AU KEAN HOE v. PERSATUAN PENDUDUK D’VILLA EQUESTRIAN
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ZULKEFLI AHMAD MAKINUDIN CJ (MALAYA), ABDULL HAMID EMBONG FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ, ZAINUN ALI FCJ, RAMLY ALI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-50-08-2013(B)]
19 MARCH 2015

TORT: Nuisance - Obstruction on road - Erection of guard house and boom gates in residential area - Whether illegal structures - Whether approval of local authority obtained - Failure to pay maintenance and security charges - Whether appellant compelled to open gate for himself and his visitors - Whether amounted to obstruction on public road pursuant to s. 46(1)(a) Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 - Whether inconvenience caused to appellant amounted to nuisance - Whether being inconvenienced and obstructed were two different circumstances - Whether claim actionable

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Buildings - Erection - Boom gates and guard house built in residential area - Whether approval of local authority obtained - Whether illegal structures - Whether amounted to obstruction on public road - Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974, s. 46(1)(a)


RAY SOLIS v. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
ZAHARAH IBRAHIM JCA, MOHAMAD ARIFF YUSOF JCA, VARGHESE GEORGE JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: S-05-144-06-2012]
19 JANUARY 2015

CRIMINAL LAW: Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Whether cumulative effect of all evidence led to irresistible conclusion that accused committed crime - Whether sufficient evidence to hold accused used ‘spear’ to stab deceased - Whether injuries inflicted by accused was direct cause resulting in death of deceased - Whether trial judge directed himself correctly as to law on circumstantial evidence as basis for conviction - Penal Code, s. 302

EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure to call witness - Whether suppression of witness by prosecution - Whether reasonable attempts made to trace witness - Whether critical or crucial witness - Whether adverse inference to be drawn against prosecution

EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence - Murder - Whether cumulative effect of all evidence led to irresistible conclusion that accused committed crime - Whether sufficient evidence to hold accused used ‘spear’ to stab deceased - Whether injuries inflicted by accused was direct cause resulting in death of deceased

EVIDENCE: Dying declaration - Admissibility - Whether statement related to cause of death - Whether dying declaration need to be corroborated by some other evidence - Whether statement made by deceased - Whether deceased still aware and lucid when statements made - Whether witness testimony relating to dying declaration reliable - Evidence Act 1950, s. 32(1)(a)


MOHAN PRAKASH JOSEPH lwn. AHMAD SAIDI HAMZAH & YANG LAIN [2015] 1 SMC 9
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, SEREMBAN
NURSINAH ADZMI HS
[SAMAN NO: 53-975-9-2012]
31 MAC 2014

TORT: Kerugian - Pemenjaraan salah - Hukuman penjara 20 hari dan denda RM1,000 - Bayaran denda dijelaskan tetapi plaintif masih di penjara melebihi tempoh 20 hari - Sama ada pihak defendan gagal menjalankan tanggungjawab untuk membebaskan plaintif selepas tempoh pemenjaraan - Sama ada tindakan pihak defendan sah - Sama ada plaintif mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk mengemukakan resit bayaran denda - Sama ada plaintif berjaya membuktikan kerugian yang dialami - Akta Penjara 1995, s. 29