KSKPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD Saiful Amir Bin Shafii

KSKPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD Saiful Amir Bin Shafii

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the writ and statement of claim were properly struck out under Order 18 r19 because the plaintiff's claim was plainly unsustainable — it was barred by res judicata, the defendant lacked privity to the contract, and the plaintiff failed to effect required subpoena service and proof, thereby disclosing no reasonable cause of action and constituting an abuse of the court process.

Citation
RA-12B-5-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: KSKPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD; Respondent/defendant: Saiful Amir bin Shafii
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 January 2022
Case Number
RA-12B-5-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court striking out the writ and statement of claim affirmed.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Privity of Contract, Striking Out Pleadings (order 18 R19), Inherent Powers (order 92 R4), Service of Subpoena (order 38 R14, Form 63), Relitigation, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Evidence Civil Litigation Res Judicata Privity of Contract Striking Out Pleadings (order 18 R19) Inherent Powers (order 92 R4) +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KSKPS HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Appellant/plaintiff

Saiful Amir bin Shafii

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application to strike out the writ and statement of claim under Order 18 r19 and/or Order 92 r4 was meritorious
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had established a cause of action against the defendant given lack of privity of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the writ and statement of claim were properly struck out under Order 18 r19 because the plaintiff's claim was plainly unsustainable — it was barred by res judicata, the defendant lacked privity to the contract, and the plaintiff failed to effect required subpoena service and proof, thereby disclosing no reasonable cause of action and constituting an abuse of the court process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court striking out the writ and statement of claim affirmed.

Orders

  • Writ and Statement of Claim of appellant struck out under Order 18 r 19(1)(a),(b),(c) and (d) Rules of the High Court 2012
  • Appellant's appeal dismissed