Rahman Rohaida

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates how a lease conditional on registration affects the accrual of rent, and how the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio can bar a claim founded on the plaintiff's own unlicensed activity.

Rahman Rohaida appears in the corpus as counsel in contract, negligence and banking litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi).

One matter concerned a lease of state land. Acting for the defendant against Green Lion Sdn Bhd, the firm appeared where a lease was to commence upon registration but was never registered, and the court examined whether an enforceable leasehold interest had been created, whether the obligation to pay rent had accrued, and how to construe a clause requiring payment sebaik baik Perjanjian ditandatangani (as soon as the agreement is signed), namely whether that obligation was immediate on execution or contingent upon registration, given the landowner's failure to furnish the issue document of title.

In negligence work the firm acted for the plaintiff in a claim involving TM Technology Services Sdn Bhd against Pestech Sdn Bhd, where the question was whether the defendant had negligently damaged cables and infrastructure, whether it had admitted liability, whether the plaintiff had contributed to the damage by failing to label the location of the cables, and whether the defendant was liable for the full cost of rectification works.

The firm also appeared in banking and civil-procedure disputes. In one matter, acting for the defendant, it made a submission of no case to answer, engaging whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, whether an adverse inference should be drawn for the failure to call a witness under the Wisniewski principles, and an alleged oral settlement over the redemption of banking facilities under sections 101, 102 and 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. In another it obtained the striking-out of a plaintiff's claim under Orders 18 and 14, invoking the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio where the plaintiff had operated without a valid licence. The firm's record is a general commercial-litigation practice engaging contract, tort and banking questions.