Suhana Binti Awang v 1. ) Nur Shafeza Binti Jamaludin (AA-A72NCvC-116-03/2024)

INTRODUCTION This matter came before this Court for a full trial concerning the Plaintiff’s claim against the Second Defendant.

It is pertinent to note that prior to the commencement of the trial, the Plaintiff had already obtained Judgment in Default against the First Defendant and the Third Defendant. Accordingly, the trial before this Court proceeded solely in respect of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Second Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges that she had transferred monies amounting to RM60,000.00 to the Second Defendant in relation to an investment arrangement which subsequently resulted in losses.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks to recover the said sum from the Second Defendant. 08/03/2026 23:34:28

The Second Defendant denies liability and maintains that she did not retain the monies and that the funds received were merely transferred to other parties involved in the investment arrangement.

After hearing the testimony of the witnesses, examining the documentary evidence and considering the written submissions as well as the authorities cited by the parties, this Court delivered its decision that the Plaintiff had failed to prove her claim against the Second Defendant on the balance of probabilities.

These are the Grounds of Judgment.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION The central issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff has succeeded in establishing her claim against the Second Defendant.

In particular, the Court must determine the following: a. Whether the Second Defendant had received and retained the Plaintiff’s monies; b. Whether the Second Defendant had been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff; c. Whether the Plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof required in civil proceedings.

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF It is well established that the burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a claim.

The applicable standard in civil proceedings is proof on a balance of probabilities.

In Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd v Tony Low Kok Kee & Anor [2016] 5 MLJ 60, the Federal Court reaffirmed that the party who asserts the existence of a fact bears the legal burden of proving that fact.

Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 3 MLJ 697 emphasised that a plaintiff must establish the essential elements of the claim before relief may be granted.

The Court must therefore determine whether the Plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy this burden.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff’s case is that she had transferred monies totalling RM60,000.00 to the Second Defendant.

According to the Plaintiff, the transfer was made pursuant to an investment scheme which had been introduced to her.

The Plaintiff contends that the investment ultimately failed and that she suffered financial losses as a result.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks to recover the said monies from the Second Defendant.

In substance, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Second Defendant is premised on the argument that the Second Defendant had received the Plaintiff’s monies and ought therefore to be responsible for returning them.

DEFENDANT 2’S CASE The Second Defendant denies that she is liable to the Plaintiff.

The Second Defendant contends that the Plaintiff had voluntarily participated in the investment arrangement.

The Second Defendant further contends that she was not the ultimate recipient or beneficiary of the monies transferred by the Plaintiff.

According to the Second Defendant, the monies received were subsequently transferred to other individuals involved in the investment scheme, including the Third Defendant and another individual identified during the proceedings.

The Second Defendant therefore maintains that she did not retain any benefit from the monies transferred by the Plaintiff. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES • Unjust Enrichment

Although the Plaintiff’s pleadings may not expressly frame the claim as one in unjust enrichment, the substance of the Plaintiff’s claim appears to rely upon that doctrine.

The doctrine of unjust enrichment has been recognised in Malaysian jurisprudence.

In Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLJ 441, the Federal Court recognised that restitutionary liability may arise where a defendant has obtained a benefit which it would be unjust for him to retain.

Generally, a claimant seeking restitution must establish that: a. The defendant has been enriched; b. The enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff; c. The enrichment is unjust; and d. There is no applicable defence.

The Court of Appeal in Taman Rimba Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor Bahru [2014] 5 MLJ 1 recognised that restitution will arise only where the defendant has actually obtained and retained a benefit which in justice ought to be restored to the claimant.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the Second Defendant had in fact received and retained a benefit at the Plaintiff’s expense.

EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE Upon evaluating the evidence before this Court, it is not disputed that the Plaintiff had transferred monies in relation to the investment scheme.

However, the crucial question is whether the Second Defendant had retained those monies or had derived any personal benefit from them.

The evidence before this Court indicates that the Second Defendant had transferred the monies received to other parties involved in the scheme, including the Third Defendant and another individual identified during the proceedings.

There is insufficient evidence before this Court demonstrating that the Second Defendant had personally retained the funds or had benefited from them.

The Plaintiff’s case appears to rely heavily on the fact that the monies had been transferred into the bank account of the Second Defendant.

However, the mere fact that monies had passed through the account of the Second Defendant does not, without more, establish liability.

The Plaintiff must go further and prove that the Second Defendant had in fact retained the benefit of the monies.

On the evidence before this Court, the Plaintiff has failed to establish this crucial element.

This Court also notes that the Plaintiff bears the responsibility of adducing the necessary evidence to support her allegations. The Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Second Defendant had retained the monies or had personally benefited from them.

The Plaintiff’s case appears to rely largely on the fact that the monies had been transferred into the account of the Second Defendant. However, the Court is of the view that the mere receipt or temporary handling of funds does not automatically give rise to liability, particularly where the evidence indicates that the monies were subsequently transferred to other parties involved in the arrangement.

The Court further observes that the Plaintiff did not call certain individuals who were material to the transaction and who could have shed light on the true flow of the funds and the nature of the arrangement. The absence of such evidence leaves significant gaps in the Plaintiff’s case.

The Court also notes that the Plaintiff had voluntarily participated in the investment arrangement. While the Court acknowledges that the Plaintiff may have suffered financial losses, such loss alone does not automatically impose legal liability upon the Second Defendant without sufficient proof of legal responsibility.

FINDINGS ON CREDIBILITY This Court had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses during the course of the trial.

The assessment of credibility is primarily a matter for the trial court.

In Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1, the Federal Court held that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with findings of fact made by a trial court which had the advantage of hearing and observing the witnesses.

Having considered the evidence as a whole, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Second Defendant had retained the monies in question.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT Having considered the totality of the evidence and submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof against the Second Defendant.

In particular, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that: a. The Second Defendant had retained the Plaintiff’s monies; and b. The Second Defendant had been unjustly enriched at the Plaintiff’s expense.

Consequently, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Second Defendant cannot be sustained.

50.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the authorities referred to, and based on the balance of probabilities, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove her claim against the Second Defendant.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Second Defendant is dismissed.

The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the Second Defendant costs in accordance with the Scale.

For completeness, this Court reiterates that its findings are based on the evaluation of the evidence adduced during the trial. As emphasised by the Federal Court in Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1, an appellate court should be slow to interfere with findings of fact made by a trial court unless such findings are plainly wrong. EVANGELIN A/P SIMON SILVARAJ MAGISTRATE 8th MARCH 2026