1. ) MOHD RAFIZA YUSRI BIN ABD RAZAK 2. ) MOHD ZUBIR BIN ZAKARIA 3. ) RAMLAN BIN JOHAN v MAZRI BIN MANSOL

Case Significance

Applies the rule against re-litigation: a claimant dissatisfied with a struck-out suit must appeal rather than file a fresh action on the same cause and parties, which is an abuse of process.

This High Court decision at Seremban, Negeri Sembilan concerns an application to strike out a libel suit as an abuse of process. The defendant applied under Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012), together with Order 92 rule 4, to set aside an amended writ and amended statement of claim. The plaintiffs, holders of Adat Perpatih customary titles within Luak Jempol, had sued on a cause of action in defamation said to arise from a letter dated 16 December 2022 and an official invitation booklet distributed in June 2023. The decisive fact was that the plaintiffs had earlier sued the same defendant on the same subject matter in an earlier action, which the Seremban High Court had already struck out by an order dated 10 June 2024. The court held that the fresh 2025 suit was in substance a repetition of the struck-out 2023 action: although the plaintiffs argued the new pleading was better organised and set out the defamatory words verbatim, it rested on the same material facts. The court reasoned that a litigant who is dissatisfied with the striking-out of an earlier suit must appeal that decision or seek to amend the earlier pleading, and cannot instead file a fresh action on the same cause and between the same parties. It described the attempt to revive a struck-out claim by filing a new suit, without appealing the earlier order, as an abuse of the court's process, adding that litigation must have finality (a noktah) in the public interest and to avoid oppression of the defendant and waste of judicial resources. The court allowed the defendant's application and struck out the entire 2025 action with costs. The judgment is a clear application of the rule against re-litigation and the requirement of finality.