1. ) APLI BIN YUSOFF 2. ) HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN BIN MAT YASIN 3. ) RAMLEE BIN SAIDIN 4. ) SINCERE PROGRESS SDN BHD v 1. ) Abdul Malik Bin Dasthigeer 2. ) Siadali Bin Mohd Abu Bakkar

wa-12bncc-32-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 5 March 2025 • WA-12BNCC-32-09/2023

Catchwords

The law on specific performance of an agreement is well-settled. I need only refer to just one case-It must not be forgotten that there is here a contract for the sale of immovable property. It is the kind of obligation that statute rebuttably presumes to be incapable of being remedied by an award of monetary compensation-Court of Equity is sufficiently empowered to decree specific performance on terms-There is also precedent for decreeing specific performance and then leaving it to the defendant to later apply to have the decree vacated on the ground of impossibility of performance-It is trite law that an appellate court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluation of the evidence. The appellate court has a duty to intervene only where a trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may say that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion-When it comes to agreement to buy shares the Court clearly can and should grant specific performance by virtue of section 11 (1)(c) illustration [c] of the Specific Relief Act 1950

Practice Areas

The law on specific performance of an agreement is well-settled. I need only refer to just one case-It must not be forgotten that there is here a contract for the sale of immovable property. It is the kind of obligation that statute rebuttably presumes to be incapable of being remedied by an award of monetary compensation-Court of Equity is sufficiently empowered to decree specific performance on terms-There is also precedent for decreeing specific performance and then leaving it to the defendant to later apply to have the decree vacated on the ground of impossibility of performance-It is trite law that an appellate court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluation of the evidence. The appellate court has a duty to intervene only where a trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may say that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion-When it comes to agreement to buy shares the Court clearly can and should grant specific performance by virtue of section 11 (1)(c) illustration c of the Specific Relief Act 1950

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (6)

SINCERE PROGRESS Sdn Bhd Appellant Abdul Malik bin Dasthigeer Respondent Apli bin Yusoff Appellant Haji Abdul Rahman bin Mat Yasin Appellant Ramlee bin Saidin Appellant Siadali bin Mohd Abu Bakkar Respondent

Case Significance

1. ) APLI BIN YUSOFF 2. ) HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN BIN MAT YASIN 3. ) RAMLEE BIN SAI... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 5, 2025 (citation: wa-12bncc-32-09-2023). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of 1. ) APLI BIN YUSOFF 2. ) HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN BIN MAT YASIN 3. ) RAMLEE BIN SAI...?

1. ) APLI BIN YUSOFF 2. ) HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN BIN MAT YASIN 3. ) RAMLEE BIN SAI... is a High Court decision dated March 5, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.