About Us
- Home
- About Us
Mogan Co
About Us
Mogan & Co. (M&C) was established in 2025 by Magita Hari Mogan, built on integrity, professionalism, and clarity in practice.
The firm focuses on general litigation and criminal defence, providing legal solutions that are practical, strategic, and grounded in sound judgment. With experience in both civil and criminal law, Mogan & Co. is dedicated to helping clients navigate legal challenges with confidence and clarity.
Our work is guided by three core values which are clarity, diligence, and responsibility. We approach every matter with care and consistency, ensuring that clients receive prompt, tailored advice directed toward achieving fair and effective outcomes.
At Mogan & Co., we believe that trust lies at the heart of every client relationship — in our advice, in our conduct, and in the way we advocate. We take pride in delivering principled representation and measured advocacy, upholding the highest standards of ethics, professionalism, and respect for the law.
Principal Lawyer Profile
Magita Hari Mogan
Principal
Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya
Magita Hari Mogan is the principal and founder of Mogan & Co., an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya with extensive experience spanning civil, corporate, and criminal litigation. She began her career under the mentorship of several respected members of the Malaysian Bar, among them, the late Dato’ Seri Gopal Sri Ram, Datuk Lim Chee Wee, and Dato’ Seri K. Kumaraendran.
Their guidance instilled in her a deep respect for discipline, fairness, and the ethics of practice. Their influence shaped her belief that the essence of law lies in clarity of thought, sound judgment, and integrity in advocacy.
At Mogan & Co., Magita applies these values to every matter she handles. Known for her calm and measured approach, she focuses on providing practical, thoughtful solutions that reflect both strategic insight and respect for justice.
Notable Experiences
Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution
Magita Hari Mogan served as second chair in this Federal Court case on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The key issue was whether the entire arbitration award, including the tribunal’s reasoning should be registered as a High Court judgment under Section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005, or only its dispositive portion. The Federal Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that only the dispositive part (i.e. the orders or reliefs granted) may be registered. The Court ruled that registering the entire award would undermine the confidentiality central to arbitration. This decision is now a leading Malaysian authority on the scope of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and the limits of judicial intervention in arbitral matters
Reported case:
Siemens Industry Software GmbH & Co Kg (Germany) v Jacob and Toralf Consulting Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 MLJ 1 (Federal Court)
Commercial & Corporate Disputes
Appearing as co-counsel for the respondents, Magita Hari Mogan assisted in the Federal Court decision that clarified the legal effect of a standard mortgagee clause in fire insurance policies. The Court held that such clauses create a separate and independent contract between the insurer and the mortgagee, entitling the mortgagee to recover insurance proceeds even where the insured is in breach or guilty of fraud. The Court restored the High Court’s decision in favour of RHB Islamic Bank, affirming its right to RM23.36 million under the policy. This case established a key precedent in Malaysian insurance law, defining mortgagee rights and privity of contract in insurance arrangements
Reported case:
RHB Islamic Bank Berhad v Amgeneral Insurance Berhad & Ors and other appeal [2019] 5 MLJ 561 (Federal Court)
As co-counsel for the appellant Magita Hari Mogan appeared in this Federal Court case concerning a fire insurance claim repudiated for alleged fraud and breach of policy warranties. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that the insured’s claim was fraudulent and that insurers were entitled to repudiate liability. It held that the Sinnaiyah standard of proof—fraud in civil cases to be proven on a balance of probabilities—applied even to trials concluded before but decided after that ruling. The Court also upheld that fraudulent or exaggerated claims vitiate the entire policy and that insurers may exercise salvage rights without waiving repudiation. This decision clarified the civil standard for proving fraud and reaffirmed the principle that dishonesty forfeits all insurance entitlement
Reported case:
Veheng Global Trades Sdn Bhd v AmGeneral Insurance Bhd & Anor and Another Appeal [2019] 4 MLJ 581 (Federal Court)
As part of the legal team led by the late Dato’ Seri Gopal Sri Ram, Magita Hari Mogan appeared as a co-counsel in a series of nine consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal concerning the collapse of a RM308 million corporate bond programme known as the Aldwich Bond Programme. The appeals addressed the duties and liabilities of various capital market actors — including the issuer, trustee banks, lead arranger, and auditors — under the Securities Commission Act 1993. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s findings, holding the defendants jointly liable for misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty, and negligence for failing to safeguard investor funds and ensure full disclosure of material information in the Information Memorandum. The judgment is a landmark in Malaysian capital market jurisprudence, clarifying the statutory responsibilities of intermediaries in bond issuances and reinforcing investor protection principles.
