Section 101 Evidence Act PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Section 101 Evidence Act PDF

Description

 Section 101 Evidence Act: Burden of proof 1. Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. 2. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.  The burden of proof is imposed based on the principle that he who asserts must prove.  In civil cases, the plaintiff assumes burden of proof for his action. The plaintiff will have the legal burden to prove the case on a balance of probabilities while the defendant assumes the evidential burden to raise sufficient evidence. Section 102: On whom burden of proof lies  The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. MGI SECURITIES V TEONG TECK LENG [2000] 5 CLJ 163 • The Plaintiff chose not to lead any evidence of the oral agreements through its witnesses. Held: That there was no evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff to be adjudicated upon. Section 101 and Section 102 requires that whosoever desires any court to give judgments as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, must prove those fact do exist. • Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim must accordingly be dismissed.  Section 101 deals with legal burden while Section 102 deals with evidential burden. However, it must be noted that there is no reference made to such terms in the Evidence Act 1950.  In civil cases, the plaintiff will have the legal burden to prove the case on a balance of probabilities while the defendant assumes the evidential burden to raise sufficient evidence. MILLER V MINISTER OF PENSIONS • The term balance of probabilities means a probability which is ‘not so high as required in a criminal case…more probable than not…but if the probabilities are equal, it is not discharge.’ U Television Sdn Bhd & Anor v Comintel Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 MLJ 292 (Federal court)  On the meaning and application of the term ‘burden of proof’ section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 [‘the Act’] states that it is the burden to establish a case which rests throughout on the party who assert the affirmative of the issue. The ‘burden of proof’ in section 102of the Act is the burden to adduce evidence, to make out or rebut the claim. The ‘burden of proof’ in section 102 of the Act shifts from one side to the other according to the weight of the evidence. SINNAIYAH & SONS SDN BHD V DAMAI SETIA SDN BHD [2015] 7 CLJ 584 (Federal Court)

•

• •

•



The correct principle to apply is...where it was stipulated that at law, there are only two standard of proof, namely beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases and on the balance of probabilities for civil cases. As such, even if fraud is the subject in a civil claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. There is no third standard. Therefore, it is up to the presiding judge, after hearing and considering the evidence adduced as being done in any other civil claim, to find whether the standard of proof was attained. The criminal aspect of the allegation of fraud and the standard of proof required is irrelevant in the deliberation.

Basically, in a civil case, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. An event is said to have occurred if the court believes that on the evidence, the occurrence is more likely than not.

Federal Court’s case of Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L. Allagappan & Another v Secure Plantation Sdn. Bhd. [2017] 5 CLJ 418  Cited with approval the principle laid down in the case of Ranchhodbhai v. Babuhai AIR 1982 Guj 308 as regards the ‘burden of proof’ to establish a case which never shift and the shifting burden to adduce evidence in the context of sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act which are identical to sections 101 and 102 of our Act. Glove Kendall Limited & Anor v Maple Challenge Sdn Bhd & Ors and other suits [2016] MLJU 1452  The Court agreed with and accepted the 1st to the 11th defendants’ main contention that the plaintiffs do not have the requisite and/or necessary locus standi to initiate this suit against the 1st to the 11th defendants. This is because the plaintiffs have failed to prove that there is a sufficient legal relationship that exists between the defendants and the plaintiffs to give rise to a cause of action between the 1st to the 11th defendants and the plaintiffs in relation to the plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st to the 11th defendants. 

[387] On the other hand, the 1st to the 11th defendants have proven on a balance of probabilities that there is no sufficient legal relationship that exists between the defendants and the plaintiffs so as to give rise to a cause of action between the 1st to the 11th defendants and the plaintiffs in relation to the plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st to the 11th defendants.



(19)Furthermore, no direct contractual relationship exists between the defendants and the plaintiffs as none of the Agreements, Charges or Deeds of Charge involve the 4th to the 6th defendants and the 10th and 11th defendants personally;



(20)Therefore, the plaintiffs would have no legal basis to justify their claims for damages against the defendants. Based on this fact alone, the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants ought to be dismissed with costs;...