable and fell short of public expectation.
[87] We agree with the defendant that as a member of parliament,
the occasion of privilege had arisen by virtue of the defendant’s role
and duty as a representative of the people. Nothing more special
than that needs to exist.
[88] As a member of parliament also, the defendant had a duty to
raise matters of public interest to his electorate. Especially a case of
theft of public monies involving a prime minister of such a magnitude.
[89] Likewise, the readers of his blog, who included the people of
Malaysia had an inherent right to be informed of the developments of the
investigations into the scandal. They were also entitled to be informed
of any attempt to derail such developments.
[90] For the aforesaid reasons, we find the learned trial judge was
correct in holding the impugned words were made on an occasion
of qualified privilege.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
37
Malice
[91] In answer to Q & A No.32 in his witness statement, the plaintiff
says “To maliciously say that I had aided and abetted Datuk Seri
Najib Razak merely because I had exercised my discretion under
Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution based on the available evidence
then, is totally mischievous and a malicious attack not only on me,
but the Federal Constitution. The defendant, to date has yet to show
an iota of evidence that I had aided and abetted Datuk Seri Najib
Razak in the 1MDB scandal”. This answer received strong objection
from learned counsel for the defendant on the ground ‘malice’ was not
specifically pleaded.
[92] During the trial, learned counsel for the defendant did make a
request to the learned trial judge to expunge the plaintiff’s answer
on the ground the plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements
of Order 78 rule 3 (3) of the Rules of Court 2012 in that particulars
of malice were not pleaded. The learned trial judge did not expunge
the answer but directed the parties to submit at the end of the case.
Unfortunately, the trial judge did not deal with this issue at all in
her judgment.
[93] Order 78 rule 3 (3) of the Rules of Court 2012 sets out the
following mandatory provisions relating to pleading particulars of
malice:
(3) Where in an action for libel or slander the plaintiff alleges
that the defendant maliciously published the words or matters
complained of, he need not in his statement of claim give
particulars of the facts on which he relies in support of the
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
38
allegation of malice, but if the defendant pleads that any of
those words or matters are fair comment on a matter of public
interest or were published upon a privileged occasion and the
plaintiff intends to allege that the defendant was actuated by
express malice, he must serve a reply giving particulars of the
facts and matters from which the malice is to be inferred.
[94] The word ‘must’ in Order 78 r3 (3) ROC meant strict
compliance is required. There is no room for discretion as far as
the compliance with the prerequisites is concerned (see Duli Yang
Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj Tunku
Mahkota Johor v Datuk Captain Hamzah bin Mohd Noor and another
appeal [2009] 4 ML J 329 FC.)
[95] The rationale behind O78 r 3 (3) ROC 2012 is to provide an
opportunity to the defendant to verify the truth and accuracy to
those particulars as well as to rebut the allegations if required (see
Subramaniam a/l Paramasivam v Courts Mammoth Bhd & Anor
[2011] 10 CL J 739; Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Bhd v
SSN Medical Products Sdn Bhd [2017] 6 CL J 129 (CA) ).
[96] Failure to comply with O78 r 3 (3) of the ROC 2012 would
result in the plaintiff not being permitted to adduce evidence of actual
malice which is necessary in order to rebut the defence of qualified
privilege and cannot succeed in establishing malice as an answer
to the defence of qualified privilege (see Dato Wan Hashim Wan
Daud v Mazlan Ibrahim [1997] 5 CL J 140; Gurbachan Singh & Ors
v Vellasamy Pennusamy & Other Appeals [2015] 1 CL J 719.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
39
[97] At paragraph 6 of his reply to the defendant’s defence, the
plaintiff pleaded as follows:
“6. Regarding paragraphs 7 and 7.1 of the said defence, the
plaintiff pleads that the defence of qualified privilege is not
applicable in relation to the defendant’s impugned words against
the plaintiff. The defendant is put to strict proof to prove all
of his allegations. Further, the plaintiff states as follows:-
(a) With regards to paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the said
defence, the plaintiff states that whatever position held by
the defendant does not grant him any excuse and/or
reason to defame the plaintiff in any way. All of the
defendant’s allegations therein amount to bare assertions
and the defendant is put to strict proof to prove the said
allegations. Further and in the alternative, the plaintiff
pleads that whatever views by the general public in
relation to any public interest issue also does not give the
defendant any justification to defame and damage the
good name of the plaintiff in any way.
[98] Nowhere in paragraph 6 of his reply, did the plaintiff plead
malice and particulars of malice. Therefore, the plaintiff had failed to
comply with Order 78 r3 (3) of the Rules of Court 2012. The net
effect of the non- compliance with the specific provisions of the rules
is the plaintiff is estopped from adducing evidence of malice to defeat
the defence of qualified privilege. Consequently, we find merit in the
defendant’s objection and expunged the plaintiff’s answer in his Q &
A No.32 in his witness statement.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
40
[99] In the absence of malice, the defence of qualified privilege is
not rebutted. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we see
no good reason to disagree with the decision of the trial judge that
the defendant had successfully proven his defence of qualified
privilege.
Damages
[100] Damages are awarded to compensate a person for harm to
his or her reputation. The learned trial judge had not considered
this issue and did not make an award of damages. In assessing
the general damages, the most common factors taken into account by
the court are: the gravity of the allegation; the size and influence of
the circulation; the effect of the publication; the extent and nature of
the claimant’s reputation; the behavior of the defendant and the
behavior of the claimant (see Chin Choon v Chua Jui Meng [2005]