Reported case:
Maybank Trustees Bhd v Amtrustee Bhd & Ors and other appeals [2020] 4 MLJ 405 (Court of Appeal)
Magita Hari Mogan appeared as co-counsel in this appeal concerning a property sale dispute and enforcement of a Final Settlement Agreement (FSA) following an earlier Specific Performance Order. The respondents had counterclaimed for RM1.17 million under the FSA, alleging breaches by the appellants. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred by granting relief on a case not pleaded and by misapplying clause 9 of the FSA. The Court ruled that once the defendants had accepted transfer and taken possession, their termination claim was unsustainable. The decision reaffirmed the principle that courts are bound to decide only on pleaded issues and not on unpleaded grounds
Reported case:
Sinar Mudah Sdn Bhd & Anor v Ramasamy a/l Muthusamy & Anor [2019] MLJU 487 (Court of Appeal)
Magita Hari Mogan appeared as the second chair, representing the vendor company in a complex RM84 million land sale dispute involving allegations of breach of contract, illegal moneylending, and duress. The High Court held that the purchaser had failed to pay the balance purchase price within the stipulated time, entitling the vendor to terminate the Sale and Purchase Agreement and forfeit the RM23 million deposit. The Court further found that the purchaser was an unlicensed moneylender under the Moneylenders Act 1951, rendering the Supplemental Agreements void and unenforceable. This case clarified the application of the Moneylenders Act in commercial property transactions and reinforced that unlicensed lending arrangements are legally void.
Reported case:
Da Land Sdn Bhd v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong & Anor [2018] MLJU 195
Magita Hari Mogan appeared as co-counsel in a High Court case involving a patent dispute over the “BBScan System” scanning machines used by the Royal Malaysian Customs. The case dealt with an application to stay execution of a judgment in favour of the defendants for patent infringement. The Court dismissed the application, holding that no special circumstances justified a stay, reaffirming that public interest immunity and contractual confidentiality do not override court-ordered disclosure. The decision reinforced principles on balancing justice in stay applications and protecting successful litigants’ rights pending appeal
Reported case:
Billion Prima SDN BHD & Anor v Nuctech Company Limited & Anor [2019] MLJU 420
Acting for the plaintiff, Magita Hari Mogan successfully obtained a High Court order to remove private caveats lodged over four properties. The Court held that the defendant’s entitlement to one-tenth of the monetary value of the properties under a Syariah Court Harta Sepencarian decision did not constitute a caveatable or registrable interest under Section 323(1)(a) of the National Land Code 1965. The case clarified that monetary claims, even arising from matrimonial proceedings, do not create proprietary interests in land.
Reported case:
Ahmad Faez bin Yahaya v Nur Azleen Soliha bt Abdul Waris & Anor [2025] MLJU 1128
Public & Constitutional Law
Successfully represented Dato’ Mohd Zaid bin Ibrahim in a judicial review application seeking to challenge an order issued by the Minister of Home Affairs, prohibiting a book authored by the applicant titled “Assalamualaikum (May Peace be Upon You): Observations on the Islamisation of Malaysia” pursuant to section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.
Appearing as the second chair, Magita Hari Mogan contributed to a landmark Federal Court appeal that struck down Section 37A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 as unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision’s “presumption upon presumption” framework violated Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution by undermining the presumption of innocence and permitting conviction despite reasonable doubt. This seminal ruling reaffirmed constitutional safeguards in criminal proceedings and reshaped Malaysian drug law jurisprudence.
Reported case:
Alma Nudo Atenza v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 4 MLJ 1
Criminal Law & Corporate Crime
Magita played an essential role as part of the defence team in a high-profile criminal trial involving the former director of Koperasi Permodalan Felda (KPF) and the then Chief Executive Officer of Silver Bird Group Berhad, who were charged with criminal breach of trust involving RM13.13 million belonging to KPF Quality Foods. The defence mounted a rigorous challenge to the prosecution’s case, focusing on evidentiary sufficiency and the absence of dishonest intent. The court ultimately acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
News link: Click here to view
Magita Hari Mogan was part of the defence team in a Federal Court appeal arising from the conviction and death sentence imposed on a couple for the starvation death of their domestic worker. The appeal was led by a distinguished legal team comprising, among others, the late Dato’ Ghazi Ishak, Dato’ Seri K. Kumaraendran, and the late Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram. The Federal Court allowed the appeal in part, substituting the conviction for murder with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code and imposing a reduced sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The Court held that the prosecution had not proven the requisite intent for murder beyond reasonable doubt.
News link: Click here to view
Acted as lead counsel in a Court of Appeal case involving provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 and the right to legal fees from forfeited assets. The matter raised significant questions on access to justice and the constitutional protection of the right to legal representation.
Assisted in a criminal appeal before the High Court against the Securities Commission Malaysia, involving charges of furnishing false information to Bursa Malaysia Securities Sdn Bhd under the Securities Industry Act 1983. The High Court found the convictions unsafe due to the lower court’s failure to consider key defence evidence and consequently allowed the appeal.
News link: Click here to view
