[2016] 1 LNS 1351 (HC)
It was implicitly contended by the Defendants that the consideration may be said to be wanting when there exists uncertainty on the sale price under the Dayn Sale Agreement. But the Court held that there was no substance in that argument, if ever that was the argument that the absence of a certainty in the sale price tantamount to want of consideration. Any denial however strenuous or loudly made remains bare if it is not supported by evidence. Denial itself is not evidence. It follows from the court must be vigilant in determining whether the Plaintiff is really entitled to the summary judgment without affording the defendant a right to defend the claim in a full trial. In exercising this jurisdiction the court must also bear in mind that the burden of proving that there is an issue or dispute that ought to be tried or for some other reason there ought to be a trial. The Defendants, despite the noises they made, had not discharged the burden of showing that they respectively has any issue to be tried. Where the assertion, denial or dispute is equivocal or lacking in precision or is inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents the assertion must be rejected. Datuk Ganesan and Subashini acted for the Plaintiff.