1. ) NAZLAN BIN BAHARUDIN 2. ) IZYAN LIYANA BINTI AZHAR (Pentadbir Harta Pusaka AZHAR BIN AHMAT (No. Kad Pengenalan. 650904-07-5115), si mati yang telah meninggal dunia pada 17hb Januari, 2023) 3. ) TAN TOH NGUANG 4. ) DATIN RUPAWAN BINTI MOHD SHARIF 5. ) NIK MOHD ZAIDI BIN NIK MOHD ZAIN 6. ) AKIRA MORIWAKI 7. ) NOORHASYIMAWATI BINTI JALALUDIN (sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka AHMAD AIDEI BIN JALALUDDIN, si mati) 8. ) YUSOFF BIN SAAD 9. ) LOW PEI FENG 10. ) SHIMATUL AIDA BINTI YUSOFF 11. ) MUN ...

Case Significance

Illustrates the distinction between an action barred by res judicata and a fresh action brought only to enforce, through consequential execution relief, a declaratory judgment already granted in earlier proceedings.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application by the defendant, Mid Quantum Sdn Bhd (formerly Nandex Development Sdn Bhd, in liquidation), to strike out the plaintiffs' writ and statement of claim under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' action was barred by res judicata because the same issue had already been decided in an earlier suit, Guaman No. WA-22NCvC-535-09/2022. The plaintiffs, a group of individual proprietors and administrators of deceased estates, responded that the present action was not a relitigation but the pursuit of consequential relief to enforce a declaration already obtained in the earlier suit. The court, per Mahazan binti Mat Taib J, dismissed the strike-out application. It accepted the plaintiffs' characterisation, holding that the substantive issue in the present writ had already been concluded in Guaman 535 and that the present action was merely a platform to obtain an execution order giving effect to the declaratory judgment in that earlier suit. On that footing the court went further and held that the main action in the writ dated 26 May 2025 had been fully resolved, so that no full trial was required. It therefore made a final order that the defendant, acting through its liquidator, was within 30 days to surrender the original title documents to the Land Office and to execute the Form 14A memorandum of transfer to transfer the strata title to the plaintiffs, failing which the Senior Assistant Registrar of the High Court was empowered to sign the Form 14A on the defendant's behalf. Costs of RM3,000 were ordered against the defendant. The judgment is a useful illustration of the distinction between an action barred as res judicata and a fresh action brought only to enforce, by consequential execution relief, a declaration already granted in earlier proceedings.