The following text is the Moot Problem for the auditions that shall take place around the end of the first week of April (the exact date shall be posted through the blog at a later date). All aspiring students are thoroughly invited to participate. Embrace this golden opportunity and unearth the advocate within you!
NAMCO 2012 UiTM Auditions Moot Problem
Aisuman is the registered proprietor of a piece of land, Lot 10. As the economic term of 2012 had shown much promise for growth and development, Aisuman plans to further expand his company, Magnamus Mobile. In efforts to materialize such expansion, Aisuman had approached one, Vikee to secure a sum of RM 2 000 000. Vikee in turn, requires some form of collateral as a security in consideration for his lending of RM 2 000 000 to Aisuman. Aisuman then had deposited his title of Lot 10, to the possession of Vikee and promised to pay the amount borrowed from Vikee within a 12 months period. Vikee had agreed to the arrangement and both Aisuman and Vikee had drafted and agreed to a contract to that effect.
At the expiration of the 12 months term, Vikee had confronted Aisuman and demanded the repayment of the sum lent. However, Aisuman had expressed his regrets that his investments’ return would only be realized in another two (2) months and he promised that he would be able to pay the amount even with interests in two months. Vikee however, refused to give an extension and claimed that the title on Lot 10 is now his, as Aisuman had breached his contract by failing to pay within the stipulated time.
After two months, Aisuman had approached Vikee with the intention of paying the full amount with interests for the return of his title to the land. Vikee however, remains nonchalant and refuses to take payment and return the title to Aisuman. Aisuman then had initiated an action against Vikee claiming that he has the rights to pay Vikee and be given back his title to the land on the following ground;
a) Aisuman shall reserve the right to reclaim his title to the land under the equitable doctrine of redemption. The court should take a liberal interpretation of the law and allow this equitable principle to be applied in the present dispute. The contract was intended to function according to the equitable doctrine of redemption therefore allowing Aisuman to pay Vikee the amount at any time, even outside the agreed 12 months period, and reclaim the land.
Vikee in reply argued that Aisuman no longer have any rights over the land on the following ground;
a) Aisuman no longer have the rights to the land as he had breached the terms of the contract agreed upon. The court should take a strict interpretation of the law and disallow any intervention of equitable principle in land matters. The agreement should be considered to be a contract without any reliance on the equitable principles and should be treated rigidly according to the terms agreed.
Mooters are to prepare their submissions based on the above dispute on both accounts of Aisuman (plaintiff) and Vikee (defendant). Mooters may refer to these articles in preparation of their submission;
I. Dr Nor Asiah Mohamad, “Analysing the Equitable Spirit of Section 206(3) of The National Land Code”,  3 MLJA 44.
II. Yong Chiu Mei, “Trusts and the Peninsular Malaysian Torrens System – The Implications of The Provisions on Trusts of The National Land Code 1965”,  4 MLJA 141