Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 1901

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ALI REZA ZIBA HALAT MONFARED & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
CHEW BEN BEN & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCVC-506-09-2017]

Petitioner Advocates:Michael Chow,Neoh Kai Sheng ,Respondent Advocate: Chong Ki Keong,Hazalina Haron

A power of attorney must comply strictly with legal requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid, impacting subsequent transactions and claims.

Headnote:(A) Powers of Attorney Act 1949 - Section 3(1)(a) - National Land Code - Section 211 - Validity of power of attorney - The court held that the impugned power of attorney was invalid due to lack of meticulous authentication as required by law, rendering all subsequent transactions void. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed for failing to establish locus standi and for lack of evidence supporting allegations of conspiracy. (Paras 14, 22, 112)

(B) Conspiracy - Elements - The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of conspiracy, including unlawful intent and harm, due to the absence of concrete evidence and the lack of the first plaintiff's testimony. (Paras 106, 110)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff alleged that the property was wrongfully transferred without his involvement and claimed the power of attorney was valid. The first plaintiff was imprisoned, and the second plaintiff claimed he had the authority to act on behalf of the first plaintiff. (Paras 1-8)

Findings of Court:
The court found the impugned power of attorney invalid, the second plaintiff lacked authority to sue, and the conspiracy claim was not actionable. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with costs. (Paras 112-115)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the power of attorney, the nullity of the sale and purchase agreement, and whether the conspiracy claim was actionable. (Paras 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with the Powers of Attorney Act for validity and ruled that the absence of the first plaintiff's testimony weakened the conspiracy claim. (Paras 22, 112)

Result: Claims dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2)
2. description of the property and plaintiffs' claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. summary of the plaintiffs' and defendants' arguments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. identification of key issues in the case. (Para 12 , 13)
5. court's observations on locus standi and validity of the impugned pa. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. analysis of the authenticity and requirements of the impugned pa. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. court's reasoning on compliance with the powers of attorney act. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. further examination of the impugned pa's validity. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
9. discussion on consideration and its implications for the impugned pa. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
10. analysis of the admissibility of extrinsic evidence. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
11. court's findings on the signing date and authenticity of the impugned pa. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
12. final observations on authenticity and burden of proof. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
13. examination of the 2nd plaintiff's standing to sue. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90)
14. assessment of the validity of the spa and form 14a. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102)
15. court's analysis of the conspiracy claim. (Para 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111)
16. summary of court's findings and dismissal of claims. (Para 112 , 113 , 114)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

Introduction

[1] Manoj Singh ("2nd Plaintiff") came to know that a property of Ali Reza ("1st Plaintiff") in Ampang, Kuala Lumpur was transferred to Chew Ben Ben ("1st Defendant") and his wife Zhao Tong ("2nd Defendant") witnessed by Kevin Sathiaseelan ("3rd Defendant"). The 1st Plaintiff had also, allegedly, given a power of attorney appointing Dato' Syed Alwi ("4th Defendant") as his attorney. Dissatisfied with this, the 2nd Plaintiff in his own capacity and on behalf of the 1st Plaintiff then filed a suit ("this Action") against all the Defendants claiming that he has the valid power of attorney of the 1st Plaintiff. He also alleged that without his involvement, the transfer perfected was invalid.

[2] From the time this Action was filed up until the date of this grounds of judgment, the Plaintiff, an Iranian national, has been serving time in an Iranian jail. The 1st Plaintiff had previously spent sometimes in Malaysia and was bestowed a datukship during the time here. This judgment is delivered after the full trial conducted pertaining to this Action in which the 2nd Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had committed fraud and conspiracy to injure.

Facts Of The Case

[3] The 1st Plaintiff was formerly the registered proprietor of all that piece of property held under Title No PN 35412, Lot 9517, Mukim Ampang, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur and bearing postal address at Lot No 9, Jalan Keranji 2 off Jalan Kedondong, Taman Tasik Ampang, Ampang Hilir, 55000 Kuala Lumpur ("the Property").

[4] The 2nd Plaintiff is a Malaysian citizen and is said to be the lawful attorney of the 1st Plaintiff in respect of the Property pursuant to the alleged power of attorney registered in the High Court of Ipoh under registration No 4396/2015 ("the Impugned PA").

[5] The 1st and 2nd Defendants are married couple and are the current registered proprietors of the Property. The 3rd and 4th Defendants are advocates and solicitors.

[6] The 2nd Plaintiff alleged that the Impugned PA was executed by the 1st Plaintiff, which among others, had assigned to the 2nd Plaintiff any and/or all of the 1st Plaintiff's present or contingent rights to deal with all of his real estate including but not limited to all dealings over the Property.

[7] The 2nd Plaintiff subsequently discovered that the Property, in breach of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 1901

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURALI REZA ZIBA HALAT MONFARED & ANOR – AppellantVersusCHEW BEN BEN & ORS – Respondent[Suit No: WA-22NCVC-506-09-2017]

A power of attorney must comply strictly with legal requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid, impacting subsequent transactions and claims.

Cases Referred (9)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ALI REZA ZIBA HALAT MONFARED & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
CHEW BEN BEN & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCVC-506-09-2017]