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 would improperly shift the burden of proof onto the respondent, was overly wide and amounted to a fishing expedition, and was unnecessary given applicants already possessed the cheques and a prior nearly identical application had been dismissed.

Citation
WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 (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-489-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial (civil) Discovery Interlocutory / Interlocutory Discovery Application Dismissed at High Court
Outcome
Enclosure 156 (discovery application) dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Burden of Proof, Fishing Expedition, Option Agreements, Personal Guarantee, Illegality, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation, Res Judicata/functus Officio
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Law Equity Specific Discovery Burden of Proof Fishing Expedition Option Agreements +5 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 5
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

Commercial (civil) Discovery Interlocutory / Interlocutory Discovery Application Dismissed at High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery should be ordered under Order 24 Rules 3,4 and 5 Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the requested documents were specifically identified and shown to exist
  3. 3 Whether ordering discovery would improperly shift the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The discovery application was dismissed because the requested documents were not specifically identified or shown to exist, the request would improperly shift the burden of proof onto the respondent, was overly wide and amounted to a fishing expedition, and was unnecessary given applicants already possessed the cheques and a prior nearly identical application had been dismissed.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 156 (discovery application) dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 156 dismissed
  • Costs of RM3,000.00 to Kenanga Investors Berhad