Mohd Fakrunizam Bin Ibrahim v Tetuan Hanif Abdul Rahman & Assoc. (Didakwa Sebagai Sebuah Firma) (WA-22NCvC-612-09/2021)

TETUAN HANIF ABDUL RAHMAN & ASSOC.

RANHILL UTILITIES BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 201401014973 [1091059-K] …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant a law firm is for fraud resulting in judgement being entered against the Plaintiff in a dispute with a company called Ranhill Utilities with regards to a share sale and purchase agreement. 03/12/2025 11:09:08

The claim in this case proceeded to a full trial with the Plaintiff calling a hand writing expert as well as both parties relying on their oral testimony and documentary evidence. Brief facts

The initiating factor which led to the filing of this action is bankruptcy documents received by the Plaintiff which contained a bankruptcy notice, a Court Judgment and an affidavit.

On receiving the bankruptcy documents the Plaintiff consulted a partner of the Defendant by the name of Azlan who assured him not to worry about the bankruptcy documents.

On further query the Plaintiff discovered that a civil suit no WA-22 Ncvc-182-03//2019 had been filed against him by Ranhill Utilities in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s firm had acted on his behalf without his permission or knowledge resulting in a number of adverse rulings against him both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

In representing him, the Plaintiff alleges that a number of affidavits purportedly with his signatures were filed. As he did not sign the affidavits the Plaintiff suspects that his signature were forged.

The Defendant contend that they were legally appointed by the Plaintiff albeit orally without any warrant and denies forging the Plaintiff’s signatures on the affidavits and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof thereof. The issues

2 issues can be distilled from the pleadings as well as from the evidence led by the parties. The first is whether the Plaintiff had appointed the Defendant to act on his behalf in the court proceedings and secondly whether the Defendant had forged the Plaintiff’ signatures on the impugned affidavits. The burden/standard of proof

In this case it is clear for both the issues the burden of proof lies upon the Plaintiff. This is clear from section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 which stipulates that:

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.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.

A desires a court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.

As has been enumerated with finality in many cases which need not be listed here, the standard of proof in a civil matter is on a balance of probabilities. The appointment of the Defendant

The first point to note that the Plaintiff and the partners of the Defendant are not strangers but known to each other. This is borne out by the Plaintiff’s own pleading.

In his Statement of Claim the Plaintiff admits to corresponding with Azlan a partner in the Defendant’s firm both before receiving the bankruptcy documents and after receiving the bankruptcy documents. It makes no sense to correspond with the Defendant if the Plaintiff had not appointed them to represent him.

The Plaintiff’s explanation that he mere wanted legal advice on the legal matters he was facing and he had sought the assistance of the Defendant after being recommended by a friend is itself an indication that he was seeking legal representation.

The absence of any written authorization although necessary is not mandatory in appointing a law firm. The Defendant have given a reasonable explanation that the Plaintiff himself had requested anonymity and the dispute be concealed from his staff and others.

The Court based on this factors find that the Plaintiff had formally appointed to act on his behalf in the dispute with Ranhill Utilities Forged signatures

The Plaintiff called an expert to show that the signatures on the impugned affidavits are not his. Expert opinion can be accepted as proof in a case as stated under section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 as follows:

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.

Such persons are called experts.

The question is whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant.

The question is whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

The question is whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons are relevant.

In this case after considering the evidence of the expert the Court notes that as the expert in this case had pointed out that for an opinion on a signature can be affirmed it is pertinent that the person signing must have a consistency and sameness in the signature although minor variations are permissible.

In this case it is clear that the Plaintiff’s signature are not consistent. This was demonstrated in Court, when the Court looked at his signature on his witness statement which was signed in Court during proceeding. The signature on the witness statement differed greatly from the Plaintiff’s earlier signatures which the expert had examined.

From this observation the Court ruled that the expert’s testimony is inconclusive and cannot be relied upon as proof of forgery as the Plaintiff’s signature varies greatly from time to time.

The Plaintiff had an option to call a witness acquainted with his signatures to testify for him but did not do so Evidence of a person acquainted with the signature is allowed by virtue of section 46 of the Evidence Act 1950 which states that: 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 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. The question is whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in London. B is a merchant in Kuala Lumpur, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him thereon. The opinion of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write

Another evidence led by the Plaintiff are photographs showing he was out of town when the affidavits were purported to have been signed. The Court regards these photographs as inconclusive to prove forgery of the signatures. The affidavits could have been signed earlier or even at the place he was supposed to be.

Finally the fact that the Plaintiff did not sign before the Commissioner of Oath affects the value of the affidavits but in no way proof that the signatures were forged.

In short the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof require to proof that the signatures on the affidavits are forged.

Looking at the circumstances as a whole especially the fact that the Plaintiff is facing bankruptcy, the Plaintiff has resorted to stall the bankruptcy proceedings and nothing more.

In the upshot the Court dismisses the Plaintiff’s claim with a cost of RM50,000 and as the Defendant’s was rightly appointed the Defendant is entitled to legal fees as claimed in the counter claim. Dated: 18.11.2025 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: David Yii Hee Kiet Tetuan Jagjit Ariff & Co. B1-01-09, Solaris Dutamas (Publika), No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. For The Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Godfrey D'cruz Tetuan Godfrey D’cruz No. Unit 721, 7th Floor, Block A, Lobby 6, Damansara Intan No. 1, Jalan SS 20/27, 47400, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Nama Peguamcara: Tetuan Sanjay Mohan Unit 5.01, Level 5, Work@clearwater, Jalan Changkat Semantan, 50490 Kuala Lumpur.