YAP YEE HOO 1. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) MZ DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 5. ) PGCC ASSETS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 6. ) PARAGON PINNACLE SDN. BHD.

YAP YEE HOO 1. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) MZ DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 5. ) PGCC ASSETS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 6. ) PARAGON PINNACLE SDN. BHD.

Because the SPAs were executed after a winding-up petition had been presented and no validation order was sought, they are void ab initio; the Plaintiff's contract claim accrued more than six years before commencement and is time-barred under s6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953; the pleaded allegations of fraud lack particulars and cannot invoke s29 to postpone limitation; consequently the claim discloses no triable issue and must be struck out.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-48-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Yap Yee Hoo; Respondent / 1st and 2nd Defendant: Muzur Zaman Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 December 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-48-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R19 Rules of Court 2012 / Interlocutory Striking Out Hearing (enclosure 18)
Outcome
Enclosure 18 allowed; Plaintiff's claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants struck out.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Void Dispositions After Presentation of Winding Up Petition, Statute of Limitations, Limitation Act 1953 S6(1)(a), Limitation Act 1953 S29 (fraudulent Concealment), Striking Out Under Order 18 R19
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Contract Civil Procedure Limitation Law Winding Up Void Dispositions After Presentation of Winding Up Petition Statute of Limitations Limitation Act 1953 S6(1)(a) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yap Yee Hoo

Appellant / Plaintiff

Muzur Zaman Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent / 1st and 2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R19 Rules of Court 2012 / Interlocutory Striking Out Hearing (enclosure 18)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SPAs are void and unenforceable by reason of the prior winding-up petition
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's claim is statutorily time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff has disclosed any triable issue warranting a full trial

Ratio Decidendi

Because the SPAs were executed after a winding-up petition had been presented and no validation order was sought, they are void ab initio; the Plaintiff's contract claim accrued more than six years before commencement and is time-barred under s6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953; the pleaded allegations of fraud lack particulars and cannot invoke s29 to postpone limitation; consequently the claim discloses no triable issue and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 18 allowed; Plaintiff's claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants struck out.

Orders

  • Enclosure 18 is allowed
  • The Plaintiff's claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants is struck out