KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD v 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

wa-22ncc-489-07-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 10 February 2026 • WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 • 6 min read
1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery – Specific discovery of listed documents - Whether documents were specifically identified and shown to exist – Whether information in abstract constitutes document – Fishing expedition – Attempt to shift burden of proof – Whether discovery necessary – Discovery application dismissed

Practice Areas

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Discovery

Judges (1)

Elaine Yap Chin Gaik Delivered

Counsel (9)

James Monteiro Firm Jeeva Partnership Firm Justin Voon Chooi & Wing Firm Shaikh David & Co Firm Henry Poh Jun Yang Counsel Defendant Jasmin Irisa binti Ahmad Mirza Counsel Plaintiff John Aloysius Skelchy Counsel Defendant Shaikh Abdul Saleem bin Shaikh Abdul Karim Counsel Plaintiff Victor Pang Chee Siong Counsel Defendant

Parties (5)

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD Plaintiff ZULRAFQ CAPITAL Sdn Bhd Defendant Datuk Wira Ismitz Matthew Aggrieved Party Muhammad Taqiuddin Halim Aggrieved Party Tan Sri Zulhasnan bin Rafique Defendant

Case Significance

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD v 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNA... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated February 10, 2026 (citation: wa-22ncc-489-07-2023). <p>In a related action to Suit 140 involving the same parties and substantially similar Option Agreements for KNM Group Berhad shares worth RM44.9 million, the defendants sought specific discovery of payment and transaction documents. The High Court dismissed the application on the same grounds as Suit 140, finding it was a fishing expedition that would improperly shift the burden of proof and was unnecessary.</p> The case was decided by Elaine Yap Chin Gaik. Counsel appearing: Henry Poh Jun Yang (counsel for defendant), Jasmin Irisa binti Ahmad Mirza (counsel for plaintiff), John Aloysius Skelchy (counsel for defendant), Shaikh Abdul Saleem bin Shaikh Abdul Karim (counsel for plaintiff), Victor Pang Chee Siong (counsel for defendant).

Summary

In a related action to Suit 140 involving the same parties and substantially similar Option Agreements for KNM Group Berhad shares worth RM44.9 million, the defendants sought specific discovery of payment and transaction documents. The High Court dismissed the application on the same grounds as Suit 140, finding it was a fishing expedition that would improperly shift the burden of proof and was unnecessary.

What was the outcome of KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD v 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNA...?

<p>In a related action to Suit 140 involving the same parties and substantially similar Option Agreements for KNM Group Berhad shares worth RM44.9 mil...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)
[1994] 2 CLJ 581