Back
2021 MarsdenLR 2931
HIGH COURT MALAYA MELAKA
ZAINI BABA – Appellant
Versus
AZLINA ZAKARIA (ENCL 7) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: MA-22NCvC-54-10/2020]
The court ruled that specific performance claims cannot be dismissed without a full trial when complex legal and factual issues exist, especially regarding intentions and administrative authority.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act 1950 – Sale and Purchase Agreement – The Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim based on lack of legal capacity to execute the agreement was dismissed. The court noted that the Defendant had signed the agreement while being the administrator, challenging its enforceability but resolved that the case necessitated full trial consideration. (Paras 15, 18, 28, 30)
(B) Jurisdiction – Summary jurisdiction under O 18 r 19 should not be employed in unclear cases or when substantive legal and factual issues are present requiring vivavoce evidence. Considerations of intent and material fact were identified as crucial. (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement regarding a half share of property after making a deposit based on the Defendant's representations, despite the Defendant's later claims of legal incapacity due to her administrator status. (Para 4, 5, 18)
Findings of Court: The court declined to strike out the Plaintiff's claim, recognizing significant legal questions warranting a trial. (Para 31)
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the legality of the sale agreement executed under the Defendant's administrative incapacity and the implications of minor beneficiaries at the time of signing. (Paras 18, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that not all legal questions could be resolved summarily and required authoritative evidence to ascertain the parties’ intentions especially in matters of contractual obligations. (Para 31)
Result: The application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
[1] Enclosure 7 is an application filed by the Defendant pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of 2012 to strike out the writ and statement of claim.
Cause Papers In Respect Of Enclosure 7
[2] With regard to encl 7, this Court reviewed and considered the cause papers listed below:
(a) Enclosure 7: the Notice of Application dated 7 December 2020
(b) Enclosure 8: the Defendant's affidavit affirmed on 7 December 2020
(c) Enclosure 9: the Plaintiff's affidavit affirmed on 17 December 2020
(d) Enclosure 10: the Defendant's affidavit affirmed on 4 January 2021
Chronology Of Events
[3] On 1 May 1983, Che Wah binte Ngah passed away. She was the registered proprietor of ^ share in a property known as GMM 16 Lot 1026 Mukim Kuala Linggi Daerah Alor Gajah Melaka ("Half Share"). There were a number of beneficiaries in respect of the Estate of Che Wah binte Ngah and these beneficiaries included the Defendant.
[4] The Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that she will sell the Half Share to the Plaintiff for the purchase price of RM65,000.00 on the conditions that:
- the Plaintiff secured the consent of all other beneficiaries in respect of the Estate of Che Wah binte Ngah to give up their entitlement in favour of the Defendant; and
- the Plaintiff was to complete all steps necessary with the "Jabatan Pusaka Kecil" to secure the name of the Defendant on the document of title with regard to the Half Share.
[5] On 25 July 2017, based on the Defendant's representation, a sale and purchase agreement was signed for the sale of the Half Share from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the purchase price of RM65,000.00 once the name of the Defendant was registered on the document of title with regard to the Half Share.
[6] On 25 July 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a deposit in the sum of RM5,000.00.
[7] On 25 October 2018, the Defendant was appointed as the 5 administrator of the Estate of Che Wah binte Ngah. The appointment was made by the Land Administrator under the "Akta Harta Pusaka Kecil (Pembahagian) 1955".
[8] The instrument of appointment stated that "NILAIAN JUMLAH 10 KASAR" of the Half Share was RM165,000.00."
[9] The instrument of appointment also listed the names of 3 individuals as "WARIS-WARIS YANG BERHAK TERHADAP HARTA-HARTA INI ADALAH SEPERTI BERIKUT:
(A) [The Defendant]
(B) NUR AINA BINTI NORAZUDDIN
(C) AKMAL IZUDDIN BIN NORAZUDDIN
(D) NUR AINA HADIRAH BINTI NORAZUDDIN"
[10] It is common ground that the individuals named as (B), (C) and (D) in the instrument of appointment are the Defendant's children from her marriage with her late husband, Norazuddin Mirza.
[11] It is also common ground that at the time the sale and purchase agreement was signed (25 July 2017), they were minors ie under 18 years old.
[12] It is further common ground that at the time the Defendant was appointed as the administrator the administrator of the Estate of Che Wah binte Ngah (25 October 2018), they were still minors.
[13] On 8 February 2019, the Half Share was registered in the name of the Defendant. The Plaintiff pleaded the effort he expanded and the monies he personally spent towards securing the title to the Half Share in the name of the Defendant.
[14] On 15 October 2020, the Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendant. By this action, the Plaintiff sought an order for specific performance of the agreement for the sale of the Half Share from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Determination By The High Court
[15] As stated at the outset, encl 7 was filed by the Defendant to strike out the writ and statement of claim. Enclosure 7 was filed pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of 2012.
[16] With regard to encl 7, the Defendant filed and relied on encl 8.
[17] This Court finds that encl 7 was filed not merely pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of 2012. Therefore for the purposes of the hearing of encl 7, this Court reviewed and considered all affidavits filed by both parties.
[18] The Defendant submitted that the sale
