Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Laches and acquiescence

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

Ng Soh Hoon 1. ) Yap Liong Boon 2. ) TAN CHUN HONG @ TAN CHOON KIAW

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2316-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2316-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Agreement must be interpreted holistically; when Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are read together the document constitutes a family settlement whereby the Plaintiff renounced rights in consideration of benefits conferred on her and her children and the Agreement was intended to bind heirs and successors; the Plaintiff and her children accepted benefits for decades and the doctrines of approbate and reprobate, laches and acquiescence bar the declaratory relief sought, therefore the Originating Summons is dismissed.
1 Dec 2025

1st CONTAINERS (UK) LIMITED PEMILIK KAPAL ATAU VESEL MV HUA XIANG 936 DARI PELABUHAN PANAMA

Citation

WA-27NCC-10-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-10-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the writ in rem and warrant of arrest because the Malaysian admiralty in rem proceedings constituted an impermissible relitigation and multiplicity of proceedings of the same cause of action already adjudicated by the Rotterdam District Court and pending on appeal; in substance the Malaysian arrest sought enforcement of the Rotterdam judgment, amounting to an abuse of process under CJA 1964 s25(2) and Schedule item 11 and ROC Order 92 r4; The Rena K principle was inapplicable in the circumstances and could not override res judicata, merger, laches and acquiescence; no acti…
19 Aug 2025

1. ) THAVAMANY A/P P. VENGADASALAM 2. ) ALUMU A/P VENGADASALEM 3. ) KAMALA A/P VENGADASALAM JAYA A/P I.N. GOPAL

Citation

A-02(NCvC)(A)-571-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

A-02(NCvC)(A)-571-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court dismissed the appeal because the Plaintiffs failed to prove the requisite three certainties for a trust and there was no contemporaneous declaration or notation on Form 14A or title indicating a trust; the 1995 transfer was an absolute inter vivos gift formalised by registration, and the Plaintiffs' prolonged silence (25 years) invoked laches, barring equitable relief.
18 Jul 2025

1. ) WONG KIE YIK 2. ) WONG KIE CHIE 3. ) PATRICK WONG HAW YEONG 4. ) PIERRE WONG HO ZHEN 5. ) ANNIE WONG HAW BING 6. ) HAPPY WONG FEI FEI 1. ) KATHRYN MA WAI FONG (as the personal representative, executrix and trustee of the estate of the

Citation

02(f)-45-08/2023(Q) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-45-08/2023(Q) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that the Duomatic principle is not the proper vehicle to cure breaches of the mandatory statutory requirement in s132D(1) CA 1965 where statutory validation remedies exist; validation must be effected under the Companies Act (s63 and/or s355) and exercised only where it is just and equitable and would not cause substantial injustice. Applying the statutory tests to the facts, the court concluded validation was appropriate and dismissed the appeals, affirming the Court of Appeal orders to validate the impugned share issuances.
18 Jul 2025

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

Citation

02(f)-47-08/2023(Q) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-47-08/2023(Q) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Breach of s132D(1) was established but the proper remedy is application of statutory validation under ss63 and/or 355 Companies Act 1965; the Duomatic common law principle cannot be used to displace or circumvent the statutory validation mechanism; applying ss63/355 to the proven facts (knowledge, acquiescence, benefit, delay and absence of substantial injustice) it was just and equitable to validate the allotments and therefore the Court dismisses the appellants' appeals and affirms the Court of Appeal by granting validation orders for the impugned share issuances.
24 Apr 2025

DHAMODARAN A/L MUNUSAMY 1. ) KAVARIAMAL A/P MUNUSAMY 2. ) TAMBYRASAH A/L VYTHILINGAM

Citation

AA-22NCvC-105-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-105-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the deed of mutual covenant dated 14 January 2004 is a valid and enforceable declaration of trust in favour of the plaintiff; the defendants executed the deed with understanding as explained by the solicitor so non‑est factum fails; plaintiff provided substantial in‑kind contribution (stock valued at RM300,000) supporting beneficial interest; equitable relief (transfer) is granted subject to restitution to defendants for loan repayment and outgoings; laches, acquiescence and limitation do not bar the claim; adverse inference under s114(g) applies for failure to…
16 Dec 2024

1. ) JASMI BIN YUSOF 2. ) KHALMA ROS BINTI KHOLI 1. ) MUHAMMAD OSMAN BIN KATERAN 2. ) MOHAMED SAZALI BIN ABDUL AZIZ 3. ) TETUAN SAZALI & LIM

Citation

CB-22NCvC-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the written sale agreement and witness testimony established plaintiffs purchased 10 acres for RM1.8 million and received that land; plaintiffs failed to prove fraud, undue influence or breach of fiduciary duty and failed to show Defendant One was a bare trustee for plaintiffs; adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act was not attracted; claims dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
3 Apr 2024

1. ) M AZMI BIN MOHAMED TAHIR 2. ) JAMILAH BINTI ADNAN 3. ) MARHANI BINTI KAMARUDDIN 1. ) MOHD YUSRI BIN TAWIL 2. ) AHMAD KHAIRUL KHAIR BIN MOHD YUSRI 3. ) AHMAD KHAIR BAMAR BIN MOHD YUSRI 4. ) NURUL HAMIRA YUSMA BINTI MOHD YUSRI 5. ) NUR A

Citation

BL-22NCvC-53-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-53-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any vitiating factor (fraud, mistake, coercion or undue influence) to set aside the consent judgment; plaintiffs had notice or representation, accepted settlement conduct including payment of RM50,000 and waited almost two years without challenge; their claim was therefore an abuse of process or plain and obvious unsustainable claim and was struck out. Costs were awarded to defendants.
25 Jul 2023

1. ) ZULIAHA BINTI SELAMAT 2. ) NOOR AMALI BIN SELAMAT 1. ) Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) 2. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH BATU PAHAT

Citation

JB-24NCvC-546-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCvC-546-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Part payments made in 2020 by the guarantor revived the Respondent's right to enforce the charge under s.26 Limitation Act 1953 so the application for order for sale filed in July 2020 was not time-barred; there was no evidence the Respondent was guilty of laches or that the Appellants suffered prejudice from delay; the late Additional Affidavit was excluded for non-compliance with court direction. Consequently the appeal was dismissed with costs.
13 Dec 2022

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

Citation

Q-02(W)-42-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

W
Case number

Q-02(W)-42-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the Duomatic principle applies whether assent is given before or after the impugned act; on the facts the respondents had knowledge of and acquiesced to the allotments (evidenced by Form 11, Form 24, audited accounts and subsequent EGMs and conduct including the 6 April 2013 EGM), therefore the High Court erred in finding the allotments void for lack of prior assent; appeals 42, 39 and 43 succeed and the related validation applications are unnecessary.