DIL2232

FAMILY LAW
SECTION 1
SEMESTER 1 2024/2025

CASE REVIEW : MARIA TUNKU SABRI V DATUK WAN JOHANI BIN WAN HUSSIN [2012] 1
SHLR 90

PREPARED BY :

NAME MATRIC NUMBER

NABILA ALIEA BINTI SHUAIB DIL231102

AMNI YASMINE BINTI FAHISHAM DIL231098

NURAINUN AMNI BINTI NAZERI DIL231089

PREPARED FOR :

MADAM FATIHAH ABDUL RAHMAN

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful and Gracious. Allah be praised and blessed for the
completion of this group assignment. We are grateful to Allah for all the possibilities, challenges,
and strength he has granted us to complete the task.

We would like to thank our respected lecturer, Madam Fatihah Binti Abdul Rahman who
was a constant source of inspiration. He encouraged us to think creatively and motivated us to
work on this assignment without giving it a second thought. Your insightful feedback,
constructive criticism, and unwavering support have not only enriched our learning experience
but have also played a pivotal role in shaping the quality of this assignment. Thank you for
imparting us with your wealth of knowledge, valuable guidance and experience.

We are also thankful to every member of this group — Nabila Aliea, Amni Yasmine and
Nurainun Amni. It was each and every individual’s contribution that made this assignment a
success. We were always there to lift each other up, and that was what helped us stay together
till the end.

We would also like to express our apology for any shortcoming in carrying out this
assignment. May Allah give the aforementioned with success and honor throughout our lives.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………………………. 1

TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………………………………. 2

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

FACTS OF CASE………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Fact………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Contention by plaintiff……………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Contention by defendant……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Judgment by high court……………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Court judgement………………………………………………………………………………………………….5-6

How this case relates to breach of promise to marry……………………………… 7

Elements fulfilled…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Claimed made by plaintiff……………………………………………………………………………… 8

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………….. 9

REFERENCE…………………………………………………………………………………. 10

2
INTRODUCTION

In Malaysia, there are no specific provisions of law relating to the issue of betrothal and promise
to marry. Betrothal and the breach of promise to marry is dealt under Contract law. Betrothal is
an engagement, agreement, or promise to marry. Technically, it is a general rule of agreement to
marry under the principles of the law of contract. In Malaysia, the existing general rule of
betrothal is formulated from the common law in England and exercised through the Malaysian
Contract Act of 1950. Moreover, the breach of promise refers to the failure to fulfill a promise to
marry someone. In order to enforce the promise, it does not require any written agreement or
mutual promise which is expressly worded but it is sufficient enough as long there is evidence of
consideration to create the promise. Historically, this was treated as a legally binding contract,
and breaking it could result in a lawsuit for damages.

The case of Maria Tunku Sabri v Datuk Wan Johani Wan Hussin serves as a prominent
example of how these legal principles are applied. The case attracted significant public and
media attention due to the high-profile status of the parties involved Maria Tunku Sabri, a
well-known TV host and Datuk Wan Johani Wan Hussin, a successful businessman. This case
review will explore the legal principles surrounding betrothal and breach of promise, examining
how they were applied and interpreted in this significant legal dispute.

3
FACTS OF THE CASE

FACTS

The plaintiff brought legal action and files a civil suit against the defendant, Datuk Wan Johani
claiming that he had breach a contractual agreement to marry her. The plaintiff's cause of action
against the defendant was based on a settlement agreement dated 10 March 2004 which was
entered into between plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of settlement due to the breach
of promise to marry by the defendant to the plaintiff. As the result of the Settlement Agreement
both parties agreed as in consideration, First Party (defendant) paying the Second party
(plaintiff) a sum of Ringgit Malaysia Five Million Five Hundred (RM5,500,000) only in two
payments, i.e Ringgit Malaysia Two Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand (RM2,750,000)
on or before 30 April 2004 and the balance before 14 May 2004, the Second Party agrees not to
proceed with any further action against the First Party. Now, the plaintiff contends that the
defendant had breached the settlement agreement when he failed to pay the amounts within
the stipulated time as stated upon his breach of the promise to marry the plaintiff.

Contention by the plaintiff

The plaintiff contends that the defendant had breached the settlement agreement when he failed
to pay the amounts within the stipulated time as stated upon his breach of the promise to marry
the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that she had stuck to her side of the bargain by not
proceeding with any further action against the defendant for the said breach of the same.

Contention by the defendant

The defendant avers that the settlement agreement/its execution is prohibited by law and is void
due to the fact that the plaintiff, at the time when the first agreement was entered, was a married
Muslim woman.

