Luqman's musings

  A recent reflection in LinkedIn argued that judges must resist the temptation to mediate sentiment or emotion, and instead ground their determinations strictly in facts, admissible evidence , and applicable law . It warned that any departure from these fundamentals risks perverting justice and rendering advocates redundant.   One recent reflection captured this principle well, and I reproduce it here in full before turning to the case I am handling:

  The recent Court of Appeal decision affirming a RM4.8 million judgment against Sime Darby Property for defective bungalows in the Primo Bukit Jelutong development marks an important moment for property buyers in Malaysia. This case, reported by Free Malaysia Today on January 30, 2026, involved six homeowners who sued the developer (and its predecessor) over breaches of sale and purchase agreements related to poor workmanship and substandard materials. The High Court initially ruled in their favour in April 2024, awarding damages plus interest and costs, after rejecting defences such as owner-induced damage, wear and tear, or "as-is" purchases. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the developer's appeal, finding no merit in the arguments and ordering additional costs to the owners. LINK

  Officers of the Court, Not Mouthpieces Lawyers are not mere advocates for their clients. They are officers of the court, bound by duties of candour, honesty, and professional integrity. When lawyers knowingly cover up for clients—especially in cases involving corruption—they cross a line. They cease to defend justice and instead become complicit in its erosion.

  Transparency at What Cost? The recent Focus Malaysia article , “ Transparency at What Cost? ”, raised a critical warning: exposing corruption by compromising sensitive defence information does not strengthen reform—it weakens the nation. Adversaries gain insights into vulnerabilities, and the shield meant to protect citizens is eroded.

  Insights from the Sabah Development Bank Discussions in Sabah In Malaysia, including Sabah, a bank statement of account is generally accepted as prima facie evidence of a debt. Courts often rely on such statements to establish the existence of financial obligations. However, this acceptance is not absolute. The enforceability of a statement of account can be successfully challenged if the bank cannot explain or verify its contents when disputed. The ongoing discussions surrounding the SDB matter highlight how these principles may come into play in practice.

  In Part 7: The Unresolved Horizon (link-to-part-7), I examined the glaring disparities between foreclosure laws in Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia . While the Federal Court in the peninsula has begun curbing indefinite claims through cases like Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492 , Sabah still clings to its outdated Limitation Ordinance . Item 114 exempts foreclosures entirely, leaving borrowers exposed to threats that can linger for 60 years. This is not a mere legal quirk—it is a symptom of a deeper malaise: Sabah’s persistent refusal to align with evolving national and global standards.   The consequences are visible everywhere. Despite being rich in oil, gas, palm oil, and timber, Sabah remains Malaysia’s second-poorest state . Poverty rates hover between 17.7% and 19.5%, compared to the national average of 5.6%. Infrastructure failures compound the problem:   Electricity supply remains unreliable.   Internet conn...