KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE

wa-22ncc-696-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 15 July 2025 • WA-22NCC-696-09/2023

Catchwords

Section 4.03 of the Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-Section 4.03 of the Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.03 of the Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum are to be repaid in full at the end of the investment period-Investment Agreement-moneylending whereby a lender lends money with interest charged-Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-38. The case before me is not a loan agreement. The plaintiffs did not lend monies to Ace Credit. In fact, it is Ace Credit which is the licensed moneylender as stated and represented in the Agreement at Recital A. And at Recital B it is stated that Ace Credit agreed on the plaintiffs investing in Ace Credit-

Practice Areas

Section 4.03 of the Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-Section 4.03 of the Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.03 of the Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum are to be repaid in full at the end of the investment period-Investment Agreement-moneylending whereby a lender lends money with interest charged-Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-38. The case before me is not a loan agreement. The plaintiffs did not lend monies to Ace Credit. In fact, it is Ace Credit which is the licensed moneylender as stated and represented in the Agreement at Recital A. And at Recital B it is stated that Ace Credit agreed on the plaintiffs investing in Ace Credit-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (4)

ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd Defendant KHARISMA WIRA Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Chang Ai Nee Defendant Choong Chee Meng Defendant

Case Significance

KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 15, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-696-09-2023). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3...?

KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3... is a High Court decision dated July 15, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.