Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cause of action estoppel

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

DEVARAJAN SHIVAKUMAR 1. ) SRI RAM A/L MOOKIAH 2. ) RAJESWARI A/P L.ALAGA PERUMAL 3. ) ARVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM 4. ) PRAVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-623-12/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-623-12/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff's claim was dismissed because it was barred by res judicata (an earlier High Court judgment addressed the same cause of action) and, in any event, the cause of action arising in 2005 was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953; moreover plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the funds, to trace the funds to the properties, or to establish fraud/conspiracy on the balance of probabilities; defendants' counterclaim for special damages succeeded and RM32,000 plus costs were awarded, and security for costs was ordered returned to the plaintiff within 14 days.
14 Jan 2026

Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) SHABRI BIN SULONG

Citation

WA-22M-131-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-131-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The first action was dismissed as premature for failure to issue the termination notice required by the Facility Agreement; issuance and service of a valid termination notice thereafter created a new cause of action so res judicata does not bar the present claim; the contractual Certificate of Indebtedness is conclusive absent manifest error and establishes the Defendant's indebtedness of RM3,452,287.13 as at 15 January 2024.
6 Oct 2025

1. ) NAZLAN BIN BAHARUDIN 2. ) IZYAN LIYANA BINTI AZHAR (Pentadbir Harta Pusaka AZHAR BIN AHMAT (No. Kad Pengenalan. 650904-07-5115), si mati yang telah meninggal dunia pada 17hb Januari, 2023) 3. ) TAN TOH NGUANG 4. ) DATIN RUPAWAN BINTI M

Citation

WA-22NCvC-317-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-317-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the relief sought in Guaman 317 is consequential enforcement of the prior declaratory judgment in Guaman 535 and not a new cause of action; therefore the action is not barred by res judicata. The defendant (through its liquidator) is ordered to deliver original title documents and sign Form 14A within 30 days, failing which the Senior Assistant Registrar is authorized to sign on the defendant's behalf; costs of RM3,000 awarded to the plaintiffs.
29 May 2025

SPPT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD WORLDWIDE PLANTATION SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-66-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-66-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the Appellant sold leasehold/sub-lease rights (not title) so no transfer of wakaf title contrary to statutory provisions occurred; the Syariah Court Consent Order did not invalidate the contractual rights between the parties in the civil courts and could have been raised earlier; res judicata (both issue and cause of action estoppel) barred the Appellant from relitigating the termination of the SPA and Suit 293 was an abuse of process, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
23 May 2025

MOHAMMAD ESA BIN NOIN(Berniaga sebagai Twenty Trees Services) KOPERASI PERUMAHAN ANGKATAN TENTERA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-469-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-469-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of process because the matters now asserted arose from the same factual matrix and could and should have been raised in the earlier proceedings; therefore the strike‑out application under Order 18 Rule 19 succeeds and the plaintiff's statement of claim is struck out with costs.
14 May 2025

KHALEEG MARKETING SDN. BHD. SHAOXING COUNTY BAIMEI TRADE CO., LTD

Citation

WA-22NCC-615-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-615-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out because it sought to relitigate and effectively vary a final and conclusive judgment on the same issues (liability for the AR Bright invoices); the doctrine of res judicata (issue and cause of action estoppel) barred the fresh action and it constituted an abuse of process; the supporting affidavit/Power of Attorney was valid and any procedural defects were acquiesced to; the counterclaim did not preclude striking out the abusive claim.
25 Jun 2024

RAMASWREE A/P DURAISAMY 1. ) AMARJEET SINGH A/L SATHWAN SINGH 2. ) KUMARESAN A/L K NAGGIAH 3. ) VISNUVARMAN A/L PASUPATHI (Dahulunya beramal atas nama dan gaya Tetuan Chambers of Visnu) 4. ) TETUAN CHAMBERS OF GURCHARAN & MORGAN (Disaman se

Citation

BA-22NCvC-276-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-276-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff's claims sought to re-litigate the same subject matter, facts and issues already finally determined in prior proceedings (notably Saman 281 and subsequent appeals). The claims against defendants 1, 3 and 4 are therefore barred by res judicata and constitute an abuse/multiplicity of process; consequently the writ and statement of claim dated 13 July 2023 are struck out as against those defendants and the applications to dismiss are allowed with costs.
12 Oct 2023

MUSLIM BEST MARKETING (M) SDN BHD Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-319-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-319-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff and its guarantors are the same parties as in Suit 17 and Suit 31 and the claims in the statement of claim derive from the same cause of action and same facts under the Lease Agreement and Letter of Guarantee already decided by the Seremban Sessions Court. Both narrow and wider doctrines of res judicata apply. Accordingly the writ and statement of claim are barred and properly struck out under Order 18 r19(1)(d). Costs awarded to defendant.
20 Jul 2023

MOHAMED IZMI BIN MD SAID 1. ) TETUAN ANAD & NORAINI (disaman sebagai sebuah firma) 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-124-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-124-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the Statement of Claim because the matters pleaded were substantially identical to issues already litigated and finally determined in Suit 440, the High Court appeal and bankruptcy proceedings; the claim was therefore barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of the court's process. The 1st Defendant, as solicitors, owed no duty to the Plaintiff and no sustainable cause of action was disclosed against them. The strike out applications (Enclosures 18 and 24) were allowed with costs.
16 Aug 2022

TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD TEGUH AMANI SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-1265-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-1265-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the present claim is barred by res judicata in the wider sense because the claim was effectively part of the same cause of action as the earlier suit (Guaman 4727): same defendant, same cause, same location and proximate dates within 2016; the plaintiff knew of the claim when the earlier suit was filed and failed to show special circumstances to justify separate instalment litigation; continuation would create multiplicity of proceedings and amount to an abuse of process, therefore the defendant's strike out application under Order 18 r.19 KKM 2012 and statutory power in Akta…