2 CL J 569 CA).
[101] Before us, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted the allegations
made against the plaintiff is extremely serious. It is submitted that the
online publication is accessible through the internet and would have
reached a large spectrum of audience. It is further submitted that the
plaintiff has held numerous important and high position in society. Taking
into account all these factors, learned counsel for the plaintiff
submitted a sum of RM600,000.00 for general damages. Reliance was
placed on the case of Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v Datuk Yong Teck
Lee & Anor [2018] 1 CL J 145, wherein the Federal Court awarded
the plaintiff, a former Chief Minister of Sabah a general and aggravated
damages in a global sum of RM600,000.00.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
41
[102] With regard to aggravated damages, learned counsel for the
plaintiff submitted that the court should take into account the following
two factors. Firstly, the defendant had failed to apologise. Secondly, the
defendant had written and published in his blog on 20.8.2019 an
article entitled ‘A MACC report had been lodged by a former anti-
corruption agency officer in January 2016 against Apandi as the then
Attorney-General for clearing the then Prime Minister Najib for
corruption charges but to date, no action has been taken.’ It is
submitted that in the said article, the defendant had labelled the
plaintiff as a criminal when he used the words: “Among other criminal
acts both Najib and Apandi had committed was the offence under
Section 16 MACC Act as Najib offering the post of AG to Apandi,
and Apandi accepting the post of AG, as an inducement to clear
Najib of corruption charges and stop further investigations against
him.” It is submitted that the use of the highly vitriolic words shows
the defendant was intent and persisted with his attacks on the
plaintiff’s reputation with impunity. Taking these two factors into
account, it is submitted that a sum of RM200,000.00 be awarded as
aggravated damages, making the total sum of damages proposed as
RM800,000.00.
[103] Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the proposed
sum of RM800,000.00 is excessive given the facts and circumstances
of this case.
[104] First and foremost, the defendant objected to the plaintiff’s
attempt to prove malice by making reference to a further article
written by the defendant when this is not the plaintiff’s pleaded case.
In addition to this, the plaintiff also failed to plead malice. Therefore, it is
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
42
submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the new article
to prove malice.
[105] In her submission, learned counsel for the defendant urged the
court to take into account the defendant’s evidence that the purpose
of his publication was only for the good of the country and not to
harm anyone. The defendant said “I have no malice, no spite, nothing
to attack the AG but I want an open accountability on the principle
of good governance.”
[106] It is further submitted that the plaintiff’s tenure as Attorney
General of Malaysia was a less than illustrious one. Not only did the
defendant take issue with the plaintiff’s failures as AG, in the face
of the 1MDB scandal, but numerous others did too.
[107] With regard to quantum, learned counsel for the defendant had
referred us to the case of Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie bin Hj Apdal v
Datuk Mohd Ainal Hj Abdul Fattah [2019] 12 ML J 532, where the High
Court sets out the trend of award in cases involving politicians is between
RM50,000.00 to RM200,000.00. However, given the facts and
circumstances of this case, learned counsel for the defendant submitted
that if the court is not with the defendant on the issue of liability, the plaintiff
is entitled to an award of nominal damages only.
[108] In this case, the impugned words was proved to be substantially
true and justified. It must necessarily follow that if the plaintiff’s reputation
is injured, it was due to his own conduct. He is the author of his own
misfortune. In the event we are wrong on the issue of liability, our
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
43
considered view is the plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages in
the sum of RM10,000.00.
Our Decision
[109] For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. The
appeal is dismissed with costs. The decision of the High Court is affirmed.
The appellant is ordered to pay costs of RM100,000.00 to the
respondent subject to allocator.
Dated: 2nd November 2023
- Sgd -
Hadhariah binti Syed Ismail
Judge
Court of Appeal
For the Appellant : Rueben Mathiavaranam; M.Visvanathan;
R. Karnan; V.Sanjay Nathan & Kathleen
Samantha George.
Messrs Saibullah MV Nathan & Co.
For the Respondent : Sangeet Kaur Deo; Harshaan Zamani;
Simranjit Kaur Daljit Singh; Pravin
Mahentharan & Roshunraj Rajendran.
Messrs Karpal Singh & Co.
S/N II/0w4iUcUOPB8UDMokmA
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
| 78,286 | Tika 2.6.0 |
WA-12BNCvC-117-08/2022 | PERAYU 1. ) MUHAMMAD NAZRI BIN MAT YAACOB 2. ) VISIONS TRANSPORT ENTERPRISE RESPONDEN 1. ) WAKIL PERIBADI KEPADA DHASARATHAN A/L YAKAPARAM 2. ) AJAIB LAL 3. ) SRI SITHI VINAYAGAR ENTERPRISE | The costs of this appeal in the sum of RM5,000 is awarded to the Appellants and another RM5,000 to the First Respondent. | 07/11/2023 | YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ff25406c-fc65-41c8-8f3c-3d4c4d960d17&Inline=true |
07/11/2023 12:14:37
WA-12BNCvC-117-08/2022 Kand. 64
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
S/N bEAl/2X8yEGPPD1MTZYNFw
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
wA—12sm:vc—117—ua/2022 Kand. 54
ummnz: 12:1»:-37
IN me man coun IN MALAVA IN KUALA LUMPUR
IN TNE FEDERAL TERRIYORV, MALAYSIA
cmugg Nu wmzaucvc 17 max:
EETWEEN
1. MUHAMMAD NAIRI am MAT wmcoa
(NRIC N
Anna-0:-5341)
2. VISIONS TRANSPORT ENTERPRISE APPELLANYS
(com? No ouivsaaeudl
AND
1. AJAIB LAL
2. WAKIL FERIBADI KEPADA DNASARAYHAN AIL YAKAMPARAM
(NRIC NO. nznaom n-9911)
:i. SRI simi VINAVAR ENYERFRISE . RESPONDENYS
Ground: cf tn!
[1] The Appsiiams wave the mm and me Fourlh Detendams
resnsciivaly at the inai below me Session cmm On 23212922 ms
sin iaaiizxayzewwnwirzvurw
“Nab! s.n.i ...m.mm be flied M mm .. nflninniily mi. dun-mm VII .mm mm
Session noun nae auowed me dawn ollhe Flrsl Respormem (me P\a|nnfl
anhe Session Conn) and anoomed habllnly also-/. an (he Appeuanxs and
me other 50% on me Second and mm Rzspandens who weca me First
and secunu Defendants respecnvely allhe Session caun nissansned,
me Appellants lodged men appeal In W5 com.
