The judgment underscores the necessity of critically evaluating oral evidence against contemporaneous documents when resolving disputes over ownership and contractual agreements.

[1] One Abdul Jamil bin Mutalib (DW1) was a Director and majority shareholder in Ab Latef & Associates (M) Sdn Bhd ("the appellant") whose instructions, his youngest son Latef bin Abdul Jamil, who owned the remaining shares in, but did not have control or power over the appellant, was accustomed to follow. DW1 it was said, was indeed the alter ego of the appellant.

[2] We glean from the respondent's pleading that in or around the year 2005, DW1 told the respondent that he could deal with and arrange for all owners of a parcel of land measuring approximately 136,000 sq ft known as Lot 359, situated at Mukim 12, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang held under Geran Mukim 844 ("the land") to sell their undivided shares therein to the respondent at RM3.50 per square foot.

[3] The respondent, in consequence of that representation, agreed to purchase the undivided shares in the land at that price and it was agreed that the said undivided shares would be transferred to the respondent. The respondent subsequently appointed DW1 as his broker and paid in various stages in that behalf the total sum of RM310,000.00 to the latter.

[4] DW1 negotiated with the owners of the land which resulted in due course in some of them agreeing to sell their 337,693/898,560 undivided shares ("the said property") at RM3.50 per sq ft. However, nothing turned out the way the respondent expected when DW1, allegedly in breach of the agreement, transferred the said property to the appellant. The said property is the subject matter of the dispute between both parties in this appeal.

[5] The respondent, therefore, commenced an action by a writ of summons against the appellant seeking the following reliefs:

a. a declaration that the respondent is the beneficial owner of the said property;

b. a declaration that the appellant holds the said property as a "bare trustee" for the respondent;

c. an order that the appellant transfers the said property to the respondent;

d. an order that the appellant provides a detailed account of the sum of RM310,000.00 the appellant had received from the respondent and all expenses incurred by the appellant in connection with the purchase of the said property;

e. costs and interest; and

f. other orders or reliefs which the court deems just and expedient.

[6] The appellant, in its defence, denied that DW1 told the respondent that all owners of the land wanted to sell their undivided shares in the land at RM3.50 per sq ft. Instead, DW1 agreed to deal only with the owners who had agreed to sell their undivided shares in the land at the price of RM3.50 per sq ft subject to the oral agreement between the respondent and DW1 as follows:

a. DW1 would identify the owners of the portions of the land, negotiate with them and handle the purchase of their portions at the price of RM3.50 per sq ft;

b. the respondent would pay for the purchase of the land and other disbursements in connection with the purchase;

c. the portions purchased would be registered in the name of the appellant;

d. the respondent appointed DW1 as an agent to appoint at his discretion a solicitor to handle the purchase and to take action against any party;

e. Messrs Rajendran & Co was appointed as a solicitor with the consent and knowledge of the respondent to handle purchase documents, transfer of ownership of the land, to file an action in connection with one Chinese temple, two illegal factories and four squatter houses on the land in order to obtain vacant possession thereof; and

f. after the transaction was completed and vacant possession