Mohd Rosli bin Yusoff

On the judicial record

A High Court judge whose reported corpus combines land, contract and road-traffic disputes with serious criminal trials, appeals and revisions, much of it in Bahasa Malaysia.

Justice Mohd Rosli bin Yusoff sits in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions in this corpus combine civil and criminal work, with land, contract, road-traffic and serious crime prominent, and many judgments written in Bahasa Malaysia. Land disputes recur, including a claim that land was transferred by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, examined under section 340(3)(b) of the National Land Code and its protection of a subsequent bona fide purchaser, and a claim for compensation for trespass to land and the destruction of crops and fruit trees turning on registered ownership.

Contract and commercial disputes feature, including a claim for damages for the breach or repudiation of a logging-concession agreement and alleged misfeasance and negligent representation. Road-traffic appeals from the Sessions Court also arise, including one remitted for the further hearing of expert neurosurgery evidence.

Criminal work is well represented, largely by way of trial, appeal and revision. A full narcotics trial engages charges under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, the Poisons Act 1952 and a firearms charge under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971; a criminal revision concerns a cheating charge under section 420 of the Penal Code where the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced; a corruption appeal concerns a conviction under section 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009; and a habeas corpus application challenges a preventive-detention order for alleged non-compliance with the governing security legislation on the recording of the detainee's statement. Striking-out applications under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court, decided by reference to whether a claim is plainly unsustainable, round out a broad docket. The corpus reflects a High Court judge managing a mixed civil and criminal list, decided on the evidence adduced and the governing statutory provision, with the burden and standard of proof — for fraud in the civil work and for the elements of the offence in the criminal — the recurring touchstone.