The appellate court emphasized that previous findings in one case cannot determine issues in another case unless specified by law, warranting a retrial due to misdirection.

Hashim Hamzah JCA:

Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred to as they were before the trial court below.

Background Facts

[2] Briefly, the facts in the present case are as follows.

[3] The Plaintiff entered into a Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 13 February 2016 ("SPA") with an impostor who claimed to be Mr Ng Chee Yau (the real owner) to purchase a piece of land held under Grant No, 392689, Lot No. 88359, Mukim Pulai, Daerah Johor Bahru, Johor ("the said Property"). The Defendant is the Registrar of Titles in the Johor State Land and Mines Department.

[4] The Plaintiff paid RM1,000,000.00 to the impostor being the purchase price of the said Property under the SPA. The Plaintiff was subsequently registered as the proprietor of the said Property on 20 April 2016. The Plaintiff had also paid all the quit rent and outstanding maintenance charges for the said Property in the sum of RM5,880.94 as part of the purchase price.

[5] However, after the transfer of the said Property had been completed and registered in the name of the Plaintiff, Mr Ng Chee Yau, the real owner, initiated civil suit No. JA-22NCvC-4-01/2018 ("the Previous Suit") against the Plaintiff. In the Previous Suit, Mr Ng Chee Yau sought, among others, to challenge the validity of the transfer of the said Property to the Plaintiff and to register the said Property in his name.

[6] The learned High court Judge ("HCJ") in the Previous Suit allowed Mr Ng Chee Yau's claims. The High court made a declaration, among others, that the transfer of the said Property to the Plaintiff was void ab initio. The learned HCJ also allowed the consequential orders prayed for, including that the said Property be registered in the name of Mr. Ng Chee Yau, the real owner.

[7] At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Plaintiff did not make the Defendant a party in the Previous Suit.

[8] Consequently, the Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for negligence. The Plaintiff claimed to have suffered losses due to the Defendant's alleged breach of statutory duty and duty of care owed to the Plaintiff as follows:

a. that the Defendant failed to take any precautionary steps or exercise reasonable care to ensure that all Documents submitted for the transfer of ownership of the said Property were. genuine and valid before registering the transfer of the said Property to the Plaintiff;

b. that the Defendant breached its duty of care by allowing a fake title to be used to register the transfer of the said property while still holding the original Issue Documents of Title ("DHKK") in its safe;

c. that the Defendant breached its duty of care by failing to follow established procedure when it used the wrong type of title, ie. the Register Documents of Title ("DHDK"), to do the registration of transfer of the said Property; and

d. that the Defendant has breached its statutory duty and duty of care by leaking a copy of the original DHKK to an unknown third party (the impostor) who was not the registered owner of the said Property.

[9] In his statement of claim, the Plaintiff prays for the following orders, and we quote -

"(a) Gantirugi berjumlah RM1,758,140.68 atau apa-apa jurnlah yang dianggap adil clan munasabah oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini;

(b) Faedah pada kadar 8% setahun atas jumlah di perenggan 19(a) di atas dari 29 Mei 2019 hingga tarikh penghakiman;

(c) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atas jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh penghakiman hingga tarikh pembayaran atau realisasi;

(d) Kos"

[10] The Defendant denies all the allegations of wrongdoing and breach of statutory duty alleged by the Plaintiff.

[11] The matter went to full trial. The Plaintiff and the Defendant called two witnesses each. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge found that the Plaintiff had proven his case against the Defendant.

[12] Aggrieved with the decision of the learned trial judge, the Defendant filed this appeal.

Principles On Appellate Intervention

[13] The