Rahmatullah v Rohayaton: Specific Performance & Forgery in Property Sale

In Rahmatullah s/o Oli Mohamed v Rohayaton binte Rohani, the Singapore High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for specific performance of an option to purchase a property against the first, third, and fourth defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had repudiated the option by failing to complete the sale. The court found that the signatures of the first, third, and fourth defendants on the option and a related letter of authority were forged, and that the plaintiff had dealt exclusively with the second defendant, who was responsible for the forgeries. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not come to equity with clean hands and failed to prove that the defendants' conduct caused his loss.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs to the first, third, and fourth defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving a claim for specific performance of a property option, complicated by forgery and fraud.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Rahmatullah s/o Oli MohamedPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLostTito Shane Issac
Rohayaton binte RohaniDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWonSadari bin Musari, Suhara binte Mohd Said
Ismail Yacoob AngulliaDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Norminah binte DahlanDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWonSadari bin Musari, Suhara binte Mohd Said
Rohaiyati binte RohaniDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWonSadari bin Musari, Suhara binte Mohd Said

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tito Shane IssacTito Isaac & Co
Sadari bin MusariSadari Musari & Partners
Suhara binte Mohd SaidSadari Musari & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sought specific performance of an option to purchase a property.
  2. Signatures of the first, third, and fourth defendants on the Option were forged.
  3. Plaintiff paid $200,000 as option money to S&P, who released it to the second defendant.
  4. Second defendant was later found to be responsible for the forgeries.
  5. The first defendant was made a bankrupt.
  6. The plaintiff dealt exclusively with the second defendant, even after discovering he only held a 3% share in the property.
  7. The fourth defendant was at a school seminar on the day she allegedly signed the Option at S&P's office.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Rahmatullah s/o Oli Mohamed v Rohayaton binte Rohani and Others, Suit 600/2001V, [2002] SGHC 222

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Second defendant invited the plaintiff to become a shareholder in Syakira.
Plaintiff sold his Laguna Park flat.
Plaintiff viewed the property for the first time.
Plaintiff viewed the property for the second time.
A Rohim agreed to the usual clause on the exercise of the option.
S&P informed the plaintiff's solicitors they acted for the second defendant.
The Option was signed.
The amount of $100,000 was paid to the second defendant.
S&P forwarded the signed Option to the plaintiff's solicitors.
Second cheque cleared.
Plaintiff's solicitors lodged a purchaser's caveat.
Plaintiff exercised the Option.
S&P wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors to say the firm could not contact 'their client'.
The plaintiff's solicitors informed S&P that a Bankruptcy Petition had been presented against the second defendant.
Second defendant was made a bankrupt.
S&P wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors to say the firm had discharged themselves from acting for the defendants.
The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to all four defendants.
The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendants setting out the completion account as at 9 December 2000.
Scheduled completion date; completion did not take place.
AL Hussien & Co wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors stating that their clients did not recall executing any form of agreement or option to sell the property.
Hameed & Co wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors asking for time to reply to the plaintiff's solicitors' letter of 2 December 2000.
AL Hussien & Co stated 'our clients confirmed they have never appointed M/s Sahul Hameed & Co to act for them'.
AL Hussien & Co confirmed that they only acted for the third and fourth defendants.
The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the first defendant requesting the completion documents.
The plaintiff's solicitors forwarded a copy of the Option to AL Hussien & Co.
The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the Official Assignee to request his consent to the sale.
AL Hussien & Co stated that the fourth defendant had never executed any option in respect of the property.
The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to all four defendants giving 21 days' notice of completion.
Completion did not take place.
The fourth defendant lodged a police report.
Plaintiff commenced this action.
Leave had been granted by the Official Assignee to proceed against the second defendant.
The first defendant was also made a bankrupt.
The Official Assignee notified the defendants' current solicitors he had no objections to the plaintiff pursuing this claim against the first defendant.
Judgment was entered against the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
Judgment was delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Specific Performance
    • Outcome: The court denied the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2002] 1 SLR 29
  2. Forgery
    • Outcome: The court found that the signatures of the first, third, and fourth defendants were forged on the Option and letter of authority.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the representations were made to the plaintiff by the second defendant, not the other defendants.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Specific Performance
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Specific Performance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Banque Nationale de Paris v Tan NancyN/AYes[2002] 1 SLR 29SingaporeCited for the law on specific performance.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Option to Purchase
  • Specific Performance
  • Forgery
  • Caveat
  • Repudiation
  • Option Money

15.2 Keywords

  • Specific Performance
  • Forgery
  • Property Sale
  • Singapore High Court
  • Breach of Contract

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Property Law
  • Forgery
  • Equity

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Property Law
  • Equity
  • Forgery