Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #51/2021 23 December 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week NG PIK LIAN v. TAI MAY CHEAN & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2021] 10 CLJ 841 Appeal Updates Appeal Updates Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 10 (Part 6) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

NG PIK LIAN v. TAI MAY CHEAN & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2021] 10 CLJ 841
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA; GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-02(NCvC)(A)-1349-07-2019, W-02(NCvC)(A)-1330-07-2019, W-02(NCvC)(A)-1331-07-2019 & W-02(NCvC)(A)-1350-07-2019]
06 OCTOBER 2021

MENTAL DISORDERS AND TREATMENTS: Inquiry - Prima facie - Determination of whether subject mentally disordered - Whether mental disorder made subject incapable of managing herself and her affairs - Inquiry ordered after prima facie case proven - Whether would mean subject only allowed to rebut prima facie case after inquiry - Whether subject afforded opportunity to rebut prima facie case - Whether circumstances leading to application for inquiry considered - Whether application made in good faith - Mental Health Act 2001, s. 52

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons - Application for - Inquiry - Prima facie - Determination of whether subject mentally disordered - Whether subject incapable of managing herself and her affairs - Inquiry ordered after prima facie case proven - Carer for subject ordered to produce subject to court - Whether would mean subject only allowed to rebut prima facie case after inquiry - Whether subject afforded opportunity to rebut prima facie case - Whether judge seized with jurisdiction to order carer to produce subject for inquiry - Whether circumstances leading to application for inquiry considered - Whether application made in good faith - Mental Health Act 2001, s. 52

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Finality - Finality of inquiry order - Inquiry order after prima facie case proven - Determination of whether subject mentally disordered - Whether mental disorder made subject incapable of managing herself and her affairs - Whether inquiry order final decision that disposed of rights of parties - Whether appealable - Mental Health Act 2001, s. 52 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 3

---

1. Premavathy Balakrishnan v. Dr Premalatha Rama Govinda [2019] 1 LNS 1708 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Dr Premalatha Rama Govinda v. Premavathy Balakrishnan [Civil Suit No: AB22NCVC-14-06/2017]

2. Masni Yusoff v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1984 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Masni Yusoff v. PP [Criminal Trial No: WA-45SO-26-11/2018]