1 us
on sun "on cam
(21 The Furs! Respondent nnxhalea a mu agalnsl nn. Appauanns and ma
Second and ‘mm Respondents as s reeun av - momr vehide accident
lhaloocurrad on m 7 2am The Flvs1Ra:pondeM was In an-naenx in ma
worry me: me (ha mgenanon max. numbar wwcczav driven by me
decanted drwor whom he Sscnnd Rlsunndanl reprcsanls wmlsl Ihe
mm Respnndunl .s IM rwnslerad ownlr wwc1ze7 driven by me
deceated dnvei had calmed mln me real anna lorry wnh Iha Iegwsvalmn
was number awrme me: me FimADns\l:n1was driving The Second
AppsHarIt e the mustered awnu o1ENF379G
[3] The Fvsl Rasponuem, me altendim wna Ms me passenger m iorry
wwc12s7 sax m nan: beanie me deceased driver He dawned that mey
were In memxame Ianamne mghway KMA zsnmnn and we navemng
lmm IKEA Damansara to Mom Nara when Icny ENF3798 nun. ma Vefl
Vane changed lanes mm me middle lane wnere Iney were travelling an,
wunaux any aignax or Indicalmn BNF37§B men braked suddeniy .n lnxu
oVWWC1267,Iha(naused WWC12fl7Ia winds In|u ma reavu1ENF3798
The dnver MWWC1267 am In ms onllmon
[41 Thu Aaneilznis‘ account was man they, .n auravea were dlwmg m
ma nwdle lam wmn a ponoernan Inshuclefl |‘nraH vehmus In smu wmch
an nuuzxayzavvuwlrzvurw
«mm. s.nn ...n.mn .. U... a may he nflmnnflly -mm: m.n.n Vfl mum Wm!
[24] ms com placed great asslstance on me mdepenaenzevuaence no
me pnmugrapls and ms repans ol ma damage |a conclude whlch versiun
onne parties was more pmnablelo eslabllsh llamllly. Pnanusaa on all me
emencel lnls Coun ls safisfied an a balanos ol plobahlllhes mat me
zcaderll nappensa ln me nmaule lane when WWC1267 aasna: nyll lnlc
lne war or auravss rne aeclaenl dld ml nappen when BNF3798
chnngnd lanes as mrlluldsd bylhe Flrsl Responaenl BNF3798 was well
already WI lhs lens when I| was lrlslrucied lo slop by In: lramc pence It
Md done so and on a balance of pmnaellmss M was rlatlhat ul a sudden
brake as conlulnd by me Ralporlderlls as BNF37§E me name In a
Dompllle slap wllh wmu a-slance ol lwen|y rrle|arI Imrrl Ina Imlfic polloe
Mm was no: harmed
[251 meralans, ll ran on me deceased drlvar or WWCI267 m exercise
aue caufion aslhe vehicle man was behlnd BNF379B when we latter was
csavelllng ln fmnt am Furlhenuova, the Flrsl Respenaenl had leslmea he
had alsu caugnl slghl M me name pallee up ahead nns Cnun ls of me
corlsldered vlew that Ifle deceased dnve( wan: to have employed due
care as expected 0! road users as ne was, me dlivsml WWC1267
[251 The damage 10 mm ms vehlclesl me llie-changing lnjury mal lbs
Flrsl Respondent wlll have no snmer [or lne rest at his life and me demise
0! ma deueassd drwer ul WWCI267 were enasnl at me mgr. speed that
WWC1267 was uayslllng In ms oeun concluded lnal ll ma speeo ll
lravalled WI was Wllhln ma daceasefl dnvers canlmt ll would have had
sumclant lune to lake ms necessary acllan Io slop slowly wlln a sale gap
nenwaen II and aNF319a
sm l~.EAl11xayEEPPl:lwlrzvMPw
“Nana s.n.l ...n.mn a. met! a my me nflmnnllly mums flnuavlml VI .n.wa Wm!
[271 As such, llabnmy anso-/e ougm none be awarded nu me Appeuanns
anravse had anamed me name po|nee'snnstrnx.1mnno snap no give way to
me mya\ motomade. n was me duly o1WWC1267,me vehicle bemnd. no
drvve pvopefiy ann carefinlly no aonmrdmgly slap severy as requnred
My/ens nnnervennan
[23] Guided by me Conn ul Appenn‘: aecnnen In smungun I/I
Pomsamy v Purl my J Anal [1995] 3 MLJ 395 nl ns nnn. Calms duty
In nnllrvena as nne «nan count had Iundzmenlally mnxaneuea nnsenn where
no reuoruble cnurl nnzn nmocfly dirvctpd «ml and ma asked me conaen
qusshans would have eume In men dlciuon Sue a\sn Alk mng (M) sun
Bhd A Ors v cnang cning chum I on And Anomar Anni-IU995] 2
MM 770
[291 The Session Ccun nau eneu when n had docnded Iha| me acemenn
had oecurrid wnen wwcnzsv crashed nn|n awrma fnom behind sun
as nl wuld nan aseeflarn manner ENF379E had swnlched Values. n had
accorded liabnhly equally, even lhough nnaepenaenn avndervoe of the
ohemn5| nepons snewea man one damage to ENF379B‘s rear was nn nne
mnddle
[301 n has nouna man BNF3‘/95 shumd have slowed down and same no
a slap wnhoul nnreanemng nne eatery ems omen mad usens—nms was non
based on any evndenoe In nea anse veuna nnan wwcnzsv vanlgated
(followed me closely) suravaa bun ys| I| Med man one aecndan| was due
us me man speed wwcnzsv had manned an mass on '
basns of rulmg nnamnny on saws on Khn pan on Ina Appallanls and me olher
so-/. Mable on no pin :71 lha Second and mm Rlwandanls
sm ewzxeyzemnmzww
“Nana sanan luvnhnrwm .. med a may n... nrW\ruH|y em. dnuamnl VI aF\uNa v-man
[311 ms Cour! sets was |he Sessron Court‘: aausmn on Iuabmty and
concludes max ms Second and mm Respmuems are fully name ma-/.
|u the Fvsl Responuenz
Damms
[:2] A: In me quamum oi 9ene<aI damages and specmc damages‘ mm
was no ermr on the pan av lhe Session com The quamum nrdersd was
rm nunwesuy unnsswe The general damages were appmpnane gwen
mu main and mvenng cum Fbrsx Respenaanmam In Inns Falqlh Mam
mm: (A: Child suing Through my Fmm um um Fmnd; Mand
H-1mIAnduIAzIz) v Kmuun Mlllylll a. On [2015] 2 cu ass. [2016]
2 MLJ 1. TM specific dlmagu mm prover! on 3 oalancaotpmbahumea
The order cum smmn Cour! Is hemby affirmad They nra In he paid by
the Second and mm Rasponaenns
[331 The cast: av Ims appeal in the sum of RM5.000 Vs awavdsd |a me
AupeHam.i and anomer RM5,ouu to me fins! Rssponaem
DATED 20 OCTOBER 2023
rywi)/L.
