1. ) KANNAGESWARRY A/P RAGUNATHAN 2. ) KABILAN A/L RAGUNATHAN 3. ) SREE KANESAN A/L RAGUNATHAN 4. ) INBHASSRI A/P RAGUNATHAN 5. ) XXXX v 1. ) THAVAMANI A/P BALASINGAM 2. ) RATHAKRISHANAN A/L MUNISAMY 3. ) MUNISAMY A/L MURUGAN 4. ) KAMALAM A/P KOONDU

Case Significance

Illustrates the use of Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 to dispose of a claim on a discrete point of law, and the principle that a consent decision on the validity of a will binds the heirs and cannot be reopened by a fresh action.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Hazizah binti Kassim JC, concerns an application under Aturan 14A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012) by the second, third and fourth defendants for the determination of a question of law. The underlying suit related to the estate of a deceased who died on 22 January 2020, brought by his children — one of whom is a minor suing through a litigation representative — against several defendants. The pivotal question was whether the validity of the deceased's will, which had earlier been determined by consent between the first and second defendants in prior proceedings, was final and binding on the deceased's other heirs.

Order 14A permits the court to determine a question of law or construction without a full trial where the question is suitable for such determination and will finally determine the cause or an issue in it. Satisfied that there was no dispute of fact warranting the calling of witnesses, and following Petroliam Nasional Berhad v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu, the Court proceeded to decide the question under Order 14A. It applied the principle — drawn from authority including Badiaddin bin Mohd Mahidin v Arab Malaysian Finance — that once a judge makes a ruling, whether substantive or procedural, final or interlocutory, it must be adhered to and may not be reopened, remaining binding on the court and on all parties to the litigation until reversed on appeal.

The Court answered the question in the affirmative: the earlier consent decision on the validity of the deceased's will was final and binding on the heirs. Following that determination, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended writ and statement of claim dated 15 March 2023, with costs of RM3,000 payable by the plaintiffs to the second defendant, subject to allocatur. The judgment is a useful illustration of the use of Order 14A to dispose of a claim on a discrete point of law, and of the principle that a consent decision on the validity of a will binds the heirs and cannot be reopened by a fresh action.