JUDGMENT

Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh J:

The Factual Background

[1] The plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, are citizens of Malaysia.

[2] The 1st plaintiff was a babysitter at the material time.

[3] Sometimes in late 2005, a Chinese woman ("the Chinese Woman") visited the plaintiffs' residence at Block 2 of the Greenview Apartment, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur and requested the 1st applicant to babysit her newborn daughter, the Child. According to the 1st plaintiff, the Chinese Woman was very young and, about 17 or 18.

[4] The Chinese Woman explained that she could not care for the Child due to her work commitment and asked the 1st plaintiff to help babysit the Child during the day. She paid the 1st plaintiff RM300.00 in cash.

[5] Around a week later, the Chinese Woman informed 1st plaintiff that she needed to work in Rawang. She then asked the 1st plaintiff to also care for the Child during the night. The Chinese Woman assured the 1st plaintiff that the balance of RM500.00, being the 1st month's babysitting fees, would be paid when she received her salary.

[6] According to the 1st plaintiff, the Chinese Woman was initially in contact with her. Unfortunately, the Chinese Woman became incommunicado, and her mobile phone was no longer in service. To compound the matter, the balance of the babysitting fees was not paid.

[7] It is at this stage that the plaintiffs realised that the Chinese Woman had abandoned the Child with them. The plaintiffs continued the search for the Chinese Woman but to no avail. In any event, since the plaintiffs remained at the same address, the Chinese Woman could have contacted them but did not do so.

[8] As the Child was ill and suffered from epilepsy, the plaintiffs then obtained a birth certificate and MyKid card for the Child through Klinik Kita Cawangan Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur ("the 1st birth certificate"). The 1st birth certificate stated the plaintiffs as the Child's biological parents and recorded the Child's date of birth as 11 December 2005. It was registered on 22 December 2005.

[9] With the issuance of the 1st birth certificate by the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, the Child could receive medical treatment, vaccination and later schooling.

The Application For The Child's MyKad

[10] The problem arose when the Child attained the age of 12 years when she applied for the issuance of her MyKad - the National Registration Identity Card.

[11] The Child's application for MyKad was referred to by the National Registration Department ("JPN") to its Kepong Branch. An investigation was initiated since the facial features of the Child were not similar to those of the plaintiffs. Separate statements were recorded by the JPN officers from the plaintiffs.

[12] According to the recorded statement made by the 1st plaintiff, the Child was conceived during her extra-marital relationship with another person, which was unbeknown to her husband. She therefore asserted that the Child was her biological daughter:

Q17: Adakah kamu mengaku yang CSV ("the Child") adalah anak kandung kamu?

A: Ya, anak saya.

Q18: Adakah kamu sanggup melakukan ujian DNA jika diarahkan oleh pihak JPN?

A: Sanggup, tapi minta pengurangan bayaran.

[13] The recorded statement from the 2nd plaintiff is more revealing. In the statement, the 2nd plaintiff confirmed that the Child was his biological daughter and he was with her wife, the 1st plaintiff, when the Child was delivered:

Q4: Boleh nyatakan apa bukti yang CSV ("the Child") anak kamu?

A: Saya nampak sendiri isteri saya mengandung dan melahirkan anak.

[14] Pursuant to the statements recorded from the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were directed by the JPN officers to undergo a DNA test. However, before the DNA test could be conducted, the plaintiffs appeared at the Investigation and Enforcement Division ("BSK") at the JPN Kuala Lumpur. The 1st plaintiff admitted that the Child was handed to her by one "Wong Tai" and that she was unaware of the Child's biological parents.

[15] As a result of the admission made by t