Govindasamy A/l Sellaiah v 1. ) ALH Industries Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling

Case Significance

Illustrates how res judicata and judicial estoppel bar a collateral attack on an earlier judgment, and the striking out of a re-litigation attempt as an abuse of process under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Alice Loke Yee Ching J, concerns an application by the first defendant to strike out an action under Aturan 18 kaedah 19(1)(a), (b) atau (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012). The plaintiff, suing as administrator of a deceased's estate, had brought the action against a company and the District Land Administrator, and the first defendant contended that the issues raised had either already been determined with finality or ought to have been raised in earlier suits between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Against a background of litigation spanning some ten years, the first defendant argued that the present action was an attempt to re-litigate settled matters, amounting to an impermissible multiplicity of proceedings.

The dispute had its origin in a sale and purchase agreement: the deceased's side had agreed to sell property to the first defendant, and when performance was refused the first defendant had obtained specific performance by a judgment in default in an earlier suit (referred to as Suit 439). The present action sought, in substance, to impeach that judgment on the ground of fraud. The Court held that an attempt to found a fresh suit on fraud to impeach the earlier judgment was precluded by res judicata and judicial estoppel: a party cannot bring multiple suits where the issues have been finally determined, or have expired through a failure to advance them earlier, or where the party takes contradictory stances.

The Court held that the plaintiff's attempt to set aside the earlier judgment fell squarely within Order 18 rule 19(b) and (d), and allowed the first defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's pleadings and dismiss the action. As the claim against the second defendant was tied to the same matters and could no longer stand on its own, the Court exercised its discretion to strike it out as well, and ordered the plaintiff to pay each defendant costs of RM5,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of how res judicata and judicial estoppel bar a collateral attack on an earlier judgment, and of the striking out of a re-litigation attempt as an abuse of process.