R02 MAWAR ROZAKN
JUDVCIAL COMMVSSIONER
HKSH COURT w MALAYA
KUALA LUMPUR
sm nzmzxayzavwuwmrzvurw
«mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!
Ratnavamy Navamnam, sm Nmamah
Anisah Shaikh Anua and Amnana De-/r
rm Vlknes Rama & Co.
Tan Sn Darsnan S/ngh and Amar/rt Smgh
em Tan Sn Darsnan
T/n Dsrshan, Syed, Amaqvl A Farmers
Kajendm Ba/an togamsv mm Omar emu
Y/n VP Mama .4 Farmers
For the Appellants
For ths 1" Rssponnsms
Forthe 2- 4 3- Respondents.‘
sm nzmzxayzavvuwmrzvurw
«mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!
my am It was lo enable a royal rnotornads me nghl olwey wwc12s7
men crashed in|o BNF3798 |hal me Appellarlls were m, lrum me leaf
The Station Court‘: muons for Is a
ls] n slalea VI para 24 at Its luagmem, on a balance ol pmbabllllles.
me Sesslorl Courliound |Ila|lx1ltl me drlversaf wwc12e7 and anrms
were equally mqlluenl men had resulted ln me falaful oolllsmn ll was
lama man me rlm Ralnondenl whn was me passenger was mulled lo
rsoelve aemeges lmm all ma p-mes — sob/7 cl me sum In be gels by me
Second and mm: Respondents whlls| Ina nlher sass wls la be pale by
me Avvelhnm The fltrlaml damnges nmmmlad la lwzozmm and
spec I «mum l71RM542.l07 an
[E] The semen Cnurl observed aw. valslons on me ace-aenl ma
nelea lhallhe Second and Thlrd Raswndanldld m:| give evidence Ihuuqh
lhelr submlsslans supponsa me Flrsl Rupondanfs vemcn Evan mun‘
me Sesslon Cflufl nmed Ihal me Second and mm Respondents
sunmllleu mal me mt Responaenl haalellea |o prove nsallgerloe on me
pan 0! the deceased drlver and me mm Respondenl as evrderwe
showed lhal reasonable acllonswere taken mm lhe lmmedlale brake and
loohna me IWYS mm.
[11 On me issue at Ilablllly, me Sesslan Ooufl premised ll: firldlng on
me emence ol three wlmassas » me mve allng omcer (PW1), me
Flalnllll called as FW8 and me F|r$|ADDBIlanl1DW1]. Togelmr mm me
documanlary evidence, me Sesslan COIN‘ could no! chews on men
version was mare pvabahla ll lnund manna wllnssses lesumonlss cauld
nn| be wanted Mly.
em nullzxayzfivvuwlrzvurw
«mm. Smnl navlhnrwlll be H... e may he mm-y -mm: mm. VI nFluNa Wm!
[51
[9]
have been male carelul and caleiully come lo a slop lo olve way In me
loyal moloreade, mm all me Iralfiz: personnel nrl me made, me Fllsl
Awellanl odgm lo have drwan wnn greater care on me only nand, lne
sesuon coun lound mat me deoeeeed drlver should have on me pan
amen wlm caullorl and not lallgnle BNFJTQB so closely rne seeelon
cedn pmnounced lnal (ha daoeased driver And me Yrlird Rupondenls,
(oqemlv wnn |ha Aupellanls were equally llnble ll was mdemd lhzl lney
The seeslon oaun lound lne fullnwlng lacls
|z)ENF379B was asked lo sldo by lraffic polu:e Corporal Fem wno
was comng lne Pemangku Suluan Kedan for me relum lrom
lne conlerenoe ol Rulets Corporal Fauzl was sull iepumng ldr
duly aune name wlsldn in Kuala lump-ln
lbmle accldem zxxmrrsd when WWCI2fi1 was benlnd BNFZ-1795‘
not vlman aNl=a7as was swllchlng lanes;
(cm could no: be aslxrlamed whelhev ENF3798 swltcrled lanee or
hm all me lune bash on me same muddle lune m lmnl ol
WWC12B7:
(fl)The cnamlsl report wvndned me lacl |h:( lne accident oocurvud
men lne crash by WWC12E7 came [mm oenlnd M Burma.
The endlne ol WWC12fl7 was mlallsd whllst me mlddle back
bumper ol Burma was squarely and badly damaged.
Therefure, em n BNF3798 had changed lanes, me aocldenl
occuned In me muddle line when il was ngnl n Mml o1
WWCl2B7
so, me Sesslcrl coun concluded lha| me rim Anvellanl enould
sm oEAl11xHyEEPPl:lwlrzvMPw
“Nair Smnl ...n.mn .. UIQG n may he nflfllnnllly em. m.n.n vn .nuna wrul
an Day m equal pamans to me damages and oompensahon warned to
me Fnsx Respondent
Thu allanls umems
[10] In seeking ans Court to Imervsne, ma Appellants subrnmed Ina!
