Contracts founded on illegal considerations are deemed void under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.

[16] As could be seen in the Grounds of Judgment of the learned trial Judge, though there were a few issues identified, the main issue that could determine the outcome of the case for the Plaintiff had been the issue pertaining to validity and enforceability of the 4 Agreements, in the sense of whether they were bad as being against public policy or bad for illegality under the Contracts Act 1950 .

The Plaintiff's Submission

[17] Learned counsel submitted that the learned High court Judge had erred in facts and in law in failing to consider and take into account that the Agreements entered between the parties had not contravened with any provisions under the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board Act 1987 ("the CVLB Act"). The Defendant was the registered owner of the trucks as required by the CVLB Act and the Plaintiff at all material time was the beneficial owner for all the trucks. It is common in Malaysia where in a hire-purchase arrangement whereby the hirer/owner, hires out a vehicle to a hiree under the hire-purchase arrangement, and that the hiree uses the vehicle to carry his own goods operating under Permit C licence. The hiree, who is not the owner is allowed to operate the vehicle under Permit C licence. Therefore, the learned Judge failed to consider that the arrangement between the parties did not contravene any provisions under the CVLB Act and hence s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 is deemed not applicable in this situation. Therefore parties were bound by the contracts that they had legally entered into.

[18] It was also contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that even if the Agreements were found to be void as being illegal, salvation could be had by the Plaintiff under s 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 .

[19] There was no submissions made by the Defendant before for reasons as alluded to prior.

[20] With respect, we agreed that the appeal turned on the issue of the enforceability of the Agreements. To be exact, whether they are caught by the prohibitive injunctions as listed under s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 .

[21] We reproduce below s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 for ease of convenience.

" Section 24 What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-

(a) it is forbidden by a law,

(b) it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law;

(c) it is fraudulent;

(d) it involves or implies injury to the person property of another; or

(e) the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.

[22] The essential facts in this case, as found by the learned trial Judge, can be stated as follows. The Defendant was the owner of all the trucks mentioned in Schedule 2 of each of the 4 Agreements. Indeed, as observed and found by him, s 2 of the Schedule 1 of all 4 Agreements stated that the owner of the trucks was Stanson Marketing Sdn. Bhd. namely, the Defendant in this case. We would have thought that those facts were beyond dispute. What was also beyond dispute is the fact that the Plaintiff was the Service Provider who would provide the fleet management services in respect of all the trucks mentioned in all the 4 Agreements. This was clearly borne out in Recital 2 of the Agreements. The Defendant's part of the bargain was to make monthly payments to the Plaintiff as agreed between them.

[23] As it had come to pass, the Defendant had failed to pay for the services which had triggered this action by the Plaintiff for recovery of the fees for the services rendered.

[24] The learned trial Judge, having heard the evidence and having sifted through the evidence, had concluded in paras [41] and [42] of his ground