YAP YEE HOO v 1. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) MZ DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 5. ) PGCC ASSETS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 6. ) PARAGON PINNACLE SDN. BHD.

ba-22ncvc-48-02-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 14 December 2025 • BA-22NCvC-48-02/2025 • 7 min read
5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

Civil procedure — Striking out — Whether claim plainly unsustainable in law — Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court 2012 Company law — Winding up — Sale and purchase agreements executed after presentation of winding-up petition — Whether void ab initio — Absence of validation order Limitation — Action founded on contract — Six-year limitation period — Whether claim time-barred — Section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 — Alleged fraud — Whether sufficient to invoke section 29 Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement of strict pleading and particulars — Whether triable issues disclosed

Practice Areas

Civil procedure

Judges (1)

Asmah binti Musa Delivered

Counsel (6)

Ram Yogan Sivam Firm Thangaraj & Associates Firm B Thangaraj Counsel Defendant M. Nalani Counsel Defendant Magdaline Gomez Counsel Plaintiff Rajakumaran Muthusamy Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (7)

Kerajaan Negeri Selangor Defendant MUJUR ZAMAN Sdn Bhd Defendant MZ DEVELOPMENT Sdn Bhd Defendant PARAGON PINNACLE Sdn Bhd Defendant PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR Defendant PGCC ASSETS HOLDINGS Sdn Bhd Defendant Yap Yee Hoo Plaintiff

Case Significance

YAP YEE HOO v 1. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) MZ DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) P... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated December 14, 2025 (citation: ba-22ncvc-48-02-2025). <p>The plaintiff sought declarations regarding the validity of SPAs executed in January 2012 for a housing development project that was never completed. The High Court struck out the claim, finding the SPAs were void as they were executed after the presentation of a winding-up petition without a validation order, the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953, and the fraud allegations were insufficient to displace the statutory bar.</p> The case was decided by Asmah binti Musa. Counsel appearing: B Thangaraj (counsel for defendant), M. Nalani (counsel for defendant), Magdaline Gomez (counsel for plaintiff), Rajakumaran Muthusamy (counsel for plaintiff).

Summary

The plaintiff sought declarations regarding the validity of SPAs executed in January 2012 for a housing development project that was never completed. The High Court struck out the claim, finding the SPAs were void as they were executed after the presentation of a winding-up petition without a validation order, the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953, and the fraud allegations were insufficient to displace the statutory bar.

What was the outcome of YAP YEE HOO v 1. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) MZ DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 3. ) P...?

<p>The plaintiff sought declarations regarding the validity of SPAs executed in January 2012 for a housing development project that was never complete...

Statutes Cited

Limitation Act 1953
s 6(1)(a)
Limitation Act 1953
s 29
Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
s 29 s 6(1)(a)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (5)

MY (5)
[1970] 1 MLJ 197 [1988] 2 MLJ 449 [1993] 3 MLJ 36 [2020] 3 MLJ 747 [2024] 5 MLJ 897