A party cannot seek relief in court after breaching a contract, as per contractual obligations to perform or offer performance. The burden of proof in civil cases lies with the plaintiff.

Headnote:(A) Contract Act 1950 - Section 38(1) - Appeal against High Court's dismissal of claim on contract termination - Appellant claimed that Respondents breached contract regarding payphones and failed to fulfill payments. Court found that evidence was not satisfactorily presented, with contradictions and lack of credibility. (Paras 7, 16, 17)

(B) Requirements for proof in civil proceedings - Court highlighted the necessity for parties to clearly present their cases, emphasizing burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Failure to do so results in dismissal of the claim. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant alleged breach of contract due to non-payment by the Respondent for supplied payphones and termination of the contract. Court noted that the appellate claim hinged on evidence not convincingly demonstrated in trial.

Findings of Court:
High Court's dismissal of the claim was based on apparent failure of evidence and contradictions presented by the Plaintiff.

Issues: Main issues included whether the Plaintiff's termination of the contract was justified and if sufficient evidence was provided to support the claims made.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the obligation to maintain the sanctity of contracts prevails, and parties must honor their agreements without seeking advantages from their own wrongdoing as per Section 38(1) of the Contract Act 1950.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at RM15,000.00.

Table of Content
1. appellant's appeal of high court judgment. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding evidence and handling of case. (Para 2)

Abdul Wahab Patail JCA:

[1] The Appellant Pernec Ebiz Sdn Bhd appealed against the whole of the judgment dated 27 January 2012 of the High COURT dismissing the Appellant's claim against the Respondents.

[2] In the appeal before us, the Appellant reargued its case. The submission was delivered with marked fluency, assertively impressing upon the COURT that even if the oral evidence for the Appellant were rejected, there was 3 contemporaneous documentary evidence as well as evidence of conduct of the parties, in particular the conduct of the Defendants. It was submitted that the High COURT failed to direct its mind to the probabilities of the case based on the agreed facts and on the undisputed evidence, but was instead perturbed by the impression of messiness, which was compounded by a simplistic approach and selective appraisal of facts. This COURT is called on to freshly appraise the evidence led at trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 MarsdenLR 56

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPERNEC EBIZ SDN BHD – AppellantVersusCCI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: W-02-494-03/2012]

A party cannot seek relief in court after breaching a contract, as per contractual obligations to perform or offer performance. The burden of proof in civil cases lies with the plaintiff.

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PERNEC EBIZ SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CCI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02-494-03/2012]