Judgment by High Court

After considering facts, the provisions and case laws, the judge found that the defence of the
defendant is that the settlement agreement was illegal. In this case, s 11 of the CA and s 14(1)
of the Family Law Act 1984 applies. The plaintiff was not qualified to enter into an agreement
(first agreement) to marry during the subsistence of her marriage to her lawful husband. Despite
the fact that the subject of the application herein was an SA which was a promise to pay the
plaintiff due to the breach of promise to marry, it was in effect enforcing the terms of the first
agreement which was entered into by the married plaintiff who had no capacity to enter into the
agreement to marry in the first place. Moreover, Section 14(1) of the Act 1984 expressly
prohibits or forbids a married woman, during the subsistence of her marriage, to marry another
man. After considering the submissions by both parties, the Judge view that the settlement
agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is void and invalid as it is unenforceable in
law because incapacity of the plaintiff at the time the agreement was entered.

4
JUDGEMENT

Whether plaintiff had capacity to enter into first agreement :

Based on the case of maria tunku sabri v datuk wan johani the judgment for this case to
determine whether the plaintiff has the capacity to enter into a contract, the court usually
examines several factors, such as age, mental competence, and whether the plaintiff is under
undue influence or pressure. If the plaintiff is a minor, legally incompetent, or unwell, the court
may find that they lack the capacity to enter into an agreement. Judgment will depend on the
specifics of the case, including any evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's ability to
understand the terms and implications of the agreement. So the court decided that the plaintiff
did not have the necessary capacity, the agreement could be declared null and void. even
though the defendant has violated the marriage agreement because the plaintiff is married. The
judge did not take any action against the defendant because the plaintiff is still in the status of
the wife of the person .

Whether first agreement forbidden by law :

If the first agreement is found to be prohibited by law then the judgment will generally declare
the agreement void or unenforceable. The contract is considered void meaning it has no legal
effect. If any benefit has been granted under an illegal agreement the court may order restitution
to avoid unjust enrichment. The plaintiff was not qualified to enter into an agreement to marry
during her marriage with her lawful husband. Despite the fact that the subject in the application
here is the defendant who is an agreement to pay the plaintiff because of the breach of the
agreement to marry, it is actually enforcing the terms of the first agreement entered into by the
plaintiff who was married who did not have the capacity to enter into the agreement to marry.

Whether SA void as the object or consideration defeats the objective of s 14(1) of the
Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984 :
In considering whether a marriage contract (SA) is void due to an object or consideration that
defeats the objective of Section 14(1) of the Islamic Family Law Act (Federal Territories) 1984,
the court will examine the validity and compliance of the contract with Islamic principles and the
Act itself .The court can declare the contract void if it is not in line with the objective of the Act,
especially that which promotes justice and welfare in family law. If the consideration is found to
be illegal or contrary to public policy, this may cause the contract to be void. In the judgment, the
plaintiff and the defendant will not be able to get married or live together because the plaintiff
and the defendant now have different religious status. Therefore, the court is not likely to contact
the execution of marriage against the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff also cannot force
the court to implement the contact .

Whether SA void as was immoral and against public policy :

If the contract (SA) is considered immoral and contrary to public policy, the judgment may
conclude that it is invalid or unenforceable. Courts generally evaluate contracts based on
societal norms and legal standards. If the contract involves activities that are considered
immoral, the court is likely to rule that the contract is invalid. A contract that violates public policy

5
means that it negatively affects the interests of society or violates the basic principles of law. can
be declared invalid. The court will likely issue a judgment declaring the SA invalid, prohibiting
any enforcement or claims arising. based on the case, the plaintiff and the defendant did not do
anything suspicious resulting in their marriage. So the court cannot do anything against them
both.

Whether SA void for uncertainty of marriage :

If the marriage contract (SA) is considered void due to uncertainty, the judgment can usually
conclude that the contract is unenforceable due to the lack of express terms or conditions. If the
contract does not clearly outline the essential elements of marriage, the court may find it invalid
due to vagueness. Contract requires a reasonable degree of certainty in its terms. If the
language used is vague or the commitment is unclear, the court may decide that the contract is
too uncertain. The court will likely declare the SA void, meaning it is unenforceable and the
parties will have no legal recourse. the plaintiff and the defendant have not been sure to get
married just because they have entered into an invalid agreement. Therefore, they are not
bound by the uncertainty of getting married. The defendant has also canceled the agreement.

6
HOW THE CASE RELATED TO BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY?

There are many ways that the case is related to breached to promised, as we know that from
we learn from the class that promise to marry or betrothal is an agreement to marry but in order
to have valid agreement of bethrol there are few requirement need to be fullfill such as offer,
acceptance, consideration and capacity.

a. Elements fulfilled

Firstly must have and offer as we can see in the case that the plaintiff has stated that they have
the settlement agreement (SA) between the parties, due to the breach of promise to marry by
the defendant to the plaintiff.