were were ermrs m we findings ov ma Sassnons com In nnmng me
Appeuanos and me seaana and Third Respondents aquauy name wnan
(a)The tram: vohoe corpora! Faun was nec tailed as a wnness‘ nu
(ma was wnuudnd max wwc12a7 unganed anrma bu! slalcd
|ha| based an Ina namge n coma be oonemna «mu wwc12s7
was dnven a men speed vmaram ma Impact caused (he saith
on me driver
[:11 The First Aapeflint had aeuuem ns police reporl mat slated
ansma was asked to stop whun moments La(erWWC1267 crashad Inlu
n from me rear. www |esIme11IhatCorpava|Fau1Ihad given a snacernenx
um lhe latter one no| lesmy al max PW1 immmed me lnal cowl that
Curpnra\ Fauzl had given sec/amen: that swam mac it had cnangaa
Ia naa » ‘ yang bsrgsrak flan nuong kehga dan km Ielan Detgerak Ke raman
kanan sedtkfl den bemarm secara mange/ut'
n 2] me Appellanls pmsennea a melhorl olcasss on hearsay name “us
Cnun In suppoll thew argument that u was lnaanussnhle evwencs and an
sucn me snsmn cam ougm nm |o firm ma Aapeuanxs equafly Hams
am nzmzxayzavwuwmrzvurw
«ma s.nn lunhnrwm a. met! a may a. nrW\n|U|y am. dnuamnl VI mum v-max
[13] The Appellants submllled mac lne cnsmlsl repons showed mal me
damage In BNFSVBE was ngnl m ore middle rear mus me Irabllny could
nal be appomoned equally. The Anpellanl lurmar relled an me
pmlographs and Iepnrl lrom SPRINT lnal had slalea me pmnamlloy of
wwcl267 had (allga|sd too closely
[14] The aim! emar 0! me sascion Cmlfl mal ma Anpellams submmed
on was ma lallure la cnnslder max ma Flax Appellant‘: raparr was lodgad
five noun. allar ma acoldan|wl1lEH.he rlrsl aasponaenl was van menms
allar rne Appellanl had mghlbghled mal ma lasllmomes av ma Flu!
Rasamaarrrs mlnassas had cal-robcra|ad lrra Aaaallanla valslan at me
uocldanl ma FlrslAppeHanlhadIe1M'led lh:| rla ma rlcl s|an aumaa
all ula sudden He draws an a slow spud olsokm/ll and had grzduzlly
sloopea. Tlrara wail a dlslarraa nl manly malars betweln anravua and
Corporal Faun The Appellanl submnled thalWWCl267 travelled al mgr.
speed (ha| had czussd II In crash lnlo anrme and man swerved lme
lne bamel mlul had kllleu ma dsceased drlver
nro socom: Inn T ' Rssgrrusrr nsgfig
[151 The Second and Third Respondents malnlalned mar ansam Ilzd
swrlcnea lanes wilnoul any lnulcamrr arla s|cppeu abruptly In mum of
WWCI267 as dlrec1ed by me pollce and had caused WWCI257 lowlme
am ll lrarr. me rear It was lhell submraslons mar llra al:clden| was fully
altribulad In ma negligence 0| swam mal mu changed larras and
uoppsd suddenly laaalaa a dangerms snuauarl wvuch was lmposunle lor
me dacund am: olWWC1267 la am:
am nzmzxayzavwulmrzvurw
“Nana Smnl luvlhnrwlll rs. UIQG a may r... nflnlnnllly ml. dnuavlml VI nFluNfl ml
[15] Yhere were submsssnons on the errors omre Session Cnun mmrey
had not Vodgsd arr appeal agamst me deceron Iha| mean! my had
accepted nand had no ccnrclarrns.
Th|Oou sassessmenlof wm co
The accrdonl
m1 ms Court flrsl smdled me rndependenn evrdence nr ms Avpsal
Records 7 me Dhmngraphs and me reccrte, cnenrrsnr and SFRVNT! —
end Doncmded mal the aa:man| rrad accurred wnerr bum vamdes more rrr
me same line‘ aursvea was In rrorn M wwcrzsv me damage
ausrarned by both venrclea canfinnad an a balance or prdazmmres mat
Ih:| was me posmnn 01 me venrexes there was no ewdanec mat me
accident had happened whilst ma vemdss were In any mrrer pcsmon
Thus. an a balance of pmbahw 1! can be ccnexuded that auram was
already squarery In one same lane as wwcczsv swluated In norm 0! me
waner, Ausl cneno me accvdsnl
[1 51 We oowrrerroe lnllawmg me mursian a1WWCI267 Emu me rear 0!
BNF3796. wwc1267 men look a swerve to me Ien and washed mu) ma
divider bamev It was url1umJnale mat me resml 0! are Iocmenl caused
me lalahly of me deceased drwar and very serrcus vuunes w the F|rs|
Responderrc that changed me me
Lxabl/lg
[1 91 Nlhaugh n wcmd have Inflaefl assisted me mun w me name pence
rnrneew was called so resrity as ma ernderrce would have been max 9! an
era nzmzxayzavwuwmzvurw
«ma a.n.r nmhnrwm be met! a van! r... ar1mrruHIy -mm: dnuamnl VI mum war
independent observer. lhls use was only squlppea wlm lne oral
lesllmonles or me FilS| Annellanl and me Secnnd Responnenl on the
amount ol the acclaenl.
Yhls Coun consldeved lne evldence In me Appeal Recolvs The
lacs lrom ma leslnnony alme FlvstAppe||an|, me dlwerol aurawe are
as (allows
. ENF3798 was In lne mldflle lane wwen me name pollce [rum me
lell went ahead and aneclau name to s|ap la enable me royal
motorcade to pass The llaffir: nollce calna lmm ma lanss on
Ina loll, lhsn he want lo me muddle lane up arms rmm where
ENFHBS was lravalllng ana eloppea Ilslfic. There were no
mher velllclus ln irum at ENFJ79El
. Tu slap wens‘ lhelmlfic palms swl|I:hed on ms snan and rilsad
ms hand won: he came to rns poslliun ahead VI lne mlddls
lane.
. Tne Fnsl Appellanlslwvsd dawn BNF37B8 and braked Priortu
mantle Flrs(Appe||am drwe an wxmm He Ieshfied max mere
were lime and opaorlunlny lo brake la some in a complete
slanusllll:
. me lralllc polloe men werl| arm) the lane on me rlghtmost lane
to slap the lrelllc male,
. A snarl wnlle aha awravss s1oppsd,WWCl2l7 uesneu inla
lls lean Yhe Flnl Aupallant observed lnal WWCI257 Inst
sm hEAl11xHyEEPPl:lwlrzvMPw
“Nair Smnl ...n.mn .. UIQG n my me nflmnnllly mum: m.n.n VI nFluNa wrul
[2I]
Donlml‘ and: n nad cmsned mto BNF3793. swawed to me Ian
and crashed unto me d
an
. The xmpam ofme crash from behmd by wwc12e7 had inched
aNF379e «award that caused me Fm Respondent’: mad to
rapidly banged la Ihs back,
. A poms raporl was lodged a law nuurs rater
The Fm Resnflndenl m wwc12a7 had lamfied ma cduowmg [ans
. swans md mwened lmm ma MI lane flhnul an leert away.
when n ma suddenly xwncnad Vanss. wnnom any
indxcilwun/signal ugms vrdm ma Ian War» In me midme lane m
fmn(O1WWC1267 about so loI| m terms mdmande;
. He won xponsd me name new nu aheau an the sanu lino‘
s|andmg on ma dolled painted hue on the road He was
ilandmg In me rigm sue arms mdaorcyde.
