JUDGE’S RULING
Justice Thean determined that Mdm Che’som understood the completion documents at the second HDB meeting, which ran counter to her claims of misrepresentation and mistake.
She said she was not convinced by Mdm Che’som, noting that there were two meetings with HDB where explanations were given by an HDB officer in Malay.
Mdm Che’som herself accepted in cross-examination that key information, including the nature of the transfer, the purpose of the completion meeting and the financial plan, were relayed to her in Malay, Justice Thean added.
“I am thus satisfied that such an explanation had described had been rendered at the second HDB meeting, and that Mdm Che’som was sufficiently capable to understand what was explained to her,” the judge said.
Her ruling was backed up by the testimony of a family friend, Mdm Norlina Zainol, who was called as a witness by Mdm Ain.
In her written statement, Mdm Norlina testified that during an encounter in 2018, Mdm Che’som had told her and her mother that she was relieved her daughter had taken over the mortgage of the property and Mdm Ain was now a co-owner.
While Mdm Che’som’s lawyer sought to highlight inconsistencies in Mdm Norlina’s account – such as the location of the meeting and a difference in Malay language interpretation – the judge found the witness and her testimony to be credible.
She had noted the close relationship between the witness, and Mdm Che’som and her family, and that Mdm Che’som did not dispute the existence of nor offer a different version of the conversation.
“Mdm Norlina’s testimony contributes to my finding that Mdm Che’som has not proven that she did not understand what was signed,” Justice Thean said.
She also noted that Mdm Che’som’s written statements and during cross-examination were not consistent.
Justice Thean pointed out that the plaintiff, in her written statement, did not mention her husband’s purported asthmatic attacks had occurred during the meetings with HDB.
“In my view, these are material facts that a reasonable person would have included in the affidavit to explain why she did not understand the HDB officers’ explanation, and undermines the credibility of her account.”
The judge added it was “rather coincidental” that Mr Yusope would suffer an asthmatic attack during both HDB meetings when the Malay officer was explaining the transaction.
“Despite this coincidence of trauma, neither incident was detailed in Mdm Che’som’s affidavits,” Justice Thean said.
As for Mdm Che’som’s other contestations, the judge dismissed there had been any misrepresentation by Mdm Ain, as the former could not prove that she did not understand what was being signed.
Justice Thean was also of the view that the arrangement was such that Mdm Ain was to live with her parents, take care of them and their joint family property.
The facts were also insufficient for Mdm Che’som to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was unduly influenced, she added, prompting her to strike out the plaintiff’s claim.