Next, are the acceptance between the plaintiff and defendant, in this case it has stated that ‘ the
parties hereto agree to settle their dispute upon the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing
and to comply with the terms of this Agreement. ‘ this shows that both have intention and have
accepted the contract as it is despite it is invalid under the law of marriage because the plaintiff
are already in marriage.

Thirdly, are the consideration of both parties during making SA, in this case the consideration to
marry are, In exchange for the First Party paying the Second Party RM 5,500,000 in two
installments—RM 2,750,000 by April 30, 2004, and the remaining amount by May 14,
2004—the Second Party agrees to not take any further legal action against the First Party.
Eventually, the consideration to marry the plaintiff in the settlement agreement is invalid and
unlawful because it was based on an agreement made while the plaintiff was still married. Under
Section 14(1) of the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984, a married woman
cannot enter into another marriage. This makes the original agreement and the subsequent
settlement agreement illegal and unenforceable under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950,
as they involve an act forbidden by law. Therefore, the court cannot enforce the settlement
agreement.

Lastly, is capacity that in the case shows that they failed to fulfilled the requirement, as we can
see that the defendant has ‘contended that the SA or its execution was prohibited by law and
was void due to the fact that the plaintiff was a married Muslim woman at the time of entering
into the promise to marry, which the SA was based upon.’ this already shows that they already
failed to fulfill the requirement.

Therefore they failed to fulfilled the requirement as the defendant has stated that they make
contract and promise during the plaintiff is married and she is a muslim women, no valid
contract and promise to betrothal.

7
 b. What claimed made by plaintiff

The case were related to breach promise of marriage is when the plaintiff has claimed that the
defendant has breached the contract, the plaintiff contends that the defendant had breached the
settlement agreement when he failed to pay the amounts within the stipulated time as stated
upon his breach of the promise to marry the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that she had stuck to
her side of the bargain by not proceeding with any further action against the defendant for the
said breach of the same. As we know in the consideration he (defendant) has promise in the act
of considerati he will give money as stated in the case In consideration First Party paying the
Second party a sum of Ringgit Malaysia Five Million Five Hundred (RM5,500,000.00) only
(Hereinafter referred to as the 'Settlement Amount') in two payments, ie Ringgit Malaysia Two
MillionSeven Hundred and Fifty Thousand (RM 2,750,000.00) on or before 30th April 2004 and
the balance before 14th May2004, the Second Party agrees not to proceed with any further
action against the First Party.’. This show that the defendant has breached the contract of the
betrothal, and if they fulfill the requirement he needs to pays RM 5,500,000.00 to the plaintiff.

8
 CONCLUSION

In conclusion , a marriage agreement may be deemed void if it lacks clarity or certainty

regarding the essential terms and obligations of the parties involved. Such agreements
are fundamentally flawed as they do not provide a mutual understanding, which is
critical for the formation of a valid contract. When a court determines that a marriage
agreement is void, it signifies that the parties are not bound by its terms and that no
legal rights or obligations arise from it. This determination may stem from various
factors, including vague language, incomplete essential elements, or a failure to adhere
to established legal standards. Ultimately, parties seeking to establish a lawful and
binding marriage contract should ensure that it is clear, comprehensive, and reflects
their mutual intentions to avoid the pitfalls of uncertainty and subsequent legal
challenges.

This case is very good to the future reference of students that study in family laws and
want to get to know the process of marriage which is not simple and can be sued and
also can be void. These cases are perfect examples for students to understand deeper
more about the promise to marriage and the breach of marriage. They also could learn
that the case of promise to marry can be voidable as stated in the case if any capacity
to promise of marriage does not meet requirements such as ‘not single’ as the case
stated, therefore the promise to marry someone can be voidable.

We personally think this case are very interesting as it is, since there are many things to
learn from this case such as learning to identify offer, acceptance, consideration and
capacity. We also think that the judges, judgment are already great to not fined the
defendant, and what we learn from the case that settlement agreement can be voidable
and understanding more about the voidable as the case are a complicated to
understand but it is very interesting as we start to understand deeper level of promise to
marry topics.

9
 REFERENCE

Case

Lexis Nexis
Tunku Sabri v Datuk Wan Johani bin Wan Hussin

Book

Family Law in Malaysia, Mimi Kamariah Majid, M/S;1-3

Family Law in Malaysia, Kamala M. G. Pilai, M/S 1-5

Legislation

Contracts Act 1950 ss 11, 24, 24(a), (b), (e), 33, 57

Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984 s 14(1)

Rules of the High Court 1980 O 14A, O 18 r 19(1), O 33 r 2

10