MUSARAT @ MUSARAT BIBI BINTI SHEIKH ABDULLAH v EMMANUEL BENSON BIN ABDULLAH
Catchwords
Introduction 1.The Defendant in this case applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim under order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules provide as follows: 19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19) (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that- (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be. (2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a). (3) This rule shall, as far as applicable, apply to an originating summons as if it were a pleading. Conclusion 16.In this case the Court rules that the Plaintiff’s claim is time barred and therefore obviously unsustainable. 17.In the upshot the Defendant’s application to strike out is allowed with cost of RM 7,000.
Practice Areas
Introduction 1.The Defendant in this case applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim under order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules provide as follows: 19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19) (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that- (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be. (2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a). (3) This rule shall, as far as applicable, apply to an originating summons as if it were a pleading. Conclusion 16.In this case the Court rules that the Plaintiff’s claim is time barred and therefore obviously unsustainable. 17.In the upshot the Defendant’s application to strike out is allowed with cost of RM 7,000.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
MUSARAT @ MUSARAT BIBI BINTI SHEIKH ABDULLAH v EMMANUEL BENSON BIN ABDULLAH is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 27, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-604-09-2024). The case was decided by Akhtar bin Tahir.
Key issues: Introduction.
What was the outcome of MUSARAT @ MUSARAT BIBI BINTI SHEIKH ABDULLAH v EMMANUEL BENSON BIN ABDULLAH?
MUSARAT @ MUSARAT BIBI BINTI SHEIKH ABDULLAH v EMMANUEL BENSON BIN ABDULLAH is a High Court decision dated January 27, 2025. The case was heard by Akhtar bin Tahir. See the full judgment for details.