Case Summary:
The appellant had entered into a jual janji agreement with the respondent
where the former agreed to lend the sum of RM60,000 to the respondent. The
respondent was to transfer ownership of a piece of land to the appellant.
Dispute arose when the respondent tried to settle the loan with the appellant
and redeem the land but the appellant didn’t respond. The appellant promised to
retransfer the land to the respondent but failed to do so. The respondent later
found out that the appellant had transferred the property to one Poh for the
sum of RM600,000. Poh had paid only RM300,000 and in turn, sold the land to Ng.
This caused the respondent to file a claim in the High Court for the recovery
of the full purchase price at market value minus the loan sum from the
appellant. The appellant argued that the respondent had failed to settle the
loan sum and redeem the land before the expiry of the agreement. The High Court
held that the respondent had proven his case and accepted the respondent's
evidence that the respondent did try to pay the loan but the appellant refused
to accept the payment. The judge awarded the respondent a sum of RM1.5m as
damages, which was a discounted sum from the respondent's claim of RM2.2m.
Issue in CoA:
(1)Whether the respondent was willing
and able to settle the loan sum within the agreed time
(2) Whether the judge was correct in
awarding the sum of RM1.5m to the respondent.
Held:
For the first issue:
The respondent had failed to prove on
a balance of probabilities that he was in a position and had the capability to
settle the loan sum on or before the stipulated date. In the circumstances the
appellant had acquired indefeasible title over the land and was entitled to
deal with the land in the manner he wished.
For the second issue:
The learned judge also fell into error
in awarding the sum of RM1.5m, which was not what the respondent had prayed
for. The learned judge made the said award without going further to elucidate
why he thought a discount ought to be given in the first place.
Conclusion:
High Court’s decision to be set aside
and the deposit be refunded to the appellant.
No comments:
Post a Comment