Mohd Kamal Bin Sulaiman v Suherman Bin Rashid (BA-12BNCvC-61-12/2023)

This is an Appeal by the Appellant/Defendant against the decision of the Sessions Court that had allowed the Respondent/Plaintiff’s application to enforce a contract – which the latter contended, was a Sale and Purchase Agreement of a piece of property. The second claim by the Respondent/Plaintiff under the Tort of Deceit was disallowed by the learned Sessions Court Judge and the Respondent/Plaintiff is not cross-appealing against that part of the decision.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in concluding that the Respondent/Plaintiff was entitled to the claim brought by him against the Appellant/Defendant for breaching the terms of what the Sessions Court had concluded was a Sale and Purchase Agreement.

The Appellant/Defendant had submitted that the agreement was for the rental of the property as the purported Sale and Purchase Agreement was null and void and unenforceable on the grounds of: (i) uncertainty; and (ii) against public policy.

It is not disputed that the Appellant/Defendant had purchased the property which forms the subject matter in this appeal from PKNS in 2002 3 for RM35,000 under the Projek Perumahan Rakyat scheme. There were strict terms and conditions that prohibit the Appellant/Defendant from selling the property for a period of 15 years.

After two years, the Appellant/Defendant entered into a agreement with the Respondent/Plaintiff, which now forms the core issue in this appeal, that it, whether it was a sale and purchase agreement or a rental agreement. The consideration was for the Respondent/Plaintiff to pay the Appellant/Defendant RM12,000 and to service the outstanding loan of about RM35,000.

The Appellant/Defendant has refused to transfer the property to the Respondent/Plaintiff and instead has sold the property to a Third Party in 2019.

It is also not disputed that the Respondent/Plaintiff has been occupying the property all these years.

The Respondent/Plaintiff’s assertions in the main claim include the following, that is:

That the Sale and Purchase Agreement fulfilled all the basic requirements of a contract;

That at the time of signing of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, the Appellant/Defendant was aware of the citizenship status of the Respondent/Plaintiff; and

That at all material times, during the signing of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, the Permanent Resident Card of the Respondent/Plaintiff was attached to the Sale and Purchase Agreement. [9] Chief amongst the grounds raised by the Appellant/Defendant in reply to the arguments raised by the Respondent/Plaintiff in the main claim include the following:

That the said Sale and Purchase Agreement was invalid and cannot be enforced pursuant to section 30 of the Contracts Act 1950, that is, for want of certainty; and

That the said Sale and Purchase Agreement was void on the ground that “Plaintif tidak mempunyai locus apabila tidak mendapatkan kebenaran pihak berkuasa negeri”, resulting in the non-compliance with sections 433A dan 433B of the National Land Code. The Decision of the Sessions Court [10] As noted, the Sessions Court held that the agreement was a Sale and Purchase Agreement and was valid and binding and that the Appellant/Defendant had breached the Sale and Purchase Agreement when the Appellant/Defendant sold the property to a third party. [11] The relevant part of the learned Sessions Court Judge’s grounds of judgment is in paragraphs [1] – [68] under the heading of “Dapatan Mahkamah”: [12] The key findings by the learned SCJ include the following: [26] Harga “Rumah Tersebut” semasa SD1 menandatangi Perjanjian Jual Beli dengan Pemaju pada 2/1/2002 adalah RM35,000.00. SD1 memasuki “Perjanjian Tersebut” dengan Plaintif pada 8/4/2004. SD1 hanya membayar ansuran rumah tersebut bagi tempoh 2 tahun. [27] Selepas 2 tahun, SD1 telah mendapat RM12,000.00 secara tunai daripada SP1, bayaran Tebus Hutang telah dibayar semula oleh SP1, ansuran bulanan telah diselesaikan sepenuhnya oleh SP1, “Rumah Tersebut” telah habis hutang, liability bulanan samada utility atau caj JMB telah dibayar oleh pihak lain (SP1). Pada peringkat ini, semua bebanan SD1 terhadap “Rumah Tersebut” telah diambilalih oleh SP1. [28] SD1 kemudiannya telah menjual “Rumah Tersebut” dengan harga pasaran terkini (mengikut Perjanjian Jual Beli dengan Pihak Ketiga, harga jualan adalah RM170,000.00). Jika inilah yang dikatakan oleh SD1 tujuan dan konsep beliau membeli “Rumah Tersebut” untuk suatu pelaburan, SD1 telah mendapat keuntungan berganda. [30] Plaintif hanya menuntut gantirugi bagi apa yang telah dibelanjakan dan dikeluarkan serta kerugian-kerugian lain yang dialami. Ia juga adalah sukar dan tidak munasabah untuk mendapatkan perintah Mahkamah untuk menukarkan geran milikan “Rumah Tersebut” dan ia melibatkan satu prosedur Panjang di Pejabat Tanah. [31] Oleh demikian, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif seharusnya dipampas bagi kerugian akibat “Perjanjian Tersebut” yang terbatal dan dengan tidak membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif di sini, Defendan telah diperkayakan dan mendapat manfaat yang tidak sewajarnya dari pihak yang lemah. [13] The learned Sessions Court Judge addressed the section 30 of the Contracts Act 1950 point at paragraphs [43] – [46] of her Grounds of Judgment. [43] Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa perkara yang dibangkitkan adalah semata-mata alasan dan pemikiran semula dan atau helah/tipu daya Defendan untuk menafikan wujudnya satu Perjanjian yang sah dan mengikat. [44] Defendan sendiri tahu fakta ini sejak dari awal. Walaupun begitu, Defendan masih memasuki “Perjanjian Tersebut” dengan Plaintif. Jika isu ini dibangkitkan, apakah niat dan motif Defendan pada masa tersebut? [45] Persoalan yang sama boleh ditujukan kepada Defendan bahawa jika benar niat Defendan adalah untuk memberi sewa “Rumah Tersebut” kepada Plaintif, apakah terma sewa, tempoh sewaan, notis penamatan sewa dan sebagainya? Tidak ada juga apa-apa kepastian di situ. [46] Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa tindakan Defendan di sini bukan sahaja satu kausa tindakan di bawah pemecahan kontrak (breach of contract) tetapi juga secara tidak langsung timbul isu penipuan/frod yang memperdayakan Plaintif dan menggunakan Plaintif bagi kepentingan Defendan sendiri. [14] Section 30 of the Contracts Act 1950 refer to agreements that are void for uncertainty. It provides as follows: Agreements void for uncertainty

Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. The Decision of this Court [15] First and foremost, this Court has examined the agreement entered into between the parties. [16] The relevant Agreement provides as follows: Ruj: Blok B-03-11 8 hb April 2004 Attn: En. Suherman Bin Rashid No. K/P: 670424-71-5193 Tuan, PERJANJIAN JUAL BELI RUMAH BERNOMBOR BLOK B-03-11,

Merujuk kepada perkara di atas saya yang bernama Mohd. Kamal Bin Sulaiman, no. kad pengenalan 720724-10-5111 ingin menukar hak milik rumah yang bernombor B-03-11 kepada En. Suherman Bin Rashid kad pengenalan bernombor 670424-71-5193.

Harga rumah yang ditawarkan berjumlah RM12,000,00 (DUA

Pembayaran boleh dibuat dalam bentuk tunai atau cek.

Perkara yang berbangkit seperti bayaran bil-bil semasa seperti bulanan bank, elektrik, air, maintenance, cukai pitu hendaklah dijelaskan oleh pihak pembeli.

Sekiranya di dalam jangkamasa lima (5) tahun pihak pembeli boleh mendapat penukaran nama pemilik rumah di atas dengan syarat:- i. Tiada unsur-unsur penipuan dalam perjanjian ini ii. Segala kos ditanggung oleh pembeli setelah setuju terima dilakukan. iii. Tiada unsur-unsur ingin menjual-beli rumah berkenaan di dalam proses perjanjian selama lima (5) tahun.

Diharap kepada pembeli dan penjual dapat menjalikan perhubungan yang baik selama perjanjian ini dibuat.

Diminta pihak yang berwajib di atas menandatangani proses perjanjian ini dibawah:- [17] It is clear that the said Agreement referred to the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the purchaser and vendor respectively (see Clauses 4, 5 and 6). [18] The consideration for the said Agreement is also spelled out in the said Agreement (see Clauses 2 and 4). [19] The provisions in Clause 5 of the said Agreement indicate that the parties were aware at the time of the signing of the said that Agreement the transfer of the property cannot be carried out. [20] This Court is of the considered view that the object of the Agreement dated 8 April, 2004 is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat a number of provisions of the NLC and/or opposed to public policy thus rendering it as unlawful within the meaning of section 24(b) and 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950. [21] Section 24(b) and 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950 provide as follows: What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless — …

it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law; …

the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. [22] Hence, the Agreement dated 8 April, 2004 is void. [23] The decision by the learned Sessions Court Judge in declaring the Agreement as valid and binding on the parties is set aside. [24] The decision by the learned Sessions Court Judge in declaring that the Defendant had breached the Agreement is also set aside. [25] The award of special damages of RM245,390.71 by the Sessions Court is set aside. [26] The award as to costs in the lower court is also set aside. [27] This Court makes no order as to costs for this appeal. Dated: 9 July, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Nasrul Hadi bin Mat Saad for the Appellant (Messrs. Adnan Sharida & Associates) Mohd Faizi bin Che Abu & Mohamad Hakim Faharmi bin Hassan for the Respondent (Messrs. Faizi & Associates)