VIZIONE HOLDINGS BERHAD v 1. ) GENERAL ENVIROMENTAL SOLUTION SDN BHD 2. ) Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd PIHAK TERKILAN SAIDI BIN ABANG SAMSUDIN

wa-22ncc-74-02-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 30 March 2026 • WA-22NCC-74-02/2022 • 9 min read

Catchwords

a suit-based on a Guarantee-The Third Party contends he is not liable to pay as Jepak could not pay due to its bank accounts being frozen by “the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). The freeze made it impossible to refund the money at that time”-The Third Party also contends “My position is that the guarantee was conditional. GES did not first pursue the principal debtor (Jepak) as required. The sum was not due and owing from me. The obligation to repay rested with Jepak and its new owners”-the Third Party had undertaken a personal obligation to pay-If a person agrees to do what’s impossible in fact you have only to consider whether on the fair construction of the agreement he made himself liable to pay damages if he did not do it; but if a person binds himself to do what depends in the caprice of the third person he must suffer if he cannot get that third person to exercise his caprice in his favour.

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (7)

Chellam Wong Firm Harjit Sandhu, Wan & Associates Firm Anehajit Kaur Counsel Third Party Dev Chai Ming Shun Counsel Third Party Harjit Singh Sandhu Counsel Third Party Lim Yee Counsel Defendant Mark Ho Hing Kheong Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

GENERAL ENVIROMENTAL SOLUTION Sdn Bhd Defendant Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd Defendant VIZIONE HOLDINGS BERHAD Plaintiff Saidi bin Abang Samsudin Aggrieved Party

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-74-02-2022)