1. ) Puncak Haruman Sdn Bhd 2. ) Elit Binaraya Sdn Bhd 3. ) Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Ali v 1. ) JW Development Sdn Bhd 2. ) Syarikat Bamas Enterprise Sdn Bhd 3. ) Lee Kah Koon 4. ) Abdul Wahab Bin Abdullah 5. ) Zulkarnain bin Omar
ba-22ncvc-138-03-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 27 February 2025 • BA-22NCvC-138-03/2024 • 12 min read
6 cases cited
(0 SG, 6 foreign)
Catchwords
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION: Application to strike out Writ and Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to Order 33, rules 2 and 5, Order 18, rule 19(1)(a), (b), and/or (d), and/or Order 92, rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) – Application To enter judgment for the 1st defendant’s Counterclaim under Order 33 rule 5 ROC 2012 – Writ and Amended Statement of Claim filed following the decision of the learned High Court Judge on 24 January 2024 in Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-694-09/2019 (Suit 694) - all of the defendants in Suit 694 including the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, but withdrew the appeal with no order as to costs – The plaintiffs claim is to impeach the Judgment of Suit 694 and alleged the judgment was in contravention of statutes and law and fraud. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Determination of issues pursuant to Order 33 Rule 2 and Rule 5 - Whether the Plaintiffs have no locus standi and/or are otherwise not entitled to set aside the whole Judgment, which includes parts which are not against and/or addressed to and/or which do not apply to the Plaintiffs - Whether the dissolution of BAMAS would entitle the Plaintiffs to set aside the whole Judgment against all 7 Defendants in the Original Suit ex debito justitiae - Whether the conditions for impeaching/setting aside that part of the Judgment which is against and/or applicable to the Plaintiffs have been satisfied so that this Honourable Court can impeach/set aside the same under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as a special exception to the general rule that one High Court cannot set aside a final order of another High Court of coordinate jurisdiction - Whether the Plaintiffs have any cause of action against JWD based on the JVA when the Plaintiffs are not a party or privy to the JVA. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Whether a counterclaim can be allowed pursuant to Order 33 rule 5 ROC 2012 for a declaration that the Plaintiffs in filing and commencing this Suit and the interlocutory applications is for a collateral purpose and amounts to an abuse of process – Whether the Plaintiffs are vexatious litigants - An order to restrain the Plaintiffs from commencing any legal proceedings in any court against the JWD, save by leave of a Judge.
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Statutes Cited
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
Rules of Court 2012
Cases Cited (6)
MY (6)
[1933] 2 MLJ 276 [1979] 2 MLJ 126 [1984] 2 MLJ 143 [1987] 2 MLJ 377 [2002] 3 MLJ 49 [2004] 1 MLJ 257
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ba-22ncvc-138-03-2024)