Mumtaz Enterprise v Kaki Bukit: Breach of Oral Agreement for Lease Dispute

Mumtaz Enterprise Pte Ltd sued Kaki Bukit Developments Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of an oral agreement for a ten-year lease of premises. The court, presided over by Justice Choo Han Teck, dismissed Mumtaz Enterprise's claim, finding that the written tenancy agreements superseded any prior oral agreement and that the plaintiff failed to prove any loss or damage. The judgment was delivered on 29 August 2017.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Mumtaz Enterprise sued Kaki Bukit for breach of an oral agreement to lease premises. The court dismissed the claim, finding no enforceable agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

28 August 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Mumtaz Enterprise Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Jeremy Cheong Yon-Wen of I.R.B Law LLP Rebecca Chia Wei Lin of I.R.B Law LLP
Kaki Bukit Developments Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Vergis S Abraham of Providence Law Asia LLC Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif of Providence Law Asia LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jeremy Cheong Yon-Wen	I.R.B Law LLP
Rebecca Chia Wei Lin	I.R.B Law LLP
Vergis S Abraham	Providence Law Asia LLC
Asiyah binte Ahmad Arif	Providence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff claimed an oral agreement for a ten-year lease made on 15 January 2014.
Defendant invited tenders for lease of premises at The Leo Residences.
Plaintiff submitted a tender on 28 January 2014 and was successful.
A two-year tenancy agreement was signed on 23 May 2014.
Plaintiff did not request renewal two months before the lease expired.
Plaintiff rejected defendant's offer of a three-month lease with an option to extend.
Plaintiff participated in a fresh tender but was unsuccessful.

5. Formal Citations

Mumtaz Enterprise Pte Ltd v Kaki Bukit Developments Pte Ltd, HC/Suit No 1233 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 208

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-01-15	Alleged oral agreement for lease
2014-01-28	Plaintiff submitted tender
2014-03-01	Plaintiff informed tender was successful
2014-05-23	Tenancy agreement signed
2014-05-01	Lease commenced
2016-04-30	Lease expired
2016-05-02	Plaintiff requested lease extension
2016-10-31	Plaintiff's extended lease ended
2017-08-22	Trial ended
2017-08-29	Judgment handed down

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that there was no enforceable oral agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Enforceability of oral agreement
  - Superseding effect of written agreement
Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that evidence of the proof of the terms of the tenancy agreement can only be derived from the terms of the written document itself and that the oral agreement between the parties cannot be admitted to contradict the terms of the said tenancy agreement.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Oral agreement
Tenancy agreement
Lease
Tender
Extension
The Leo Residences

15.2 Keywords

contract
lease
oral agreement
tenancy
singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	90
Breach of Contract	85
Oral contract	75
Tenancy Agreement	60
Evidence	50
Professional conduct	30

16. Subjects

Contract Dispute
Lease Agreement