Daimeng Holdings Sdn Bhd v Yap Hon Keong
Catchwords
This Court’s Orders [65] This Court finds on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff has successfully proven its claims. This Court hereby orders that: (a) The Defendant shall vacate and deliver vacant possession of the Property to the Plaintiff within 90 days of the date of this Order (b) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff mesne profits at the rate of RM2,500 per month from the date of this judgment until the date of the delivery of the Plaintiff (c) General damages to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for trespass being damages for unlawful occupation, calculated at RM2,500 per month from 4.3.2021 until the date of this judgment (d) Aggravated damages in the sum of RM20,000 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for his unconscionable conduct, systemic dishonesty, and abuse of the legal process (e) Interest of 5% per annum on all monetary awards which shall be calculated from the date of judgment until full and final settlement (f) The Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim are dismissed in their entirety (g) Costs of these proceedings in the sum of RM50,000 to be paid by the Defendant to Plaintiff, subject to allocator. The Plaintiff had sought for costs of RM50,000 whilst counsel for the Defendant submitted that he is a bankrupt. This court spines all the amounts awarded against the Defendant are fairly fixed including the costs of these proceedings [66] Mesne profits shall continue to accrue at RM2,500 monthly until actual delivery of vacant possession of the Property. The Plaintiff may apply for additional costs arising from enforcement proceedings. The Plaintiff is also given the liberty to apply for any consequential orders, clarification or directions arising from this judgment.
Practice Areas
This Court’s Orders 65 This Court finds on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff has successfully proven its claims. This Court hereby orders that: (a) The Defendant shall vacate and deliver vacant possession of the Property to the Plaintiff within 90 days of the date of this Order (b) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff mesne profits at the rate of RM2,500 per month from the date of this judgment until the date of the delivery of the Plaintiff (c) General damages to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for trespass being damages for unlawful occupation, calculated at RM2,500 per month from 4.3.2021 until the date of this judgment (d) Aggravated damages in the sum of RM20,000 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for his unconscionable conduct, systemic dishonesty, and abuse of the legal process (e) Interest of 5% per annum on all monetary awards which shall be calculated from the date of judgment until full and final settlement (f) The Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim are dismissed in their entirety (g) Costs of these proceedings in the sum of RM50,000 to be paid by the Defendant to Plaintiff, subject to allocator. The Plaintiff had sought for costs of RM50,000 whilst counsel for the Defendant submitted that he is a bankrupt. This court spines all the amounts awarded against the Defendant are fairly fixed including the costs of these proceedings 66 Mesne profits shall continue to accrue at RM2,500 monthly until actual delivery of vacant possession of the Property. The Plaintiff may apply for additional costs arising from enforcement proceedings. The Plaintiff is also given the liberty to apply for any consequential orders, clarification or directions arising from this judgment.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Daimeng Holdings Sdn Bhd v Yap Hon Keong is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated September 25, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-338-06-2022). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.
Key issues: (b) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff mesne profits at the rate of RM2,500 per month from the date of this judgment until the date of the delivery of the Plaintiff.
What was the outcome of Daimeng Holdings Sdn Bhd v Yap Hon Keong?
Daimeng Holdings Sdn Bhd v Yap Hon Keong is a High Court decision dated September 25, 2025. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.