• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Alasan Penghakiman No: S4-22-669-2005
1 
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)GUAMAN NO : S4-22-669-2005ANTARAMARIA TUNKU SABRI … PLAINTIFDANDATO’ WAN JOHARI WAN HUSSIN … DEFENDANALASAN PENGHAKIMANOLEH YANG ARIF PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMANDATO’ TENGKU MAIMUN BINTI TUAN MAT
 
Alasan Penghakiman No: S4-22-669-2005
2
Encl 22 is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of thelearned Deputy Registrar in allowing the defendant’s application tostrike out the plaintiff’s claim under O18 r 19(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of theRules of the High Court 1980.The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant filed in court on3.8.2004 is for the sum of RM5,500,000.00 pursuant to a settlementagreement dated 10.3.2004 (the settlement agreement) which wasentered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for the purposes of settling the breach of promise by the defendant to marry the plaintiff. On9.9.2004 the plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment underO 14 for the amount of RM5,500,000.00 which application has not beenheard.Vide the statement of defence dated 9.9.2004 the defendantpleaded inter alia that:-
“5. Defendan juga menafikan pada masa yang material, Defendanberhutang apa-apa jumlah wang dengan Plaintif dan meletakkanbeban bukti yang kukuh ke atas Plaintif untuk membuktikannyakepada Mahkamah yang mulia ini.
 
Alasan Penghakiman No: S4-22-669-2005
37.
 
Secara alternatif, Defendan menyatakan bahawa Perjanjian tersebutadalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang dan/atau terbatal dan/atautidak boleh diterimapakai di dalam Mahkamah yang Mulia ini keranaterdapat unsur-unsur paksaan dan ugutan daripada Plaintif.9.
 
Defendan dengan ini menyatakan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif adalahsuatu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah kerana ianya adalah suatuyang remeh dan/atau membuang masa Mahkamah yang mulia ini.”
On 11.5.2006 the defendant filed an application under O 18 r19(1) (a) (b) (c) or (d) to strike out the plaintiff’s claim on the groundthat the matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.The application was allowed by the learned Deputy Registrar, hence theappeal.In opposing the O 18 r 19 application the plaintiff raised thefollowing issues:-1.
 
the lack of jurisdiction of the civil court was not pleaded bythe defendant;2.
 
there was inordinate and unexplained delay in making theapplication;
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...