Back
2025 MarsdenLR 92
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
KHATIJAH MD IBRAHIM & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
NORTHERN SKYLINE SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-22NCvC-241-12/2019]
An impeachment suit requires proof of fraud or misrepresentation affecting the validity of a prior judgment, with the Plaintiffs bearing the burden of demonstrating substantial grounds for setting aside the judgment.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Impeachment of Judgment - Specific Performance - Plaintiffs sought to impeach a previous High Court judgment granting specific performance to the Defendant regarding the sale of property, asserting statutory fraud and misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving illegality or fraud affecting the original judgment. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 19, 31)
(B) Fraud - Types of Fraud - Court distinguishes between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud involves actions outside court proceedings, while intrinsic fraud pertains to the concealment of evidence within court proceedings, which affects the case outcome. (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, a mother and son, filed an impeachment suit to set aside a prior High Court judgment that ordered the sale of property after D alleged a contract existed, an assertion P1 disputed. The Plaintiffs argued that fraud and misrepresentation occurred due to D allegedly suppressing evidence relating to a deposit. (Paras 1-6, 18, 36)
Findings of Court:
The Court found no proof of fraud or that the judgment had been tainted by misrepresentation. The litigation history and evidence indicated a valid contract existed despite the argument surrounding the 10% deposit. (Paras 53, 65)
Issues: Whether D's actions constituted fraud or misrepresentation affecting the initial judgment. (Paras 26, 28, 65)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the existence of a contract was established, and the misrepresentation or suppression of evidence did not undermine the validity of the original judgment. (Paras 33-35, 41, 65)
Result: Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; costs awarded to Defendant amounting to RM50,000. (Paras 65, 66)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and dispute over sale contract (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. process of appeal and reinstatement of suit (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. witness testimonies in trial (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. burden of proof in impeachment suits (Para 14 , 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. allegations of fraud and misrepresentation (Para 17 , 21 , 24) |
| 6. evidence issues related to disclosure (Para 22 , 23) |
(Post-Trial: Suit To Impeach An Earlier Judgment)
Prelusion
[1] The Plaintiffs are mother and son. The 1st Plaintiff is the mother (P1). The 2nd Plaintiff is the son (P2). P1 owns a piece of land under the title: Geran 21594, Lot 3, Seksyen 5, Bandar Georgetown, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang (Lot 3).
[2] There was a disputed transaction to sell Lot 3 to the Defendant (D). It was disputed because P1 asserted that there was no contract to sell Lot 3 to D. Oppositely, D asserted that there was indeed a contract to sell and buy Lot 3.
[3] In 2014, D filed a suit against P1. The suit was civil suit No: 22NCVC-97-06/2014 (Suit 97). D sought the relief of specific performance  for P1 to specifically perform the sale and purchase agreement between D and P1 for Lot 3. The High Court, presided over by Justice Nantha Balan (Justice Balan), granted judgment in favour of D. The High Court granted the order for specific performance (SP Order). This meant that P1 was ordered to sell and transfer Lot 3 to D.
[4] P1 appealed to the Court Of Appeal (CA). The CA dismissed her appeal. She applied for leave to appeal further to the Federal Court (FC). The FC refused her the leave to appeal further.
[5] In 2019, P1, with P2, filed this civil suit No: 22NCVC-241-12/2019, to impeach the High Court's judgment in Suit 97 ie to set aside the SP Order (this impeachment suit).
[6] Should the SP Order (the High Court judgment in Suit 97) be allowed to be impeached and thus set aside?
Preliminaries
[7] First  it is worth noting that D applied to summarily strike out this impeachment suit. In 2020, the High Court, presided over by Justice George Varughese, struck it out. P1 and P2 appealed to the CA.
[8] In 2020, the CA allowed their appeal. This impeachment suit was reinstated and remitted back to the High Court for trial. D applied for leave to appeal to the FC against the decision of the CA.
[9] In 2023, the FC refused D the leave to appeal further. The CA's decision stood. This impeachment suit was to proceed to trial.
[10] The trial took place over three days in 2024.
[11] Second  the parties' witnesses. P1 and P2 both testified. They also subpoenaed Mr Allen Choong to testify for them. Mr Allen Choong is the lawyer who averred in Suit 97 that he represented P1 and P2 in the sale and purchase transaction for Lot 3 (but this averment was refuted by P1 and P2).
[12] D called three witnesses. The first was Miss Adelyn Chong: D's lawyer who had conduct of the documentation work for the sale and purchase of Lot 3. The second was Mr Ooi Saw Han: D's former managing director (Mr Ooi). The third was Mr Tan Hock San: D's present managing director.
The Law On Impeaching A Judgment
[13] As the purpose of this impeachment suit is to set aside the High Court's judgment in Suit 97, I am minded to heed the principle that even a final judgment or order of a Court can be impeached and as a result be set aside, on grounds of illegality (made in contravention of written law) or fraud  Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd ; ; ; .
[14] This means that in this impeachment suit, P1 and P2 have the burden of proving that the High Court judgment in Suit 97 was tainted by illegality or fraud, to the extent that the judgment should be set aside.
[15] The merits of Suit 97 were already canvassed in the High Court, and the correctness of the High Court judgment in Suit 97 was already determined on appeal to the Court Of Appeal and at the Federal Court  unless the factors of illegality or fraud directly bear upon the merits of t
