Jamaludin Bin Mohamad 1. ) Ezme Bin Md Radzi 2. ) Tetuan Rosenida, Azlina, Hafidz & Co

Jamaludin Bin Mohamad 1. ) Ezme Bin Md Radzi 2. ) Tetuan Rosenida, Azlina, Hafidz & Co

The claim was struck out because on the face of the pleadings and material before the court the plaintiff, although a co-borrower, was not the registered proprietor and provided insufficient evidence to establish a constructive or resulting trust; accordingly there was no reasonable cause of action against either defendant and the claim was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process, warranting dismissal under Order 18 r 19 ROC 2012 (Enclosures 15 and 17 allowed) with costs.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-451-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jamaludin Bin Mohamad; 1st Defendant: Ezme Bin Md Radzi; 2nd Defendant: TETUAN ROSENIDA, AZLINA, HAFIDZ & CO.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 January 2026
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-451-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/ Trust/ Conveyancing Dispute / Judgment on Concurrent Strike Out Applications (order 18 R 19 ROC 2012)
Outcome
Enclosures 15 and 17 allowed; Plaintiff's claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious; costs awarded to Defendants.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Stakeholder Fiduciary Duties, Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19 ROC 2012, Res Judicata, Interim Injunction (american Cyanamid)
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Trusts and Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Conveyancing Fiduciary Law Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Stakeholder Fiduciary Duties +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamaludin Bin Mohamad

Plaintiff

Ezme Bin Md Radzi

1st Defendant

TETUAN ROSENIDA, AZLINA, HAFIDZ & CO.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/ Trust/ Conveyancing Dispute / Judgment on Concurrent Strike Out Applications (order 18 R 19 ROC 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff as co-borrower has any beneficial interest in the property sold
  2. 2 If a beneficial interest exists, whether plaintiff is entitled to part of the sale proceeds under the SPA dated 19.09.2024
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant (solicitors acting as stakeholder) owed and breached a fiduciary duty to protect plaintiff's interest and should have withheld funds or sought court direction

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because on the face of the pleadings and material before the court the plaintiff, although a co-borrower, was not the registered proprietor and provided insufficient evidence to establish a constructive or resulting trust; accordingly there was no reasonable cause of action against either defendant and the claim was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process, warranting dismissal under Order 18 r 19 ROC 2012 (Enclosures 15 and 17 allowed) with costs.

Court Disposition

Enclosures 15 and 17 allowed; Plaintiff's claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious; costs awarded to Defendants.

Orders

  • Strike out the Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Order 18 r 19 ROC 2012 (Enclosures 15 and 17 allowed)
  • Claim dismissed for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being an abuse of process