Damages must be proven and not merely claimed; credible evidence establishes entitlement to compensation.

Prelusion

[1] This case demonstrates the perseverance of a defendant-litigant.

[2] The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant in 2009 (14 years ago). The Plaintiffs sought reliefs and remedies that included an Order for the specific performance of a contract for the sale and purchase of the Defendant's land, an Order that the Defendant transfers the land to them, and for damages.

[3] The Defendant counterclaimed to have the Plaintiffs' caveat on the land removed, and for damages.

[4] After the first High Court (HC) trial, the Plaintiffs won. The Defendant appealed to the Court Of Appeal (CA), in an endeavour to get her land back. The CA allowed her Appeal, set aside the HC Judgment and ordered a re-trial.

[5] The Plaintiffs applied for and obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court (FC). The FC dismissed the Plaintiffs' Appeal.

[6] After the re-trial, the Plaintiffs won again. The Defendant appealed again to the CA.

[7] The CA again allowed the Defendant's Appeal.

[8] The Plaintiffs once more applied for and obtained leave to appeal to the FC. And again the FC dismissed the Plaintiffs' Appeal.

[9] After 14 years, the Defendant got back her rights over the land. She now seeks the assessment of her damages.

The Chronology Of Pertinent Facts

[10] In May 1996 (on 23 May 1996), the Defendant (as Seller) and Chin Teik Yoon (as Buyer) entered into a Sale And Purchase Agreement for the land (SPA). The purchase price was RM213,673.60.

[11] Chin Teik Yoon later died. The Plaintiffs are the beneficiaries of Chin Teik Yoon's estate.

[12] In August 1996 (on 16 August 1996), the Plaintiffs lodged a caveat over the land.

[13] In October 2013 (on 11 October 2013)-the Defendant was compelled to transfer the land to the Plaintiffs to comply with the 1st HC Judgment.

[14] On the same day (11 October 2013), the Plaintiffs withdrew the caveat, so that the land could be transferred to the Plaintiffs.

[15] It was not until January 2022 (on 24 January 2022), which was 26 years after the initial sale and purchase, that the land was finally transferred back to the Defendant.

The Chronology Of Proceedings, In Brief

[16] December 2009 - the Plaintiffs filed this Suit. The reliefs included: the specific performance of the SPA; the vacant possession of the land; and damages. The Defendant mounted a Counterclaim. The reliefs sought in the Counterclaim included: the removal of the Plaintiffs' caveat; and for damages.

[17] September 2011-after the 1st trial, the HC granted Judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant appealed.

[18] May 2014 - the CA allowed the Defendant's Appeal and set aside the 1st HC Judgment, and ordered a re-trial.

[19] May 2015 - the FC granted leave to the Plaintiffs to appeal to the FC.

[20] January 2016 - FC dismissed Plaintiffs' Appeal

[21] June 2017 - After the re-trial, the HC granted Judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs, and ordered specific performance of the SPA. The Defendant again appealed.

[22] March 2018 - the CA allowed the Defendant's Appeal, set aside the HC Judgment and ordered the Defendant's damages to be assessed (2nd CA Order).

[23] October 2019 - the FC granted leave to the Plaintiffs leave to appeal to the FC.

[24] December 2020 - the FC dismissed the Plaintiffs' Appeal.

Fundamental Principles Governing The Award Of Damages

[25] The fundamental principle on damages is that damages must be proven, and not merely asserted. This fundamental principle is reinforced in the FC case of Datuk Mohd Ali Hj Abdul Majid & Anor (both practising as Messrs Mohd Ali & Co) v. Public Bank Bhd, 2014 MarsdenLR 1867 (FC). The FC held:

[31] The object of an award of damages is to give the claima