. anrma then suddenly brakes and slapped causing
WWC1267 to crash mlo snmgm mm ‘rs rear.
. He recalled nsanng ma mm appudd by me deceased dnver
seated dn ns ngm m wwc12e7 nu: ma oduismn had awraady
happened He men passed am and cduxd ndx lsslify lo (aux
memnec
sm nzmzxayzavwuwmrzvurw
«mm. Sml\lI1v\hnrwH\I>e d... It: may he mm-y -mm: dnunmnl VI mum Wm!
. He opmedihal nauravsa nan not swuahea Ianas, me aocvdent
would not have happened.
. He uomd have my magea me name recon many mums aner
ma amuann due |o ms rmspnausaoan for me gmve Iruunes mat
he had smlsmd wdudlng luswg a hmh. amungs1 ulhers
[221 rm mm was also me |es(Imony 5! me masngaung omoe: me
was cause as wmnoss co: ma Fnsl Raapmaann as Pwi He named Ina!
he ma recorded me uaxemam 0! me name pohca who had no| lodged
any palms mam an m. accrdeni ma com agrees mm the lubmtssmns
av ma Appauanu mal the lashmany u Pwt an In Must Inc trim: palnce
had and unou-nan in hearsay. See c.pmv Inturlncu ans v Cncang
Nung Loony can-:smnnsn<1.; Sdrv Bhd[2Ull5] s MLJ 593, Runs] 4 cu
«.|zuo51sAMRm, Mlllyiia Nafinnallnsunrvcl Sdn sndvmmysu.
Rubbnr aavuopm-m Corp [was] 2 MLJ 124. Laanv Hang Kn
Public Pmse:uIur[1986] 2 MU 2115 and Wong nun we v Mohnmd
An [1971] 2 MLJ17§
v
[23] Upnn a ckxset scmnny of ms les1\many‘(hLs Court observed that ma
mvsshganon revealed that ma Fllsl Appellanmad malmamed ms account
0! me acuaem m max ENFIYEB had all me whxle been Iraveflmg m me
mmme lane pnor |u Ihe msnucuon by ma Irafic pohce Io hall. H9 mu also
agreed mm me cankenlmn max wwc12s1 was Iravsllmg at high speed
wmoh resulted m I|s Inahmly m s|op m Mme and studded and crushing unto
me divider Illa! havmg callmsd with anrme
am nzmzxayzavwuwmrzvurw
«mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max
| 1,881 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
22NCC-444-11/2014 | PLAINTIF SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD DEFENDAN 1. ) PD Marine Services Sdn Bhd 2. ) HAJI YAACOB BIN HAJI HUSSIN 3. ) 1. MOHD SALIHODDIN BIN HAJI HUSSIN 4. ) MOHD SHAHRANI BIN MOHAMAD TAIB 5. ) Mohd Helmy Azrai Bin Yaacob 6. ) NORDIANA WAHIDAH BINTI YAACOB | Application for leave to execute judgment after 6 years - Reasons for delay in executions not disclosed in affidavit - Mandatory for Court to be satisfied with reasonable delay - No materials for Court to exercise its discretion | 07/11/2023 | YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan | https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=846c9ddf-dfbf-4930-9474-e33b7b5ee22d&Inline=true |
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
SUIT NO.: 22NCC-444-11/2014
BETWEEN
SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD
(Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Bank Perusahaan
Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad) (49572-H) … PLAINTIFF
AND
1. PD MARINE SERVICES SDN BHD
(Company No.: 197927-A)
2. HAJI YAACOB BIN HAJI HUSSIN
(NRIC: 451001-05-5349 / Old NRIC: 0906134)
3. MOHD SALIHODDIN BIN HAJI HUSSIN
(NRIC: 591226-05-5379 / Old NRIC: 5804897)
4. MOHD HELMY AZRAI BIN YAACOB
(NRIC: 770531-05-5491 / Old NRIC: A3671111)
5. MOHD SHAHRANI BIN MOHAMAD TAIB
(NRIC: 700129-08-5859 / Old NRIC: A1597987)
6. NORDIANA WAHIDA BINTI YAACOB
(NRIC: 801001-05-5346) …DEFENDANTS
07/11/2023 15:23:24
22NCC-444-11/2014 Kand. 22
S/N 351shL/fMEmUdOM7e17iLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
2
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 16)
Introduction
[1] This is an application under Enclosure 16 by the Plaintiff pursuant
to Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) and Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 for
leave to enforce the summary judgment of this Court that was
granted on 13.4.2015 given that more than 6 years have lapsed
since the date of the said judgment.
[2] The application was dismissed on the ground that no reasons, let
alone satisfactory reasons were given in the affidavit filed in support
of the leave to explain the Plaintiff’s delay in the enforcement of the
judgment within the 6 years for this Court to exercise its discretion.
Brief Background
[3] Based on the affidavit filed in support (Enclosure 17), the Plaintiff
averred that the summary judgment was obtained on 13.4.2015
(“the Judgment”) arising from the breach of a Term Loan and Fixed
Loan Facility granted to the 1st Defendant wherein the 2nd to 6th
Defendants had stood as guarantors. The Judgment was:
a) against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally for
the sum of RM 596,559.56 as at 31.7.2014 with interest at the
rate of 1.5% above the prime rate at 6.85% p.a. from 1.8.2014
to full realisation;
S/N 351shL/fMEmUdOM7e17iLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
3
b) against the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants jointly and severally
for the sum of RM 3,532,335.77 as at 31.7.2014 with interest
at the rate of 4.0 % p.a. from 1.8.2014 until full realisation;
c) against the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th Defendants jointly and severally
for the sum of RM 4,766,882.78 as at 31.7.2014 with interest
at the rate of 4% p.a. from 1.8.2014 until full realisation.
