JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia whilst the defendant, also known as Calvin, is a Malaysian citizen.

[2] This action concerns the Plaintiff's claim for vacant possession of a property located at No 1, Jalan Impian Indah 2, Taman Impian Indah, Bukit Jalil, 57000, Kuala Lumpur (Property) held under Hakmilik No P.N 41887, Lot 44196, Mukim Petaling, Daerah dan Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur.

[3] The Plaintiff seeks an order for vacant possession of the Property and damages for trespass (also aggravated and exemplary). The Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking declarations that the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 23 June 2020 (SPA) and Form 14A dated 8 September 2020 are invalid and that the transfer of the Property should be set aside on grounds of an alleged illegal moneylending transaction.

[4] After a full trial with the production of witnesses' testimony and contemporaneous documentary evidence, this court finds that the plaintiff has proven its case on a balance of probabilities. The Plaintiff's claim for vacant possession of the Property is allowed. The reasons in coming to that decision and the assessment of damages are iterated below.

Background Facts

[5] The Defendant was the original registered owner of the Property.

[6] On 23 June 2020, the SPA was executed between the Plaintiff as purchaser and the Defendant as the vendor for the sale of the Property at a consideration sum of RM1,900,000.00.

[7] On 8 September 2020, the Property was transferred to the Plaintiff via Form 14A, which was duly signed by the Defendant himself.

[8] On 9 December 2020, the transfer was registered, and the Plaintiff became the lawful registered proprietor of the Property.

[9] Despite the completed transfer, the Defendant has failed to deliver vacant possession of the Property to the Plaintiff and continues to occupy the same. The Plaintiff in its suit claims that the Defendant's occupation of the Property is unlawful.

The Evidence

[10] The Plaintiff called three witnesses. PW1 is the solicitor who witnessed and prepared both the SPA and Form 14A. He testified that he personally witnessed the execution of the SPA by both parties. He testified that both parties were clear on the contents of the SPA and their intention to execute the same.

[11] It was PW1's testimony that he had explained the terms and implications of the SPA and the Form 14A to both parties. He testified that there was no duress, undue influence or pressure on either party. Both parties had signed the SPA and the Defendant had signed Form 14A willingly, and their demeanour was very normal from his observation.

[12] Importantly, PW1 revealed that he had acted as a lawyer for the Defendant in other matters previously, contradicting the Defendant's claim that PW1 was a "stranger" or only acting for the Plaintiff.

[13] PW2 is the son of the aged director of the plaintiff (PW5). He acted as the Plaintiff's representative in post-transfer dealings with the Defendant. He explained the long-standing business relationship between the Plaintiff's director - PW5 and the Defendant.

[14] Most importantly, he testified about how approximately one year after the transfer, the Defendant approached him to negotiate the rental terms to continue staying in the Property.

[15] The evidence of PW2 is that the Defendant had agreed to pay RM2,500.00 monthly rent and even issued cheques for this amount, although the cheques were not honoured.

[16] PW3, PW2's sister (the daughter of PW5), is a part-time employee of the Plaintiff assisting in the financial records and calculations for the financial books of the Plaintiff. She testified on the nature of the financial relationship between her father and the Defendant.

[17] She calculated the amounts invested and dividends received in the Plaintiff's financial books and records. She explained the contemporaneous documentary evidence that supported the investment nature of the Plaintiff with the Defen