GULAM WAWASAN SDN BHD v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) JABATAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL NEGARA 4. ) Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Bin Mentek, Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan 5. ) ISMAIL BIN MOKHTAR, KETUA EKSEKUTIF SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 6. ) SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING MANAGEMENT CORPOR

w-01ncvcw-180-03-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 20 November 2025 • W-01(NCvC)(W)-180-03/2024 • 52 min read
17 cases cited (0 SG, 17 foreign)

Catchwords

Contract – Privity of contract – Novation – Appellant’s original contract with DBKL novated to concessionaire, Alam Flora Sdn Bhd – No direct contractual relationship between Appellant and Government Respondents – "No privity" clause in Concession Agreement – Appellant a "stranger" to the agreement – Claim against Government unsustainable. Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Quantum meruit – Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Claim for reasonable compensation for services rendered – Where a valid and subsisting contract exists between the Appellant and a third party (AFSB) under which full payment was made, a claim under Section 71 or quantum meruit against a non-contracting party (the Government) is not available. Constitutional Law – Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution – Discrimination – Provision applies to public law and administration by a public authority – Not applicable to disputes arising from private commercial contracts voluntarily entered into by parties. Tort – Misfeasance in public office – Elements of the tort – Abuse of public power by a public officer with targeted malice or reckless indifference to the probability of harm – Failure to prove bad faith, ill-will, or intention to injure – Public officer acting in accordance with official procedure and existing laws – Tort not established. Government Contracts – Concession Agreement – Corporate veil – Government not liable for contracts entered into by separate legal entities (DBKL, AFSB).

Practice Areas

Contract Restitution Constitutional Law Tort Government Contracts

Judges (3)

Alwi bin Abdul Wahab Coram Collin Lawrence Sequerah Coram Shahnaz binti Sulaiman Delivered

Counsel (7)

Azrul, Liew & Co. Firm Mohamed Noor, Amran & Yoon Firm Dato' Cyrus Das Counsel Appellant Khairul Aiman bin Kamar Rozaman Counsel Respondent Mahitra a/p P. Subramaniam Counsel Appellant Muhammad Azrul bin Abdul Hamid Counsel Appellant Norhaina binti Zulkifli Counsel Respondent

Parties (7)

Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Bin Mentek, Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan Respondent GULAM WAWASAN Sdn Bhd Appellant ISMAIL BIN MOKHTAR, KETUA EKSEKUTIF SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Respondent JABATAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL NEGARA Respondent KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN Respondent Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent Solid Waste And Public Cleansing Management Corpor Respondent

Case Significance

GULAM WAWASAN SDN BHD v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated November 20, 2025 (citation: w-01ncvcw-180-03-2024). <p>Gulam Wawasan Sdn Bhd, a waste management contractor, claimed approximately RM67 million against the Government and related agencies for allegedly unequal treatment when its contract with DBKL was novated to concessionaire Alam Flora Sdn Bhd. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no privity of contract between the appellant and the Government respondents, that the claim for unjust enrichment under Section 71 of the Contracts Act was unavailable where a valid contract e The panel comprised Alwi bin Abdul Wahab, Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Shahnaz binti Sulaiman, with Shahnaz binti Sulaiman delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Dato' Cyrus Das (counsel for appellant), Khairul Aiman bin Kamar Rozaman (counsel for respondent), Mahitra a/p P. Subramaniam (counsel for appellant), Muhammad Azrul bin Abdul Hamid (counsel for appellant), Norhaina binti Zulkifli (counsel for respondent).

Key issues: Government Contracts – Concession Agreement – Corporate veil – Government not liable for contracts entered into by separate legal entities (DBKL, AFSB)..

Summary

Gulam Wawasan Sdn Bhd, a waste management contractor, claimed approximately RM67 million against the Government and related agencies for allegedly unequal treatment when its contract with DBKL was novated to concessionaire Alam Flora Sdn Bhd. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no privity of contract between the appellant and the Government respondents, that the claim for unjust enrichment under Section 71 of the Contracts Act was unavailable where a valid contract existed with Alam Flora, and that the tort of misfeasance in public office was not established.

What was the outcome of GULAM WAWASAN SDN BHD v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN...?

<p>Gulam Wawasan Sdn Bhd, a waste management contractor, claimed approximately RM67 million against the Government and related agencies for allegedly ...

Statutes Cited

Contract Act 1950
s 71
Contracts Act 1950
s 71
Contracts Act 1950
s 71
Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
s 71
Federal Constitution
Art 8 Art 8(2)
Government Proceedings Act 1956
s 5
Rules of Court 2012
Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Cap 672)
The Fifth and Sixth Respondents ground their lack of authority in law based on the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Cap 672)

Cases Cited (17)

UK (3)
[1897] AC 22 [2000] 3 All ER 1 [2003] 2 AC 1
MY (14)
[1967] 2 MLJ 118 [1997] 1 MLJ 241 [2008] 1 MLJ 743 [2014] 3 MLJ 661 [2015] 1 MLJ 284 [2015] 2 MLJ 441 [2015] 7 CLJ 584 [2015] 9 CLJ 1002 [2016] 2 CLJ 563 [2017] 6 MLJ 728 [2019] 2 MLJ 1 [2020] 1 CLJ 337 [2020] MLJU 1469 [2021] 6 CLJ 471