1. ) ONG SANG HUAT 2. ) ONG SIONG WOON v 1. ) TAI JIXIA 2. ) MANIFEST WEALTH MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD.

ba-22ncvc-468-11-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 26 November 2025 • BA-22NCvC-468-11/2023 • 33 min read
20 cases cited (1 SG, 19 foreign)

Outcome

KESIMPULAN [84] Bersandarkan kepada alasan-alasan yang dicerakinkan di atas dan setelah meneliti hujahan-hujahan bertulis oleh peguam cara terpelajar bagi plaintif-plaintif dan defendan kedua, Mahkamah ini memutuskan sebagaimana berikut – a) Tuntutan plaintif-plaintif terhadap defendan kedua ditolak; b) Tuntutan balas defendan kedua dibenarkan bagi perintah berikut- i. Kaveat persendirian No.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ba-22ncvc-468-11-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

BICARA PENUH: Tuntutan oleh plaintif-plaintif untuk mendapatkan semula pemilikan satu unit kedai pejabat dua tingkat yang beralamat di No. 16, Jalan Sungai Burung U32/U, Bukit Rimau, Seksyen 32, 40460 Shah Alam, Selangor yang terletak di bawah hakmilik H.S.(D) 138132 PT 135592, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan yang dijual oleh defendan pertama kepada defendan kedua – Hartanah tersebut merupakan harta sepencarian plaintif pertama dan defendan pertama – Plaintif pertama memindahmilik hartanah tersebut kepada defendan pertama bagi melaksanakan perintah yang diperoleh melalui Petisyen Perceraian di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam pada 27.12.2012 untuk dipegang atas amanah bagi kepentingan anak dalam perkahwinan sehingga berumur 18 tahun dengan amanah dipegang oleh plaintif kedua dan defendan pertama – Amanah atas hartanah tidak didaftarkan di pejabat tanah – Defendan pertama telah menjual hartanah tersebut kepada defendan kedua dengan balasan berharga – Hartanah dicagarkan oleh defendan kedua kepada Public Bank Berhad (PBB) dan PBB tidak dijadikan pihak dalam tindakan ini – Defendan pertama gagal hadir sepanjang prosiding dari mula Guaman difailkan. TATACARA SIVIL: Penyampaian kertas kausa telah disempurnakan kepada defendan pertama secara penyampaian ganti selaras dengan Perintah Penyampaian Ganti bertarikh 14 Februari 2024 – Sama ada ketidakhadiran defendan pertama sepanjang masa material membawa sebarang kesan di sisi undang-undang - Aturan 35 kaedah 1 dan 2 , Aturan 1A, Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012. UNDANG-UNDANG INSOLVENSI: Plaintif pertama seorang yang bankrap – Sama ada plaintif pertama mempunyai locus standi untuk memulakan dan/atau mengekalkan tindakan di sini tanpa sanksi terdahulu – Seksyen 38 (1)(a) Akta Insolvensi 1967. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Defendan kedua diakui oleh plaintif-plaintif sebagai pihak yang telah ditipu oleh defendan pertama kerana perintah dikri nisi tidak diketahui oleh defendan kedua – Defendan kedua dinamakan sebagai pihak atas dasar defendan kedua merupakan tuan punya berdaftar hartanah – Amanah tidak didaftarkan dan defendan kedua tiada notis mengenai kewujudan amanah – Sama ada terdapat kecuaian dan/atau tipuan / fraud yang dilakukan oleh defendan pertama dalam urusan pindahmilik hartanah tersebut kepada defendan kedua – Sama ada Public Bank Berhad yang merupakan pemegang gadaian Hartanah tersebut turut menikmati hakmilik tidak disangkal ke atas Hartanah tersebut – Seksyen 344, Seksyen 340, subseksyen 340(2)(a) Kanun Tanah Negara. UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Plaintif kedua memasukkan kaveat pada 19 September 2023 iaitu selepas pindah milik tersebut didaftarkan pada 23 Mei 2023 – Sama ada plaintif kedua mempunyai kepentingan untuk dikaveatkan atas hartanah tersebut dan adakah kaveat telah didaftarkan secara salah – Seksyen 327 dan s.329 Kanun Tanah Negara.

