IRWADI BIN IBRAHIM v AZMAN BIN JA'AFAR

ja-22ncvc-93-07-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 21 January 2026 • JA-22NCvC-93-07/2025 • 15 min read

5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

Tatacara Sivil — Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 — Permohonan membatalkan writ dan pernyataan tuntutan — Limb (a) tiada kausa tindakan munasabah (asas utama) — Had masa — Seksyen 6 Akta Had Masa 1953 — Tuntutan jelas terhalang had masa — Limb (d) penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah (asas kumulatif) — Illegality — Moneylenders Act 1951 — Pinjaman tanpa lesen — Takrif “interest” — Substans mengatasi label — Privity kontrak — Locus standi — Penamatan awal tindakan — Kos.

Practice Areas

Tatacara Sivil

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Counsel (4)

Muhammad Abd Kadir & Co Firm Nazrin & Izzat Firm Khairunnadiah Hasni binti Yusof Counsel Defendant Pheegenraj Darma a/l Darmala Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

Azman bin Ja'afar Defendant Irwadi bin Ibrahim Plaintiff

Case Significance

IRWADI BIN IBRAHIM v AZMAN BIN JA'AFAR is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 21, 2026 (citation: ja-22ncvc-93-07-2025). <p>The plaintiff sued to recover a RM500,000 loan made in 2015 plus a monthly 4% 'saguhati' payment. The defendant applied to strike out the action on grounds of limitation, illegality under the Moneylenders Act 1951, and lack of privity. The court struck out the claim, finding it was clearly time-barred under Section 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 as the writ was filed 10 years after the alleged breach, and the monthly 'saguhati' constituted interest making the arrangement an unlicensed moneylend The case was decided by Manira binti Mohd Nor. Counsel appearing: Khairunnadiah Hasni binti Yusof (counsel for defendant), Pheegenraj Darma a/l Darmala (counsel for plaintiff).

Summary

The plaintiff sued to recover a RM500,000 loan made in 2015 plus a monthly 4% 'saguhati' payment. The defendant applied to strike out the action on grounds of limitation, illegality under the Moneylenders Act 1951, and lack of privity. The court struck out the claim, finding it was clearly time-barred under Section 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 as the writ was filed 10 years after the alleged breach, and the monthly 'saguhati' constituted interest making the arrangement an unlicensed moneylending transaction.

What was the outcome of IRWADI BIN IBRAHIM v AZMAN BIN JA'AFAR?

<p>The plaintiff sued to recover a RM500,000 loan made in 2015 plus a monthly 4% 'saguhati' payment. The defendant applied to strike out the action on...

Cases Cited (5)

MY (5)

[1980] 2 MLJ 9 [1991] 1 MLJ 409 [1991] 1 MLJ 428 [1993] 3 MLJ 36 [1993] 4 CLJ 7