[4] As security for the Term Loan and Fixed Loan Facility, the 1st
Defendant had charged the property held under No. Hakmilik
65881, Lot 1485, Mukim Si Rusa, Daerah Port Dickson, Negeri
Sembilan (“the Property”) to the Plaintiff.
[5] On 14.8.2019, the Plaintiff had obtained an order for the sale of the
Property. The Court thereafter, on 28.4.2021, ordered for the
Property to be sold by public auction on 7.7.2021. The Property was
successfully sold by auction at RM 510,000.00 on 20.9.2021 and
the Plaintiff received the full proceeds of sale on 21.12.2021.
[6] Quite clearly, the proceeds of sale from the Property were wholly
insufficient to meet and satisfy the entire sums ordered to be paid
under the Judgment.
[7] As at 18.8.2023, the outstanding sums under the Judgment was RM
6,434,697.57.
[8] As more than 6 years have lapsed since the Judgment on
13.4.2015, the Plaintiff sought for leave to enforce on the Judgment.
S/N 351shL/fMEmUdOM7e17iLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
4
Court’s Deliberations
[9] Apart from stating that the proceeds of sale from the Property were
insufficient to meet the Judgment sums and the fact that the Plaintiff
has the avenue to enforce the Judgment by filing a winding up
petition against the 1st Defendant and commencing bankruptcy
proceedings against the other Defendants, no satisfactory reasons
have been proffered by the Plaintiff explaining the reasons for the
delay in enforcing the Judgment as required under Order 46 Rule
3(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012.
[10] The Plaintiff could have proceeded to enforce the Judgment against
all and or any of the Defendants concurrently with the action taken
to enforce on the charge over the Property during the entire period
from 13.4.2015 to 13.4.2021 but did not do so. No reasons were
given.
[11] Even after the proceeds of sale were received sometime on
21.2.2021 and the Plaintiff realised the insufficiency of the amount,
the Plaintiff did not take any steps to enforce on the Judgment
before 13.4.2021, prior to the expiration of the 6 years. Again, no
reasons were given.
[12] The burden is on the Plaintiff to provide sufficient reasons and the
cause for the delay [See: Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad
v. East Curve Development Sdn Bhd [2019] AMEJ 1260]. The
requirement to provide reasons for the delay is mandatory [See:
CIMB Bank Bhd v. Teratai Sanjung (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 MLJ 249].
S/N 351shL/fMEmUdOM7e17iLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
5
[13] Regrettably, the Plaintiff has failed to discharge its burden and to
provide the reasons for the delay. Thus, there are no materials of
which this Court can rely upon to exercise its discretion to grant the
leave as sought.
Conclusion
[14] For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s application under
Enclosure 16 is dismissed.
Dated the 7th day of November 2023
ONG CHEE KWAN
Judge of the High Court of Malaya
High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2
Counsel:
1. Mr. Hapizi bin Hashim for Plaintiff
Messrs. Sidek teoh Wong & Dennis (Kuala Lumpur)
S/N 351shL/fMEmUdOM7e17iLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
6
Case Reference:
1. Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad v. East Curve
Development Sdn Bhd [2019] AMEJ 1260]
2. CIMB Bank Bhd v. Teratai Sanjung (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 MLJ 249
Legislation Reference:
1. Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) and Rule 3; Order 46 Rule 3(2)(b) of the Rules
of Court 2012
S/N 351shL/fMEmUdOM7e17iLQ
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
22Ncc—u4—11/2014 Kano. 22
; ,1, :m' A7 2~ A4
IN YHE HIGH COUHY or MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUH
IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAVSIA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
sun No - 22NCC-M4-11/201!
aErwEEN
SMALL MEDIuM EN1EnI>aIsE DEvELoI=MEN1
BANK MALAVSIA BERHAD
(Dahulunya dlkenall sehagal Bank Pemsahaan
Kecil a. Sedarhana Malaysla Eemad] (49572-H) FLAINYIFF
AND
I. PD MARINE sEnvIcEs SDN EHD
(Company Nn.:197927»A)
2. HA..II VAACOB BIN HAJI HUSSIN
(NRlC:45IDD1-05-5149/Old Nfll :a9nsI:I4)
:I. MOHD SALIHODDIN EIN HAJI HUSSIN
(NRIC: 591226-05-517M om Nfll . anaasv)
4. MOHD HELMV AZHAI EIN VAACOB
(NRIC: 7705:1415-5491 / om Nfll :AJ571I I I)
5. MOHD SHAHHANI BIN MOHAMAD TAIB
(NRIC: 7|‘K'H29-('lE-5859/ om Nfll 1597957)
6. NOHDIANA WAHIDA BINTI VAACOB
(NRIC: BDIDD1-05-51:16] ...DEFENDANYS
sw J51 shLNMEmUDCIM7aI7ILfl
-mm Sum -m...mI nausea Inve'WK-enIIvIruIIl’1u‘1msDMAIEMKVAEFILING varuI
JUDGMENT
1Enc/asurs 16')
In1roum:1|on
[1] ‘H115 15 an apphcaunn under Encmsure 15 by me Pla|n|1ll pursuanl
(0 Omar 46 we 211)1a) ana Rule 3 a1 me Rules a1 Court 2012 for
1eave In enlavce me summary mgmem al nms Caurl ma1 was
granted an 13.4 mm given ma1 move man 5 yeavs have 1apssa
smce \he dam a1 me sa1d ]udgmen|
[2] The apphcamn was a1sm1ssec1 on me ground that no reasons, le\
a1ane saus1aanmy veasans weve g1ven1n|he all1dav|H11ed1n supporl
a1 \he 1eave |a sxp1a1n ms P1a1nhH's ae1aym1he enlavcemem 0! ms
wdgmenl within me 6 years 1a: \h1s Coun |a exermse us dnscreuan.
