The court upheld the doctrine of non est factum, emphasizing the need for clear and unambiguous understanding of documents signed by uneducated individuals misled by legal representatives regarding their obligations.

[1] On 29 January 2010 the learnedHigh Court Judge at Kuala Lumpur allowed the 1st respondent's claim for a sum ofRM410,000.00, interest and costs against the 1st and 2nd appellants. In his judgmentthe learned High Court Judge ordered the appellants to jointly and severally pay the 1st respondent special damages in the sum of RM410,000.00 which was the amountoutstanding from the 3rd defendant (not a party in this appeal) to the 1st respondentunder the sale and purchase agreement dated 27 January 1999. The learned judge alsoordered that the 1st respondent was not liable to pay the outstanding amount underthe charge documents to the 2nd respondent (who is the 4th defendant in the HighCourt).

[2] Not satisfied with the decision,the 1st and 2nd appellants appealed to this Court against that decision.

[3] For convenience, in thisappeal the appellants will be referred to as the 1st and 2nd defendants and the1st and 2nd respondents as the plaintiff and 4th defendant respectively.

[4] The 3rd defendant is a privatelimited company but not a party to this appeal.

Background Facts

[5] The plaintiff's pleaded case is as follows:

At all materialtime the plaintiff was the registered owner of a piece of land known as Lot No.4579, No GM 2357, Mukim Kapar, Daerah Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("the said land").

The 2nd defendantis a legal firm with an address at No 1, Jalan Perkasa 8, Taman Maluri, Cheras,55100 Kuala Lumpur. The 1st defendant is a practising advocate and solicitor anda partner in the 2nd defendant.

The 3rd defendantis a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 and havinga registered address at No 28- 1, Jalan Mewah 2/2B, Regalia Business Centre, SubangJaya, 47500 Selangor Darul Ehsan.

The 4th defendantis a licensed bank under the BAFIA (Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989)and was incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 .

[6] The plaintiff averred thatsometime in early 1999 the plaintiff met a director of the 3rd defendant and wastold that the 3rd defendant was interested to purchase the said land. It was furtheraverred that the said director of the 3rd defendant stated that the 3rd defendantwas prepared to purchase the said land for RM550,000.00 and that the legal firmof Tetuan Darshan Chong & Co, ie the 2nd defendant, must be used for all documentationin respect of the transfer of the said land. Accordingly, on 27 January 1999, theplaintiff and the 3rd defendant entered into a sale and purchase agreement (exhP1) whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and the 3rd defendant agreed to buy thesaid land. It is not disputed that all documentation in respect of the transactionincluding the preparation of the sale and purchase agreement was done by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

[7] The plaintiff alleged thatwhile he was at the firm of the 2nd defendant, he was asked to sign several documentswhich were said to be necessary to complete the said sale and purchase agreement.The plaintiff pleaded and gave evidence at the trial that he is uneducated and couldnot speak English or Bahasa Malaysia fluently and does not have any knowledge ofany formalities required under the said sale and purchase agreement. The plaintiffcontended that he relied solely on the 1st and 2nd defendants to give him adviceand to carry out all the work with honesty and perfection.

[8] Pursuant to the said saleand purchase agreement, the 3rd defendant paid a sum of RM140,000.00 to the plaintiff.But, after that the plaintiff alleged that the 3rd defendant did not make any otherpayment or have refused or failed or neglected in making any other payment underthe said sale and purchase agreement; and that the said sale and purchase agreementwas never concluded by both parties.

[9] The plaintiff further averredthat on 2 November 2000, he received a demand letter f