Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Territorial jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

MUHAMMAD ZAHIER ZAKWAN BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN

Citation

JA-42(Ors)-1-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

JA-42(Ors)-1-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court has jurisdiction because Section 17 of the Offences Relating to Awards Act 2017 creates a federal offence when a scheduled State provision is contravened outside that State; omission of s17 from the charge was not fatal because the substantive offence and its elements were correctly and precisely pleaded under s3(1)(d) of the Pahang Enactment and s152(4) CPC is satisfied; the judge did not err in considering s17 sua sponte and the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court ruling affirmed.
27 Feb 2026

XTREME MERIDIAN SDN BHD 1. ) CHOW CHEE WAH 2. ) MOHD DHIYAUDDIN ASSIDDIQ BIN MOHD ZAID 3. ) WILLIAM TEH YEW HOUNG 4. ) DENISE TEOH SHYN YONG

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-214-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-214-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The payments under the LOI were, in substance, booking fees that committed purchasers’ funds and therefore LAD runs from the date of payment; LAD must be calculated on the purchase price stated in the statutory SPA without deduction for rebates; the Sessions Court did not exceed monetary jurisdiction because each individual claim was within the statutory limit; and the administrative transfer of the judge did not negate territorial jurisdiction where no valid YDPA assignment of local limits existed.
23 Jan 2024

AHMAD FAUZI BIN ABDUL SAMAD

Citation

WA-42R-9-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42R-9-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the proper locus delicti for the section 18 offence was where the false documents were given with intent to deceive (Seremban on 24.11.2013) and the charges alleging commission on 25.11.2013 at Putrajaya were defective; therefore the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and the convictions of Ahmad Fauzi were quashed. The prosecution's appeal against Mohd Faisal was dismissed because the evidence was insufficient to prove he directed, substantially assisted or had knowledge of the falsity of the invoices; conviction could not rest solely on the…
23 Jan 2024

MOHD FAISAL BIN ISHAK

Citation

WA-42(R)(A)-1-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

WA-42(R)(A)-1-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court held that the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur lacked territorial jurisdiction because the criminal acts central to section 18 occurred in Seremban (handing of false invoices on 24.11.2013) and the charge alleging commission in Putrajaya on 25.11.2013 was defective; accordingly convictions of Ahmad Fauzi were quashed. The Court also held that the prosecution failed to prove Mohd Faisal’s active direction or substantial assistance beyond reliance on SP20’s testimony and minute records were absent, so his acquittal was properly maintained.
21 Nov 2023

Biddora Musli Alonto 1. ) Lee Teck Tian 2. ) Ambank (M) Berhad

Citation

WA-A72-91-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72-91-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application by Defendant 2 succeeded because the court found the cause of action arose in Sabah (contract executed in Sabah, vehicle lost in Sabah, witnesses and investigations in Sabah), the claim is time-barred under Article 38 of the Limitation Ordinance (Sabah) 1952 (three-year limitation from 7.12.2017), and filing in Kuala Lumpur amounted to forum shopping and an abuse of process; accordingly the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 10.5.2023 were struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 KKM 2012 and costs of RM1,000 awarded to Defendant 2.
20 Dec 2022

DHL ECOMMERCE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD AHMAD AIZAT BIN AHMAD TAJUDIN

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-49-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-49-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Substituted service having been validated by the High Court and service being regular, the Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving irregularity or a prima facie meritorious defence and offered no satisfactory explanation for a 14‑month delay; accordingly the Sessions Court's setting aside of the Judgment in Default was wrong and the Plaintiff's appeal is allowed.
23 Sept 2022

1. ) KANAGESWARI A/P ARUMUGAN 2. ) JAGATHESYWARA GOOPAALAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 3. ) BALASUBRAMANIAM A/L ARUMUGAM 1. ) MUNIANDY A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) NITHIYANANTHA JAWAAR A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

AA-A52NCvC-29-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A52NCvC-29-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Sessions Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought that affect title or transfer of land because such powers are regulated by the National Land Code and fall within the High Court's jurisdiction; Section 71 cannot be invoked as a catch‑all to permit filing in Sessions Court absent consent, therefore the defendants' strike out application succeeds and the writ and statement of claim are struck out.
16 Nov 2021

JEMMINGS SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 232835-V] PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 294855-M]

Citation

DA-22NCVC-32-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-32-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that it had jurisdiction under s.23(1) because the project and operative facts were located in Kelantan (Gua Musang); the plaintiff's choice of forum was entitled to deference; inconvenience to defendant and location of some witnesses in Selangor did not outweigh plaintiff's choice especially given technology for remote evidence; therefore the defendant's application to transfer was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
23 Jul 2020

DR ZAKIR ABDUL KARIM NAIK (no. mtpr : 651018-75-5049) RAVEENTHARAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM (no. k/p : 600316-07-5631)

Citation

WA-23CY-69-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-69-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Transfer was ordered because the defendant satisfied at least one s.23(1) CJA criterion (residence/place of business and location of publication in Penang), the defendant's witnesses and evidential nexus are in Penang, and the plaintiff's affidavit failed to provide probative evidence that the cause arose exclusively in Putrajaya; convenience and legislative intent favour trial in Penang under Order 57 r.1(4).
22 Jun 2020

NASSAU MARITIME HOLDINGS DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY THE OWNER OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "CAPE LAMBERT" (IMO NO. 9457555) OF THE PORT OF MARSHALL ISLANDS

Citation

WA-27NCC-32-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-32-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the High Court in Malaya had admiralty jurisdiction upon issuance of the writ in rem under s.21 UK SCA as adopted by s.24(b) CJA; proprietary rights in rem attach on issue of the writ; service and execution of the writ and warrant in Labuan were lawful under s.7(2) CJA and art.121(3) Federal Constitution and in accordance with Order 70 ROC; the defendant failed to show the arrest was wrongful, therefore the application to set aside was dismissed with costs RM15,000.