Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4792
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
KHATIJAH MD IBRAHIM & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
NORTHERN SKYLINE SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-22NCvC-241-12/2019]
A judgment can be impeached on grounds of fraud or illegality, but the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to demonstrate such claims with sufficient detail.
Headnote:(A) Impeachment of Judgment - Grounds of Illegality and Fraud - The plaintiffs sought to impeach a High Court judgment granting specific performance of a sale and purchase agreement for land, asserting that the defendant suppressed evidence regarding a deposit refund, constituting fraud. The court emphasized that for an impeachment to succeed, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove such fraud or illegality. (Paras 13, 14, 33, 54, 66)
(B) Res Judicata - The court found that the principle of res judicata in the wider sense applied, as the plaintiffs failed to raise the issue of deposit return in the original suit. (Paras 60, 63)
(C) Contract Formation - The court ruled that a concluded contract existed between the parties, with all essential elements present, including offer, acceptance, and consideration. (Paras 34, 37)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove their allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, and that the High Court's SP Order was valid and binding. (Paras 53, 65) (E)
Issues: The core issue was whether the SP Order was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. (Paras 17, 24) (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid contract existed independent of the deposit's payment status, and the plaintiffs' claims of fraud were unsubstantiated. (Paras 34, 56) (G)
Result: Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs of RM50,000 to be paid by plaintiffs to defendant.
JUDGMENT
(Post-Trial: Suit To Impeach An Earlier Judgment)
Prelusion
[1] The Plaintiffs are mother and son. The 1st Plaintiff is the mother (P1). The 2nd Plaintiff is the son (P2). P1 owns a piece of land under the title: Geran 21594, Lot 3, Seksyen 5, Bandar Georgetown, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang (Lot 3).
[2] There was a disputed transaction to sell Lot 3 to the Defendant (D). It was disputed because P1 asserted that there was no contract to sell Lot 3 to D. Oppositely, D asserted that there was indeed a contract to sell and buy Lot 3.
[3] In 2014, D filed a suit against P1. The suit was civil suit No: 22NCVC-97-06/2014 (Suit 97). D sought the relief of specific performance — for P1 to specifically perform the sale and purchase agreement between D and P1 for Lot 3. The High Court , presided over by Justice Nantha Balan (Justice Balan), granted judgment in favour of D. The High Court granted the order for specific performance (SP Order). This meant that P1 was ordered to sell and transfer Lot 3 to D.
[4] P1 appealed to the Court Of Appeal (CA). The CA dismissed her appeal. She applied for leave to appeal further to the Federal Court (FC). The FC refused her the leave to appeal further.
[5] In 2019, P1, with P2, filed this civil suit No: 22NCVC-241-12/2019, to impeach the High Court 's judgment in Suit 97 ie to set aside the SP Order (this impeachment suit).
[6] Should the SP Order (the High Court judgment in Suit 97) be allowed to be impeached and thus set aside?
Preliminaries
[7] First — it is worth noting that D applied to summarily strike out this impeachment suit. In 2020, the High Court , presided over by Justice George Varughese, struck it out. P1 and P2 appealed to the CA.
[8] In 2020, the CA allowed their appeal. This impeachment suit was reinstated and remitted back to the High Court for trial. D applied for leave to appeal to the FC against the decision of the CA.
[9] In 2023, the FC refused D the leave to appeal further. The CA's decision stood. This impeachment suit was to proceed to trial.
[10] The trial took place over three days in 2024.
[11] Second — the parties' witnesses. P1 and P2 both testified. They also subpoenaed Mr Allen Choong to testify for them. Mr Allen Choong is the lawyer who averred in Suit 97 that he represented P1 and P2 in the sale and purchase transaction for Lot 3 (but this averment was refuted by P1 and P2).
[12] D called three witnesses. The first was Miss Adelyn Chong: D's lawyer who had conduct of the documentation work for the sale and purchase of Lot 3. The second was Mr Ooi Saw Han: D's former managing director (Mr Ooi). The third was Mr Tan Hock San: D's present managing director.
The Law On Impeaching A Judgment
[13] As the purpose of this impeachment suit is to set aside the High Court 's judgment in Suit 97, I am minded to heed the principle that even a final judgment or order of a Court can be impeached and as a result be set aside, on grounds of illegality (made in contravention of written law) or fraud — Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd; ; [1998] 2 CLJ 75; [1998] 1 AMR 909.
[14] This means that in this impeachment suit, P1 and P2 have the burden of proving that the High Court judgment in Suit 97 was tainted by illegality or fraud, to the extent that the judgment should be set aside.
[15] The merits of Suit 97 were already canvassed in the High Court , and the correctness of the High Court judgment in Suit 97 was already determined on appeal to the Court Of Appeal and at the Federal Court — unless the factors of illegality or fraud directly bear upon the merits of the parties' cases and the correctness of the judgment, to the extent that justifies setting aside the High Court judgment in Suit 97. Setting aside the High Court judgment in Suit 97 is to extinguish or to undo the judgment. The burden on P1 and P2 is hence a heavy one.
Chronology Of Pertinent Facts Substantiated By The Documentary Evidence
[16] I set out be
