RAFENA EZANEE BINTI RAMLI v RUSLI BIN ZAMAN

da-22ncc-5-11-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 23 November 2025 • DA-22NCC-5-11/2024 • 11 min read

Catchwords

Defendant's Notice of Application to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) - This Court has allowed the Defendant's application in this Encl. 10 and has struck out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim - Whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant are separate legal entity from DWCSB and DDB - Whether the Plaintiffs has Locus Standi to sue the Defendant personally in respect of the agreement and transaction entered into between the two corporate entities - Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is time barred pursuant to Limitation Act 1953.

Practice Areas

Defendant's Notice of Application to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim under Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d)

Judges (1)

Mohd Rosli bin Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (4)

Azlan Razak & Associates Firm Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz Firm Azlan Bin Abdul Razak Counsel Plaintiff Nur Shafika binti Mustaffa Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Rafena Ezanee binti Ramli Plaintiff Rusli bin Zaman Defendant

Case Significance

RAFENA EZANEE BINTI RAMLI v RUSLI BIN ZAMAN is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 23, 2025 (citation: da-22ncc-5-11-2024). <p>A company director sued another director personally over a housing project investment that was originally between their companies. The High Court struck out the claim, finding no locus standi as the companies were separate legal entities and the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953.</p> The case was decided by Mohd Rosli bin Yusoff. Counsel appearing: Azlan Bin Abdul Razak (counsel for plaintiff), Nur Shafika binti Mustaffa (counsel for defendant).

Summary

A company director sued another director personally over a housing project investment that was originally between their companies. The High Court struck out the claim, finding no locus standi as the companies were separate legal entities and the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953.

What was the outcome of RAFENA EZANEE BINTI RAMLI v RUSLI BIN ZAMAN?

<p>A company director sued another director personally over a housing project investment that was originally between their companies. The High Court s...

Statutes Cited

Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
s 6(1)(a)