Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Laches/acquiescence

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2025

AISHAH BINTI A RAHMAN MOHD YUSOFF BIN MOHAMED

Citation

JA-22NCvC-45-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-45-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because the court found on the facts that the land had been treated and occupied as surrendered/held for Zainab and her heirs, the defendant's family had expended money and possessed the land for decades, and the plaintiff unreasonably delayed enforcement such that equitable relief was barred by laches; documents placed in Part A and an affidavit/statutory declaration supported the defendant's case. The court therefore recognised an equitable holding for Zainab and her heirs but did not order transfer pending appointment of an administrator.
13 Dec 2022

KATHRYN MA WAI FONG (as the personal representative, executrix and trustee of the estate of the late Wong Kie Nai) 1. ) WTK REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) SOUTHWIND PLANTATION SDN. BHD.

Citation

Q-02(W)-44-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

W
Case number

Q-02(W)-44-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the Duomatic principle applies irrespective of whether unanimous assent was given before or after the issuance; evidence (Forms lodged, audited accounts, AGM/EGM minutes and conduct including voting to capitalise share capital) established knowledge and assent by the other shareholders such that the High Court erred in requiring prior formal assent; appeals against nullification of share allotments were allowed and validation proceedings rendered unnecessary; costs awarded to appellants.
7 Dec 2022

1. ) KO BYOUNG SOO 2. ) HAN KYUNG JA 3. ) KO SUNG HWAN 1. ) HENG HUP METAL SDN BHD 2. ) PERFECT SLRESOURCES SDN BHD 3. ) LEAD WIZARD SDN BHD 4. ) INTERCEDAR INDUSTRY (M) SDN BHD 5. ) SIA KOK CHIN 6. ) LOW HOCK SOON 7. ) Singara Velan A/L Th

Citation

WA-22NCC-616-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-616-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged Loan Conditions existed; in any event plaintiffs affirmed the SSA and SHA by conduct and performance so cannot rescind; the SHA is valid despite lack of notarisation; any breach of pre-emption occurred but plaintiffs acquiesced and are barred by laches and estoppel by convention; oppression claim not established as pleaded matters were inter-shareholder or director matters and did not amount to conduct oppressive under s346 Companies Act 2016; therefore claim dismissed with costs.
13 Oct 2021

1. ) TAN AH LIK @ TAN TEIK YOUNG (No. K/P: 460110-09-5045) 2. ) TAN AH LEK @ TAN TIEK HOO (No. K/P: 500913-07-5375) 3. ) TAN LEIK LIANG (No. K/P: 590207-07-5089) 4. ) TAN TEK LENG (No. K/P: 570217-07-5017) 5. ) TAN TEIK CHIANG (No. K/P: 610

Citation

PA-22NCVC-102-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-102-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application was dismissed because the issues in the earlier proceedings were materially different from the present claim, the alleged forgery and chemist report were only officially disclosed to the plaintiffs in 2017 creating new triable issues, and the claims were not on their face obviously unsustainable such that summary disposal was appropriate.
29 Jun 2020

WEA ENGINEERS & ASSOCIATES SDN BHD GRANDSTEP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-89-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-89-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court construed the contract to apply the Appointment Letter terms and the Proposal definition of 'costs of works' for the whole project (RM336,193,895). On facts the plaintiff had substantially completed only stage A1 of the Schedule of Payment; entitlement is full payment for stage A1. The plaintiff is entitled to RM452,423.69 for stage A1, less prior payments leaving RM177,927.56; plus 6% GST if applicable, interest at 5% p.a. from 24 October 2018 and costs RM50,000 subject to 4% allocator.
3 Jun 2020

1. HASSAN BIN JAMALUDIN (NO. K/P: 491213-02-5201) 2. NASRIAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 560116-07-5190) .... - 1. OTHMAN BIN AHMAD (NO. K/P: 480422-02-5351) 2. AMONA PERMODALAN HOLDINGS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 280648-H) 3. AMONA CONSOLIDATED HOLD

Citation

WA-22NCC-315-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-315-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs' third suit was a plain and obvious abuse of process falling within Henderson res judicata principles, was time barred under s.6 Limitation Act 1950, and was barred by laches/acquiescence; accordingly the claim disclosed no sustainable cause of action and was struck out under Order 18 r 19 ROC with costs.
3 Sept 2019

GRAND TRACTOR PARTS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 125493-V) 1. ) 1.GRAND TRACTOR & AUTO PARTS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 513754-X) 2. ) 2.TAN AH NGIN @ TAN THIN NGIN (NO.K/P: 430925-71-5025) 3. ) 3. CHEY CHENG WAH (NO.K/P: 510811-08-5117)

Citation

JA-22NCVC-22-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-22-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was dismissed because the cause of action accrued at the latest on 26 May 2006 (demand letter), making the claims statute-barred under section 6 Limitation Act 1953 (six-year limitation to 26 May 2012); alternatively, even if not statute-barred, equitable laches/acquiescence and failure to prove the asserted debts on the balance of probabilities required dismissal.
13 Aug 2019

TAIPAN FOCUS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 368001-P) 1. MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR (PEMERBADANAN) (Previously named as Perbadanan Menteri Besar Selangor) (incorporated under Menteri Besar Selangor (Incorporation) Enactment 1994) 2. SELANGOR STATE GOVERNM

Citation

BA-21NCVC-88-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCVC-88-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The statement of claim disclosed a viable cause of action based on KDEB's letter as endorsed by the 1st Defendant's resolution; the 1st Defendant raised multiple triable issues (authority of KDEB and its officers, applicability of estoppel, applicability of s75 Contracts Act and others) and public interest, need for oral evidence and the 'some other reason to be a trial' principle required that both the strike out and summary judgment applications be dismissed and the matter proceed to full trial.