KOTA KINABALU: A bouncer has been sentenced to death after the High Court here found him guilty of murdering a teenage boy, Yaacob Nasran, two years ago. Judge Datuk Nurchaya Arshad meted out the sentence after the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Mohd Azmin Lidin, 30. "In this regard, I am left with no reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. There's only one sentence provided by the law for the offence and that's the death sentence," she said. Mohd Azmin, clad in blue t-shirt and camouflage-print trousers, appeared calm and smiled from the dock when the sentence was read before him. Yaacob was 18 when he was murdered ouside a bar on Dec 15 in 2016. Present at the gallery was Yaacob's family including his parents Nasran Harun @ Nigel and Kee Faridah Kassim. The accused was represented by counsel Datuk Seri Rakhbir Singh while Deputy Public Prosecutor Gan Peng Kun appeared for the prosecution. Outside the court, Yaacob's family was seen hugging and crying while Nasran was heard saying; "I want to see his (Azmin) face one last time." Mohd Azmin, who was whisked out of the courtroom, stopped to speak with the family and was heard saying: "It is not me, who killed your child. You got the wrong person." Mohd Azmin's family was also seen crying and hugging him before he was whisked away by the police. Nasran thanked those who supported the family while saying the process of justice has been served. "If a person who murders an innocent child for absolutely no reason does not hang, it says little of our values for justice and deterrence to protect our children for the future. "Azmin, your actions in denying our child his life, means you have denied yourself the right to nurture and guide your family," he said. "As a family, we are still trying to recover. This is our time for closure and we will have our family moment. This verdict does nothing to bring back Yaacob, it is not a victory of any sort to us. We mourn our hero every day," he said.

Based on the newspaper article above, explain the classification of law involved and all the court's jurisdiction that relevant to the case

On January 2019, Aladdin entered into a hire purchase agreement with Untung Bank to buy a car cost RM100,000 for a period of seven years. Unfortunately, on October 2020, Aladdin suffered financial difficulties due to the Covid-19 pandemic and failed to pay the monthly installments for three consecutive months. During the period of three months, Untung Bank already sent two notice of demand requesting the payment from Aladdin. On 1st January 2021, Aladdin received a notice of repossession from Untung Bank demanding payment within fourteen days failing which the car will be repossessed. Fourteen days after the repossession notice, an agent from Untung Bank towed the car from Aladdin while he was at the market buying some groceries. Aladdin is not satisfied with Untung Bank's action. He come to see you for advice. Explain to him all his statutory rights as a hirer in the hire-purchase agreement and the actual repossession process that should be observed by Untung Bank. In the course of your answer, discuss the validity of the repossession process by Untung Bank. Support your answer with Hire Purchase Act 1967 and decided cases (if any).