KELANA MEGAH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. KERAJAAN NEGERI JOHOR & ANOTHER APPEAL [2016] 8 CLJ 804:
“[21] Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Bato Bagi & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak & Another Appeal [2011] 8 CLJ 766; [2011] 6 MLJ 297. In that case, the Federal Court cited with approval, the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Verschures Creameries, Limited v. Hull And Netherlands Steamship Company, Limited [1921] 2 KB 608 wherein Scrutton LJ held:
A plaintiff is not permitted to “approbate and reprobate.” The phrase is apparently borrowed from the Scotch law, where it is used to express the principle embodied in our doctrine of election – namely, that no party can accept and reject the same instrument: Ker v. Wauchope (1); Douglas-Menzies v. Umphelby (2). The doctrine of election is not however confined to instruments. A person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction. (emphasis added)”
