Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vacant possession

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2026

CHERAS PROPERTY SDN BHD (Sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Numestro Arte Sdn Bhd) CHEAH WENG SENG

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-1083-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-1083-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application was allowed because the issues and reliefs in the present suit were identical to matters finally determined in OS144 between the same parties; accordingly res judicata/issue estoppel and the prohibition on collateral attack bar the fresh suit, and the writ and statement of claim are an abuse of process and must be struck out; additionally the defendant failed to establish force majeure or mitigation to avoid liability for delayed vacant possession and the principles on LAD calculation were affirmed.
4 Mar 2026

ERIC CHIEN YEOU KING MIDAS DE SDN BHD

Citation

BB-A72NCvC-971-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BB-A72NCvC-971-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Booking form existed and RM5,000 paid on 16-11-2021 created a contract so LAD calculation commences from that date; Defendant failed to prove service of Notice by AR Registered Post and vacant possession was delivered on 19-04-2025; LAD at 10% p.a. on purchase price RM599,800 for 155 days equals RM25,471.15; Defendant raised no triable defence and summary judgment is entered for Plaintiff with costs RM2,500.00.
27 Feb 2026

KCSB KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 1. ) MENTERI PERTAHANAN 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the Order 14A application because the questions posed are not pure questions of law but are inextricably intertwined with substantial disputed facts (effect of the Privatisation Agreement, consequences of earlier proceedings, status after compulsory acquisition and basis of occupation), and therefore require a full trial to resolve; no severable legal question suitable for summary determination identified; costs in the cause.
26 Feb 2026

COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN. BHD. LIMKOKWING UNIVERSITY OF CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCvC-175-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-175-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPA remained valid and enforceable; Clause 11 is permissive and not the exclusive remedy; the Plaintiff validly elected specific performance under Section 11(2) Specific Relief Act 1950; a defaulting purchaser cannot unilaterally terminate or rely on its own breach; specific performance was appropriate because Plaintiff had fully performed and damages were inadequate; Defendant must pay the balance and contractual late payment interest; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
25 Feb 2026

BINA DARULAMAN BERHAD 1. ) INDIVIDU YANG MENGENALKAN DIRI SEBAGAI THEAVARAJAN A/L GOVINDAN 2. ) INDIVIDU YANG MENGENALKAN DIRI SEBAGAI POH SIAM ENG 3. ) SEMUA PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG NAMANYA TIDAK DIKETAHUI DAN/ATAU ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DI

Citation

KB-22NCvC-28-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KB-22NCvC-28-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved the Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case; D3, being unnamed occupiers, lacked locus standi to oppose until they applied to be joined; the factual pleadings showed occupation by permission of prior owners which is a revocable licence terminated by Plaintiff's notices; no bona fide triable issue was raised that could defeat summary judgment given the indefeasibility of Plaintiff's registered title under s.340 NLC; therefore summary judgment for vacant possession was appropriate.
24 Feb 2026

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

Citation

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal correctly found that contractual obligations arose at the time of payment of booking fees/deposits given the documentary evidence and statutory purpose of the Housing legislation; PJD Regency is binding and mandates computation of the 36 months from the date of payment; Applicant failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety or clear computational error; judicial review dismissed.
30 Jan 2026

1. ) Khew Keat Seen 2. ) Lau Lai Hun (Pentadbir Estet Khew Kiat Wee, Si Mati (No. K/p: 670114-10-5605 / A0655729)) 3. ) Khew We Siang (Pentadbir Estet Khew Kok Hoong, Si Mati (No. K/p: 550714-10-6015 / 8167979)) 4. ) Khew Kok Fei 1. ) Khew

Citation

BA-22NCvC-462-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-462-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

D1, having expressly agreed to the RM3,800,000 purchase price by solicitor correspondence, repudiated the agreed sale by imposing unilateral conditions and refusing to execute the SPA; that conduct constituted breach of the Consent Judgment, entitling Plaintiffs to damages for lost sale proceeds and to an order for sale by public auction (with Registrar authorized to sign if D1 defaults); vacant possession was refused because co-proprietor rights to occupy remained intact; counterclaim dismissed.
30 Jan 2026

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

Citation

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal correctly found that the contract was formed at the time of payment of the booking fee/deposit as evidenced by receipts and pro forma documents; accordingly the 36‑month period for delivery of vacant possession is computed from that payment date; PJD Regency is binding and there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety nor demonstrable computation error warranting intervention; applications dismissed.
29 Jan 2026

KCSB KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 1. ) MENTERI PERTAHANAN 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-25-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff's pleadings disclose recognised causes of action and substantial disputes of fact and law exist which cannot be resolved on affidavit at the interlocutory stage; therefore it is not plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed and the strike-out jurisdiction should not be exercised.
20 Jan 2026

1. ) Tay Siew Meng 2. ) WONG SAN YOKE 3. ) TAY BOON CHEE Nur Allysya Tay Binti Abdullah @ Tay Boon Ping

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2395-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2395-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Plaintiffs held prima facie indefeasible title and had validly revoked the Defendant's permissive occupation on 27 August 2025; the Defendant raised no triable issues supported by admissible evidence to oppose summary relief under Order 89 r.1. Continued occupation after lawful revocation constituted trespass and the Plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of trespass, an order for vacant possession within fourteen days, and costs.