KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

The discovery application was dismissed because the Requested Documents were not specifically identified or shown to exist, the request was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition, granting it would improperly shift the burden of proof under Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, and discovery was unnecessary given applicants already had key cheques and a substantially identical prior application had been dismissed.

Citation
WA-22NCC-140-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant: Kenanga Investors Berhad; Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff: Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd; Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff: Tan Sri Zulhansnan bin Rafique; Counterclaim Defendant: Muhammad Taqiuddin Halim; Counterclaim Defendant: Datuk Wira Ismitz Matthew
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 February 2026
Case Number
WA-22NCC-140-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Discovery Application / Decision on Interlocutory Discovery Application (enclosure 156)
Outcome
Enclosure 156 dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Specific Discovery, Burden of Proof, Illegality, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation, Option Agreements, Personal Guarantee
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Law Fraud Discovery Specific Discovery Burden of Proof Illegality +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenanga Investors Berhad

Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant

Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd

Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff

Tan Sri Zulhansnan bin Rafique

Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff

Muhammad Taqiuddin Halim

Counterclaim Defendant

Datuk Wira Ismitz Matthew

Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Discovery Application / Decision on Interlocutory Discovery Application (enclosure 156)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants specifically identified documents and shown their existence for discovery
  2. 2 Whether the discovery request was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition
  3. 3 Whether ordering discovery would improperly shift the burden of proof under Section 103 Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The discovery application was dismissed because the Requested Documents were not specifically identified or shown to exist, the request was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition, granting it would improperly shift the burden of proof under Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, and discovery was unnecessary given applicants already had key cheques and a substantially identical prior application had been dismissed.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 156 dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 156 (discovery application) dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Kenanga in the sum of RM3,000.00