Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Impeachment of judgment

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2025

MAYAMAS BINTI OMAR Zumatex Engineering Sdn. Bhd. PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Chung Yoo Hock 2. ) OCEANERGY GASES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28PW-283-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-283-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant, as a contributory, has locus standi under s486(2); the Official Receiver did not oppose the application; continuation of the Zumatex-related actions could materially benefit Zumatex by reducing liabilities or increasing assets and therefore grant of leave is in the company's interests; leave is granted subject to protective conditions including a personal undertaking by the applicant to bear all legal costs and to account for and pay any recovered proceeds to Zumatex's estate.
5 Nov 2025

MW HEALTHCARE SDN BHD TEGA KUANTUM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24IP-45-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24IP-45-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant failed to prove actual positive fraud by the Defendant: the MDA Recall Notice concerned a distinct later product (Version 4) not pleaded or in issue in Suit 15, was publicly available, and MWH was aware of it during the trial but did not deploy it. There was no legal duty on Tega to disclose a document irrelevant to the pleaded issues, no cogent evidence of dishonest intent by Tega, and the Notice would not likely have led to a different outcome on the contested issues (passing off and unlawful interference). Accordingly, the Originating Summons under s 44 EA 1950 is dismissed.
4 Sept 2025

GAJENDIRAN A/LV.VELLARSAMY 1. ) LIM AH BEE 2. ) CHONG EI LING 3. ) YOONG SOO FAH 4. ) TAN POH TEK 5. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat 6. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR

Citation

BA-22NCvC-226-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-226-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on the balance of probabilities that the Change in Name (Presentation No. 6288/2016) was procured by fraud (IC absent from NRD records; original proprietor had died in 1958; no original title surrendered; no IC produced), therefore P.R.A. Subra had no title and could not pass title to D1 (nemo dat). Registrations to D1 and subsequently to D2 were consequently void ab initio. Defendant 5 (land office) breached statutory and common law duties by failing to require and verify identity documents and records; s.22 protection did not apply because officers did not act in good faith. Pla…
28 Feb 2025

1. ) Puncak Haruman Sdn Bhd 2. ) Elit Binaraya Sdn Bhd 3. ) Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Ali 1. ) JW Development Sdn Bhd 2. ) Syarikat Bamas Enterprise Sdn Bhd 3. ) Lee Kah Koon 4. ) Abdul Wahab Bin Abdullah 5. ) Zulkarnain bin Omar

Citation

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to plead fresh evidence or establish manifest illegality, lack of jurisdiction or actual fraud sufficient to impeach the prior Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment; their claims revive issues already litigated (res judicata) and constitute an abuse of process. Accordingly the action against the 1st defendant is struck out under Order 33/Order 18 and the 1st defendant's counterclaim succeeds in part: plaintiffs declared vexatious and restrained; damages and exemplary damages to be assessed; costs on indemnity basis.
16 Dec 2024

1. ) Khatijah binti Md Ibrahim 2. ) Mansor bin Abdul Manan Northern Skyline SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCvC-241-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-241-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the SP Order was obtained by fraud or suppression of evidence; the court found a concluded contract existed, P2 acted as P1's authorised representative, the SP Order was not procured by fraud and the impeachment suit is also barred by res judicata in the wider sense; accordingly Plaintiffs' claim to set aside the SP Order is dismissed with costs RM50,000.
25 Jun 2024

TG INTAN BAIDURAH BT TENGKU ABDULLAH 1. ) Raja Hamid Bin Raja Kassim 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Langat

Citation

BA-22NCvC-254-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-254-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove actual fraud that induced the 6.4.2010 judgment as required by s.44 Evidence Act; her challenge is also barred by laches/unreasonable delay and the claim to enforce the SPA is time‑barred under s.9 Limitation Act; accordingly the plaintiff's claim to set aside the judgment and to enforce the SPA is dismissed and the 1st Defendant’s counterclaim is not established.
29 May 2024

Yap Yoke Chong @ Allan Yap Yap Chee Siang

Citation

WA-22NCvC-45-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-45-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved that the impugned High Court judgment was procured by fraudulent evidential materials (fabricated tombstones and false records) and that the fraud could not reasonably have been discovered earlier; s.44 Evidence Act 1950 permits a fresh collateral action to impeach such a judgment; res judicata does not bar impeachment for fraud; the defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s credible fresh evidence, therefore the impugned judgment is set aside and reliefs granted.
16 Apr 2024

KETHEESWARAN A/L M. KANAGARATNAM BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCC-63-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-63-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court struck out the Plaintiff's writ and statement of claim because the pleaded allegations and legal arguments were identical to issues previously adjudicated and dismissed, thus barred by res judicata and issue estoppel; the action constituted an abuse of process as a collateral attack on a final judgment; and the causes of action were time-barred under the Limitation Act, with no pleaded actual fraud sufficient to impeach the prior judgment.
20 Nov 2023

1. ) Ten Thiam Choy 2. ) Metro Setia Development Sdn Bhd 1. ) Lim Lee Took 2. ) Dato' Yip Kum Fook

Citation

WA-22NCC-174-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-174-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the plaintiffs' impeachment suit because the plaintiffs failed to plead or adduce particulars of actual, positive fraud as required by s44 Evidence Act 1950; the contested documents were in the plaintiffs' possession or had been admitted or categorized at trial (Part B/Part C) and plaintiffs had opportunities to raise the issues in Suit 491; the claims amounted to an abuse of process, were plainly and obviously unsustainable and res judicata/issue estoppel barred re-litigation; defendants' strike out application under Order 18 r19(1) was therefore granted with costs.
27 Jun 2023

PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BERHAD 1. ) MOHAMMAD HAFIZI BIN BAHARI 2. ) RAJA MAZIAH BINTI RAJA AWANG

Citation

WA-22NCC-449-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-449-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's allegations of fraud and conspiracy were inadequately pleaded and lacked required particulars and evidence; Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on balance of probabilities; the non-original video recording was of low probative value and conflicting expert evidence favored the Defendants' expert; moreover res judicata/issue estoppel and the plaintiff's election to withdraw from the Sessions Court proceedings barred relitigation of the same issues; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim to impeach the SC judgment and related reliefs was dismissed.