Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaration

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM KHAI MUN 2. ) CHONG PEI DECK 1. ) WONG KWAI WAH 2. ) PANG HONG CHENG 3. ) Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1402-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1402-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was struck out and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed because plaintiffs failed to join Punca Jaya Sdn Bhd, a necessary and interested party whose presence was material to the declaratory relief sought; that failure was fatal to plaintiffs’ cause of action and, coupled with material factual disputes as to competing purchases (multiple ownership), justified dismissal under the court’s procedural rules.
27 Nov 2025

DANG THI VAN 1. ) kementerian dalam negeri, malaysia 2. ) Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN)

Citation

JA-24NCvC-83-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-83-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

At the time of birth the child was illegitimate because parents were not married; by Section 17 Part III Second Schedule references to father/parent for an illegitimate child are to be read as references to the mother, who is a Vietnamese citizen; therefore the child did not satisfy the requirement of having a parent who was a Malaysian citizen at birth under Article 14(1)(b) read with Part II Second Schedule and is not a Malaysian by operation of law; the originating summons was also procedurally defective in failing to state the precise legal provision relied upon, but the substantive findi…
5 Nov 2025

KIRANA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION DAVID ADRIAN FRANKLIN

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-94-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-94-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the defendant's counterclaim raised substantial disputed facts and legal issues that could not be resolved on affidavit and pleadings alone; because oral evidence is required to adjudicate the parties' rights, summary dismissal was inappropriate and the plaintiff's application to cancel the counterclaim was dismissed (and in such circumstances the decision is non-appealable).
3 Nov 2025

TAN BON KIAT 1. ) KANG HOCK HIN 2. ) BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA PELITA INDAH

Citation

JA-24NCvC-458-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-458-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPA expressly made the purchaser liable for maintenance charges (clause 12(i)) and the 2016 specific performance judgment judicially declared Defendant 1 the beneficial owner; therefore Defendant 1 remains liable for all outstanding maintenance arrears notwithstanding administrative failure to register title, and the plaintiff's claim is allowed against Defendant 1.
15 Oct 2025

BAGUS HOLIDAYS SDN BHD 1. ) CITYVILLA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) THAM GIAP CHAI 3. ) THAM CHENG LOCK 4. ) THAM YE-JIN 5. ) LOK KUI LEN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-63-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-63-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the reliefs sought were final in nature and inappropriate at the interlocutory stage; plaintiff failed key interlocutory requirements — there was no demonstrated urgency or irreparable harm justifying immediate mandatory relief, damages were an adequate remedy for the financial loss claimed, the balance of convenience favoured defendants, plaintiff came with unclean hands due to substantial unpaid charges under the Deed of Covenant, and the proposed Registrar's Caveat remedy was procedurally premature and within the exclusive statutory domain of the Land Registra…
26 Aug 2025

1. ) ROSDIDI BIN ABD RAHMAN Yang Berniaga atas nama dan gaya RA NETWORK SERVICES (No. Syarikat - 198903074907) 2. ) MOHD RIDHWAN BIN ROSDIDI Yang Berniaga atas nama dan gaya RDNET SERVICES (No. Syarikat - 201803351172) ABX EXPRESS (M) SDN B

Citation

KA-22NCvC-46-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-46-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove the existence and terms of the alleged agency agreement dating from 1988; the only documentary proof was a 1994 reference letter which the Court held was not a binding agency contract. As the plaintiffs did not discharge the legal burden, their claims failed; the Defendant proved its counterclaim on the balance of probabilities and was awarded RM79,919.46 with 5% p.a. interest from date of judgment until full settlement and costs of RM20,000.00.
17 Jun 2025

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK 1. ) PEMAJU SRI SINAR SDN BHD 2. ) CRP SERVICES SDN BHD 3. ) SANGKAR A/L VIGIN KUMAL 4. ) MAGENDERAN A/L RAMASAMY 5. ) ELAVARASAN A/L VELOO 6. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 7. ) K.S SECONDARY FI

Citation

BA-22NCvC-521-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-521-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found sufficient evidential basis to grant declaratory and ancillary reliefs: the Plaintiff proved the charge was unlawfully discharged and that transfers and instruments obtained thereafter were invalid or defeasible; defaulting defendants were treated as admitting pleaded facts; summary judgment appropriate because no bona fide triable issues remained (notably the 9th had not registered a charge and could not invoke proprietary protection under s.340(3)); court ordered declarations restoring Plaintiff's registered charge, set aside the impugned transfers/agreements where specified, di…
22 May 2025

DATO' MOEHAMAD IZAT BIN ACHMAD HABECHI EMIR 1. ) FERUDDIN EMIR BIN MOEHAMAD IZAT EMIR 2. ) Effendi Amir Bin Moehamad Izat (Nod 17.2.25) 3. ) EMIR EQUITY REFRIGERATIONS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-247-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-247-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to specify documents with sufficient particularity, failed to show the documents were in the possession custody or power of the targeted parties or non-parties and failed to demonstrate necessity for fair disposal or cost-saving; the request was overly broad and constituted a fishing expedition, third parties were not properly served or sworn, and the court therefore refused the Order and awarded costs to the respondent.
13 May 2025

TCM MINING SDN BHD NAAM SDN BHD

Citation

KA-24NCvC-185-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24NCvC-185-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application is dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to prove a right to possession on the balance of probabilities: the Plaintiff did not produce documentary proof that the lands had been de-classified from Malay reserve status nor proof that the Plaintiff was a Malay company as required by the lease, failed to register the lease within the requisite period, and suppressed material evidence allowing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act; additionally the declaratory relief involved rights of LADA and the non-joinder was fatal, therefore the trespass claim could not succeed.
25 Mar 2025

1. ) WONG HENG CHOON 2. ) CHOO LEE LIN PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-24NCvC-344-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-344-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the intitulement failed to specify the proper statutory provisions empowering the court to grant the relief; Section 417 NLC and Article 13 FC as cited did not authorize the declaratory order sought; the matter falls within executive authority over land and the correct procedural route is referral to the State Authority for reconsideration or judicial review (certiorari/mandamus) if unlawful action persists.