arm Background
[:1 Based on me an1aav.n11ea 1n suppon (Encmsure 171, me P1a1m111
averred max |he summary ]udgmen| was obta1ned an 13.4 2015
(‘the Judgmem')ar1s1ng1rom me breach a1aTerm Loan am F1xed
Laan Fac1h|y granled m we 1:‘ Delendanl wherem |he 2M m 5"’
Delendams had sum as guavamms. The Judgment was
a) aga1ns| ms 1“, 2"“ and 3'4 Delendams ]o1n|1y and severaHy rm
ms sum al HM 596559.55 as at 31 7.2014 wnh mterest a| me
me a1 1 5% above me pnme rate at 5 85% pa. lmm I.B.2DIA
to mu real1saucm1
N :51 sr1u1MEmuno>.17e171Lo
Nab! 5.11.1 mmhnv WW be used M now me mw1n.11-1 31111; nnmmnnl vn nF1uNG wru1
¥
[4]
[5]
[7]
5) aga1ns|theI"12"“.4"' and 5*" oe1ehuah1sre1r1uy and severauy
lar the sum al RM 35321335 77 as a| 31 7.2514 mm mterest
at \he va|e a1A.D =/a p.a lmm 1 5 2514 un(1HuHreal1sa(1an,
c) aga1ns|theI"12"“.4"' and st" oe1ehuah1sre1r1uy and severauy
lar the sum al RM 17661552 75 as a| 31 7.2014 w1|h |n|eres|
at \he va|e e1 Av. p.a 1rem 1 5 201A unm 1uu reahsaheh
As seeumy lav me Term Loan and F1xed Laan Famlnyy me 15‘
Delendant had charged me prepeny he1u uhuer Ne. Hakmmk
55551, Lo| 1455, Mukun 51 Russ, Daerah Pen DVCIGOE Negen
Semb|1an(“lhe Property") |o me P1am|n1
On IA.5 2019,1112 P|a|n|1ll had amameu an order lar |he sale al me
Prepeny The ceun chereaner, on 25.4.2021. ordered 1er 1he
Prepeny m be se1u by pubhc auchen en 7 7.2521. The Properly was
suecess1uuy se1u by auchen at RM 515.005 no on 25.9.2521 and
the F1a1n\m receweu the MI proceeds ol sa1e en 21 .12.2u21.
Qmte mearly‘ 1he preeeeus on sale lmm lhe Properly were whauy
1hsu11.e1eh| to meet aha sahs1y me ehhre sums ordered to he paid
under me Judgmem
As a| 15.5.2023. me nulslandmg sums under me Judgmem was HM
s.43A,s97.57.
As mere than 6 years have 1apsea smce |he Judgment on
1a.A.2u1511he F\aIn|1!l seugm her leave |a emeree an the .|udgmen|.
sw 151sr1u1»1Emuna>.17e171Lo
‘N512 Sum mmhnv WW be used M mm me urw1rr.11-r Jun; nnmmnnl vn .;1u>1a wru1
Conn‘: uelnbemlons
[9] Apart vronr slahng ma| me proceeds al sa\e vronr \he Propeny were
rnsumerenr 1e meet me Judgment sums and me «am rnar |he Plamml
nas |he avenue to enlarce me Judgmem by mrng a wmdmg up
pemmn aga|ns| me 1-‘ Delendant ano cornrnenerng bankruplcy
proceedmgs agamsl |he drner Derendanrs, nd sauslactory reasons
have been prouered by me F\amtM exprarnrng |he reasons «er me
de\ay In envorerng me Judgmem as reourred under order 46 Rule
3(2)10) o1 \he Rmes e1 Caurl 2012.
[10] The F\am(M1:eu|d have proceeded 1o enharce |he Judgment aga|ns|
aH ano av any 131 me Deiendams concurrently wllh me achan |aken
to enverce on me charge over me Propeny dunng me en1rre perrod
lmm 13.4.20151d 13.4 2021 hm drd no| do so No reasons were
grven
[11] Even auer me proceeds al sa\e were reserved sameume on
212.2021 and me Waxnm reahsed me rnsmrrerency o1 me amaunL
me P\amMl ord ndr \ake any steps 1o enlavce on \he Judgmem
nature 13 A2021‘ pnar 1e \he explrahan o1 me 6 years. Agam. no
reasons were grven
[12] The burden rs on me Plalnhll 1e prowde srmrerenr reasons and me
cause 1or me de\ay [see Bank Keqasama Flakyat Ma/aysra Bemad
V. Easr Curve Develnpmenr Sdn end [2019] AMEJ 1260] me
veqmremenl to provide reasons «er me de\ay rs mandatory [see
CIMB Bank Bhd V T2rata1San/ung(/VI) sdn Bhd[2D20] 1 MLJ 249]
n 151snuwErr.uoa>.17e17rLo
Nah! s.n.r numhnv WW be used m now me orwrrr.u-r Arms ooamrrr vn mun: wrm
[13] Regreuably, the Wamm has tailed m mschsygs us burden and m
prowde me reasons «or the de\ay. Thus, there are no ma|ena\s av
wmch «ms com can vely upon \a exermse ms duscreuan m gvant me
Weave as saugh|.
Concluslnn
[14] For me reasons s|ate\1 above, me msmmrs sppncsuon under
Enclasuve 16 \s dusmwssed.
Dated me 7'" day al November 2023
om: cuss KWAN
Judge al \he Hugh Court ac Ma\aya
Hwgh Cnun av Kuala Lumpm, NCC2
Counsel:
1. Mr. Hspm hm Hashxm lar Plannhll
Messrs. Sldek tenh Wang A Denms (Kua/a Lumpul)
N 151 snuvMEmuaowe1'nLo
Nab! Sum mmhnv WW be used M now he mwvuulv aim nnmmnnl vn mun: Wm
Case Reference:
1. Bank Keaasama Rakyat Ma/aysra Berhad V East Curve
Development Sdn Bhd [2019] AMEJ 1260]
2. CIMB Bank Bhd V Teratar San1ung(M) Sdn BhL1[2D2D] 1 MLJ 249
Legislation Reference:
1. omens Hme 2(1){a) am mes, Order 46 Rule 3(2)1b)olme Rules
ac Cnur12D12
w 151 snuvMEmunoM7e17xLo
-mm Sum mmhnv WW be used M mm me mwmu-v fiws nnmmnnl vn mun: Wm
| 6,756 | Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10 |
Subsets and Splits