Moses Susayan J:

Introduction

[1] This appeal involves an investment that went awry and made more complicated by the Sessions Court 's error in interpreting the law regarding sole proprietorships. The appellant invested RM100,000.00 into the respondent's business under a written agreement, however the Sessions Court dismissed the claim on the basis that payment was not made to the respondent personally. The issues of personal liability, unjust enrichment, and admissibility of documentary evidence under s 73A of the Evidence Act, have now come before this Court for determination.

Background Facts

[2] The appellant is the wife of Tarmezee bin Johari, who was a bankrupt at the time. The respondent is a sole proprietor trading under the name ERUL TAPAH MOTOR SPARE PARTS. The parties were known to each other from their village.

[3] On 16 May 2022, an investment agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent, under which the appellant agreed to invest RM100,000.00 in the respondent's motorcycle spare parts business.

[4] The Sessions Court accepted the validity of the investment agreement. However, it dismissed the appellant's claim on the grounds that the RM