Legal Network Series

[2021] 1 LNS 58	ANG PI KUI & ANOR v. LEE WEE TECK & ANOR 1. Any action brought on behalf of a partnership must be filed in the partnership's name or in the names of all its partners. An individual partner to a partnership has no locus standi to institute an action against a party that entered into a transaction with the partnership firm without naming either the firm or the other partners. 2. A landlord has the option not to renew or terminate a tenancy upon its expiry. When a landlord without protest receives monthly rent from a tenant after the expiry of the tenancy and during the holding over period, such acceptance of rent does not create a new fixed-term tenancy from the option clause. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Locus standi - Action premised on tenancy agreement entered  between landlord and a partnership firm - Plaintiff brought action in his private capacity and his capacity as a partner in partnership against landlord - Other partners were not named in proceeding - Plaintiff not a party to tenancy agreement - Whether proceeding ought to be brought in name of firm and all partners - Whether plaintiff lacked locus standi to initiate action LANDLORD AND TENANT: Agreement - Termination - Option clause - Tenant gave notice stating intention not to renew tenancy and requested refund of deposit paid - Monthly tenancy created after expiry of tenancy during period of holding over - Whether landlord entitled not to extend tenancy in absence of notice for extension from tenant - Whether there was a valid termination of tenancy - Whether landlord acted in accordance with terms of tenancy - Whether tenancy has been novated - Whether new fixed-term tenancy was created when landlord accepted rent after expiry of tenancy For the plaintiffs - Ravi G; M/s G Ravi For the defendants - Chew Wei Han & Yong Wee Cih; M/s K H Loo & Co
[2021] 1 LNS 60	LIM KANG SENG & ANOR v. RANI MARIMUTHU & ANOR There is no hard and fast rule that a person's income has to be proved by documentary evidence only. Loss of dependency claim could be proven despite the absence of documentary evidence of the deceased's income. ROAD TRAFFIC: Negligence - Road accident - Fatal accident - Collision between motorcar and motorcycle - Motorcar stopped abruptly in middle of road without any indicator causing motorcycle to crash into rear of motorcar - Driver of motorcar admitted stopping suddenly - Whether there was opportunity for motorcycle to prevent crashing into rear of motorcar - Whether motorcar had created extremely dangerous situation when it halted abruptly in middle of road - Whether there was basis to penalize rider of motorcycle - Whether driver of motorcar to be wholly blamed for causing accident DAMAGES: Fatal accident - Dependency claim - Loss of support - Only deceased's work permit and income tax assessments tendered as exhibits - Payslips merely marked as ID - Deceased's employer refused to attend court as a witness - Whether there was sufficient proof of deceased's earnings - Whether loss of dependency could be proven in absence of documentary evidence of deceased's income DAMAGES: Assessment - Loss of future earnings - Claim for partial loss of future earnings - Inability to sit for longer time due to spinal injury - Continuous pain made it difficult for plaintiff to perform his work as a bus driver - Plaintiff was terminated from employment after accident - Plaintiff was earning for a lower salary after accident - Whether plaintiff was entitled for partial loss of future earnings - Whether plaintiff's inability to work as a result of pain suffered from accident was supported by medical evidence For the appellants/defendants - Ravinder Singh & Kala Lakshmi; M/s Othman Hashim & Co For the respondents/plaintiffs - J Chandrika & T Balaskanda; M/s Zaman & Associates
[2021] 1 LNS 61	MUHAMMAD FARIZ AFIQ MOHD ROHIZI v. PP In cases involving sexual offences, an accused's identification at the identification parade and dock identification by a child victim is possible because the sexual exploitation occurred face to face and at close range. CRIMINAL LAW: Sexual offences - Sexual assault - Penal Code, s. 377CA - Sexual assault on a child of tender age - Accused inserted fingers into victim's anus - Non-consensual act - Police report and medical test done on same day - Victim related incident to his parents immediately - Accused identified positively by victim during identification parade and dock identification - Whether there was cogent corroborative evidence to support evidence of victim - Whether victim was competent to testify in court - Whether there was a need to procure scientific evidence when medical evidence confirmed injuries suffered by victim - Whether prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Denial - Sexual offence - Accused inserted fingers into victim's anus - Accused admitted meeting victim on alleged incident date - Accused did not lodge police report to deny allegation of sexual assault on victim - Whether prosecution's evidence had been refuted and dislodged by defence - Whether defence was a mere denial - Whether denial runs contrary to medical evidence For the appellant - S Singaravadivel; M/s Liew, Julia & Tan For the respondent - DPP, Azrul Faidz Abdul Razak
[2019] 1 LNS 1231	JEFFRY ABDULLAH lwn. PP 1. Perbuatan menukar air kencing oleh seorang anggota polis adalah satu perbuatan yang melanggar hal ehwal prinsipal dalam memastikan barang kes dijaga rapi dan tidak tercemar supaya sesuatu pendakwaan yang dilakukan adalah sesuai dengan proses undang-undang. 2. Sesuatu pihak tidak akan dianggap sebagai rakan jenayah semata-mata kerana telah memberi, berjanji, menawarkan atau bersetuju memberi apa-apa imbuhan. 3. Pengadu yang hanya memainkan peranan untuk memerangkap seorang anggota polis dalam satu perbuatan jenayah bukanlah rakan sejenayah. Dalam hal sedemikian, keterangan pengadu tersebut tidak memerlukan keterangan sokongan. KETERANGAN: Sokongan - Pengadu - Kesalahan rasuah - Kebolehterimaan keterangan pengadu - Pengadu menghulurkan wang kepada tertuduh - Suapan yang berlaku terhadap tertuduh atas arahan pihak SPRM melalui perangkap - Sama ada pengadu merupakan rakan sejenayah - Sama ada pengadu hanya memainkan peranan untuk memerangkap anggota polis dalam perbuatan jenayah - Sama ada keterangan pengadu memerlukan sokongan PERKATAAN DAN ISTILAH: 'Hal-ehwal prinsipal' - Seksyen 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah 2009 - Sama ada merujuk kepada bidang tugas dan urusan yang ditetapkan oleh satu badan awam UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Pemerolehan suapan secara rasuah -Penerimaan suapan oleh pegawai polis - Dorongan untuk menukar air kencing orang yang ditahan yang didakwa positif dadah - Tertuduh mengambil wang yang dihulurkan dan memasukkan ke dalam poket seluarnya - Sama ada suapan telah diperoleh secara terus terang - Sama ada intipati pertuduhan bawah s. 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah 2009 telah dibuktikan - Sama ada perbuatan tertuduh melanggar hal ehwal prinsipal berkenaan penjagaan barang kes - Sama ada anggapan bawah s. 50(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah 2009 terpakai Bagi pihak perayu - Sukri Mohamed & Melissa Sukri; T/n Wan Haron Sukri & Nordin Bagi pihak responden - Mohd Azlan Basri, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
[2019] 1 LNS 1440	CHE YUNUS ABD RAHMAN @ CHE AWANG & SATU LAGI lwn. ISMAIL CHOKAT ALI Walaupun A. 55 k. 9 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') tidak memperuntukkan bahawa pindaan boleh dibuat pada notis rayuan yang telah difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi, namun demikian Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai budi bicara bawah A. 20 k. 8 KKM untuk mempertimbangkan permohonan untuk meminda notis rayuan tersebut. GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap awad - Kecederaan serius pada bahagian kepala - Hakim bicara memberikan RM250,000 sebagai ganti rugi bagi kecederaan pada bahagian kepala dan RM181,000 sebagai kos rawatan masa hadapan - Plaintif masih mempunyai kelemahan dan kecacatan selepas kemalangan - Plaintif telah menjalani banyak pembedahan - Plaintif mengalami gangguan emosi yang tidak menentu - Sama ada kelemahan dan kecacatan plaintif bersifat kekal - Sama ada awad-awad yang telah diberikan terlampau tinggi - Sama ada plaintif wajar diberikan kos rawatan masa hadapan bagi menjalani rawatan psikiatri GANTI RUGI: Kecederaan diri - Kos penjagaan - Kecederaan serius pada bahagian kepala - Plaintif mengalami kelemahan dan kecacatan yang bersifat kekal selepas kemalangan - Plaintif berusia muda dan terpaksa bergantung kepada orang lain - Kehilangan keupayaan untuk bekerja - Sama ada pergerakan plaintif memerlukan pengawasan - Sama ada kos penjagaan wajar diberikan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Rayuan - Notis rayuan - Permohonan untuk meminda notis rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi - Permohonan difailkan bawah A. 55 k. 9 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ('KKM') - Budi bicara Mahkamah - Kelewatan pemfailan permohonan - Sama ada Mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara untuk meminda notis rayuan berlandaskan A. 20 k. 8 KKM - Sama ada terdapat alasan yang munasabah dalam kelewatan pemfailkan permohonan PROSEDUR SIVIL: Kos - Perintah berkenaan kos - Penetapan kos selepas bicara - Kos membela dan kos kepeguaman - Liabiliti pihak-pihak ditetapkan atas dasar 50: 50 - Sama ada kos membela dan kos kepeguaman adalah berasingan dengan ganti rugi yang diberikan di dalam suatu tindakan - Sama ada kos membela dan kos kepeguaman yang penuh wajar diberikan - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 59 k. 23(5)(d) Bagi pihak perayu - Mohd Arif; T/n Naicker & Associates Bagi pihak responden - HT Tiong; T/n N M Tiong & Co