Practice Areas

Land Law Civil Procedure Bankruptcy & Insolvency Family Law

Judges (1)

Hazizah binti Kassim Delivered

Counsel (6)

Azura Mokhtar & Low Firm Mira Sham, Yong & Connie Ng Firm Nuradilla Hasya bt Khairulrizal Counsel Plaintiff Nurareena bt Jaid Counsel Plaintiff Tan Xiao Hui Counsel Defendant Yong Hooi Chie Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

MANIFEST WEALTH MANAGEMENT Sdn Bhd Defendant Ong Sang Huat Plaintiff Ong Siong Woon Plaintiff Tai Jixia Defendant

Case Significance

A trial over a shop-office transferred on trust under a divorce order and later sold to a corporate purchaser, with the plaintiffs' claim to recover possession failing and costs awarded to the purchaser.

This High Court decision follows a full trial of a claim by two plaintiffs to recover possession of a two-storey shop-office at Bukit Rimau, Shah Alam, held under a Selangor land title. The property had originally been matrimonial property acquired during the marriage — harta sepencarian (jointly acquired marital property) — of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. Pursuant to a divorce order made by the High Court at Shah Alam in December 2012, the first plaintiff had transferred the property to the first defendant to be held on trust for the benefit of the child of the marriage until the child came of age. The dispute arose after the first defendant sold the property to the second defendant, a corporate purchaser. The two plaintiffs, who are brothers, sought to recover the property, contending that the sale was inconsistent with the trust.

The case required the Court to weigh the terms and effect of the earlier transfer against the position of the second defendant as purchaser, and to determine whether the plaintiffs had established an entitlement to recover possession as against a party that had bought the property. The second defendant advanced a counterclaim.

Having tried the matter, the Court decided against the plaintiffs. It ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs of RM20,000 to the second defendant, the corporate purchaser, reflecting the failure of their claim to recover the property and the disposition of the second defendant's position. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the courts approach a claim to recover property that was transferred to hold on trust pursuant to a divorce order and later sold to a third party, and of the difficulty of unwinding such a sale as against a purchaser once the property has changed hands.

Summary

Two brothers sought to recover a shop-office held in trust for their child under a 2014 divorce decree nisi, after the ex-wife fraudulently sold it to the second defendant. The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding that the first plaintiff was a bankrupt without locus standi and the second defendant was a bona fide purchaser with indefeasible title under s.340 of the National Land Code. The second defendant's counterclaim was allowed, ordering cancellation of the private caveat and nominal damages.

What was the plaintiffs' claim about?

The plaintiffs sought to recover a Shah Alam shop-office that had been marital property (harta sepencarian), transferred under a 2012 divorce order to the first defendant to hold on trust for the child of the marriage, and later sold by the first defendant to the second defendant, a corporate purchaser.

What did the Court decide after trial?

The Court decided against the plaintiffs and ordered them to pay costs of RM20,000 to the second defendant, the corporate purchaser; the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Statutes Cited

National Land Code (Cap 828)
National Land Code 1965 (Cap 828)
s 340(1)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (20)

SLR (1)
[2005] 3 SLR 529
UK (1)
[1920] AC 194
MY (18)
[1933] MLJ 98 [1970] 1 MLJ 145 [1983] 2 MLJ 196 [1993] 3 CLJ 158 [1997] MLJU 203 [2000] 1 MLJ 13441 [2004] 1 CLJ 274 [2005] 2 MLJ 589 [2007] 8 MLJ 26435 [2014] 2 CLJ 1 [2014] 3 MLJ 1 [2015] 7 CLJ 584 [2018] MLJU 1116 [2020] MLJU 1458 [2021] MLJU 39079 [2023] MLJU 254525 [2024] MLJU 384 [2025] 4 CLJ 534

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-22ncvc-468-11-2023)