J
Johan bin Abdul Samad
Person 1 case
Johan bin Abdul Samad appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-299-05-2024
1. ) WONG ZHENG KAI 2. ) JOHAN BIN ABDUL SAMAD 3. ) CHIANG WAI LAM 4. ) Ting Tik Chai [Menyaman Dibawah Nama Peribadinya Dan Sebagai Perniagaan Milikan Tunggal Di Bawah Gaya Dan Nama Vizifix Enterprise) (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 202303104870 (Ra0099925-v)] 5. ) LEE WEE HOU v 1. ) MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN SHARIF 2. ) MOHD HAZREL BIN MOHAMED HANIFFA
MYHC 13 April 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Johan bin Abdul Samad
Johan bin Abdul Samad appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning April 2025 to April 2025. Johan bin Abdul Samad appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Johan bin Abdul Samad?
Johan bin Abdul Samad appears in 1 published judgment from April 2025 to April 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1 This matter was set for full trial on 14.4.2025. The Plaintiffs had called three (3) witnesses to testify in Court. 1 2 The Defendants had none. In fact, this Court had earlier struck off the Defendants’ defence and counter claim on 19.2.2025 for non-compliance of an Unless Order pertaining to the filing of pre-trial documents. The Defendants were present on that day. Thereafter, a trial date was fixed for the matter and the Defendants were informed, accordingly. 1 3 The Defendants have not filed an appeal to the Court Order dated 19.02.2025 that struck off their defence and counterclaim under Order 34 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (ROC 2012). 1 4 In the absence of the Defendants during the trial as well as that there is no defence of the Defendant, and based on the evidence given by the Plaintiffs’ witnesses namely; PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, this Court has then allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim with costs. 1 5 This Court finds that since the evidence tendered by the Plaintiffs was not rebutted, thus the Plaintiffs has on a balance of probabilities, successful in proving their case in accordance with section 101 of the Evidence Act. 1 6 Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for prayers (i), (ii), (iii), (vii), (viii) and (x), is allowed with costs. 1