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 10 (Part 6)

Pursuant to the scheme of the Mental Health Act 2001, after a prima facie case is proven, the subject should be allowed to rebut the prima facie case. Once the rebuttal is accepted, the matter ends and, no inquiry would be ordered. But, if it is not accepted, an inquiry would be ordered. The inquiry itself will be in two-tier. First is to establish that the subject is indeed mentally disordered. If this is not proven, the matter ends there. If this is proven, then the second stage will have to be established; to prove that the mental disorder has indeed resulted in the subject being incapable of managing himself/herself and his/her affairs due to such mental disorder. Once the court makes the order that an inquiry be held under s. 52 of the Mental Health Act 2001, that order is a final decision that disposes of the rights of the parties and the aggrieved party has every right to appeal against the order.
Ng Pik Lian v. Tai May Chean & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] 10 CLJ 841 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Intermittent absence from work does not warrant disciplinary action, more so, where there is evidence of condonation. Hence, the Public Services Commission erred in dismissing the employee from work, where the absence from work was condoned and the superior failed to report the absence 'as soon as possible' as required under reg. 25 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Disciplinary) Regulations 1993.
Noor Bhayzura Dali v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia & Anor [2021] 10 CLJ 860 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Whether the arrest and detention of an accused person is wrongful would very much depend on whether the authorities had acted within the provision of s. 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or s. 29 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 ('ATIPSOM'). The authorities have to show they have reasonable or probable cause to effect the arrest, in that, the authorities have received credible information or held reasonable suspicion as to the commission of an offence. With regard to the arrest of the accused person in this case, taking into consideration that the police report did not disclose any offence under s. 13(a) to (h) of the ATIPSOM or under s. 323 of the Penal Code against the accused, or for that matter any seizable offence, and that the accused was not a 'person who has been concerned in any offence committed anywhere in Malaysia which is a seizable offence... or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned,' then the evidence is aplenty in support of the irresistible conclusion that the arrest and detention of the accused was unlawful.
Zaidah Ismail v. Inspektor Rabiatul Adawiayah Mohd Noor & Ors And Another Appeal [2021] 10 CLJ 876 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The blanket denial of the right to be considered for bail for male offenders under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ('SOSMA') as adverted to by its s. 13(2)(b) is discriminatory of men. Such a blanket exception in favour of women is also devoid of any rationale or reasonable classification or differentiation and violates the equality provision of art. 8 of the Federal Constitution ('FC'). Whilst SOSMA is a valid law and remains valid notwithstanding that it may offend arts. 5, 9, 10, 13 of the FC, it cannot offend or be inconsistent with art. 8. It follows that the word 'women' in s. 13(2)(b) must be defined as including 'men'. It follows further that the applicants for bail herein, being men charged with a security offence under SOSMA, are entitled to be considered for bail.
Entiran Durasamy & Other Applications v. PP [2021] 10 CLJ 902 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A detainee's constitutional right to life and liberty is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Upon a detainee's arrest, he is in the custody and care of the police. His wellbeing is in the hands of the police for, as a detainee, he would not be in a position to have himself medically attended to as he would a free man. The police is therefore subject to, at common law and statute, a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of a detainee during his detention in custody. The police owes a detainee a duty of care to ensure, inter alia, that he receives medical attention and assistance. The extent of this duty increases if the detainee has a deteriorating health condition.
Janagi Nadarajah & Anor v. Sjn Razali Budin & Ors [2021] 10 CLJ 915 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Having recognised that a facilitation fund is tax exempt and that paras. 3(1), 3(2) and 4 of the Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 22) 2006 do not apply, the Inland Revenue Board cannot later contend that the exemption does not apply to the entire facilitation fund and disallow the deduction of expenditures. This is akin to retrospectively revoking or withdrawing the tax exemption and amounts to a breach of the principles of natural justice besides being in breach of the legitimate expectation of the taxpayer to be treated fairly. The Inland Revenue Board should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate.
Landmark Property Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif/Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Anor [2021] 10 CLJ 954 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

Section 403(b) of the Companies Act 2016 is clear, in that, a judicial management procedure is not applicable to a public listed company as it is subjected to the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 ('CMSA'). A public listed company under the CMSA cannot avail itself of a judicial management corporate rescue mechanism under Sub Division 2 of Division 8 Part III of the Companies Act 2016. Where secured creditors object to a company's application for an order that it be placed under judicial management of a judicial manager, the court can dismiss it in accordance with s. 409(b) of the Companies Act 2016.
Re Scomi Group Bhd [2021] 10 CLJ 975 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY — CAN A DIRECTOR DIVERT?* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by SM Shanmugam and Siew Hui Yi** [2021] 1 LNS(A) clv

[2021] 1 LNS(A) clv



MALAYSIA

---

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY — CAN A DIRECTOR DIVERT?*

by
SM Shanmugam and Siew Hui Yi**

Business opportunities will present themselves to directors of a company resulting from their position in the company. One might wonder whether a director can divert these opportunities for his own use.

A director is expected to hold himself to a high standard of conduct. In short, he must never act in any manner that would cause detriment to the company's interest.^[1]

Section 218(d) of the Companies Act 2016 states a director or officer of a company shall not "use any opportunity of the company which he became aware of, in the performance of his functions as the director or officer of the company ... to gain directly or indirectly, a benefit for himself or any other person, or cause detriment to the company".

The Privy Council in Cook v. Deeks^[2] observed as follows:

"But, on the other hand, men who assume the complete control of a company's business must remember that they are not at liberty to sacrifice the interests which they are bound to protect, and, while ostensibly acting for the company, divert in their own favour business which should properly belong to the company they represent."

. . .

*This article is reproduced, with permission by Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Advocates & Solicitors, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.

**Partner and Associate respectively of the Corporate and Commercial Dispute Practice of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. REFLECTIONS ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SINCE ITS ENACTMENT IN 2011 ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by J. U. Ebuara, Esq.* Femi Olorunyomi, Esq.* [2021] 1 LNS(A) clvi

[2021] 1 LNS(A) clvi



NIGERIA

---

REFLECTIONS ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SINCE ITS ENACTMENT IN 2011

by
J. U. Ebuara Esq.*
Femi Olorunyomi Esq.*

ABSTRACT

The Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA') was enacted in 2011 by the National Assembly after approximately two decades of presenting the Bill for enactment. This culminated after years of dogged and sustained effort by civil society organizations and other interest groups. The idea behind this piece of legislation is to open the civil space for citizens to become more aware of the activities of government and its institutions, which were largely nebulous. The article aims to have an overview of the intendment of the Act. It shall examine the progress that has been made since the enactment of the Act with positive interpretations by the courts vis-à-vis the challenges that became apparent in the course of implementation of the Act. The article shall make several recommendations that will ensure the efficient and effective implementation of the Act.

. . .

*J. U. Ebuara, Esq., LLM, LLB, BL, Deputy Director of Academics Department of Civil Litigation, Nigerian Law School, Enugu Campus, Enugu. Email: juebuara@yahoo.com.

**Femi Olorunyomi, Esq., LLB, LLM, Notary Public of Nigeria, Senior Lecturer in the Civil Litigation Department of Nigerian Law School, Kano Campus. Email: femyom 77@yahoo.com; femyom77@gmail.com.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert