1. ) DANIAL IDRAKI BIN ABD HALIM 2. ) MIKHAIL ARAMI BIN ABD HALIM 3. ) ADLIN ADRIANI BINTI ABD.HALIM v 1. ) MEGA MEISA SDN. BHD. 2. ) ISRAA CORPORATE ADVISORY SDN. BHD. 3. ) AZIZI BIN MUNIR 4. ) MARIAM BINTI MOHD

Case Significance

Confirms that a civil court will not register a faraid-based transmission of company shares under section 109 of the Companies Act 2016 while a harta sepencarian claim remains pending, deferring to the Syariah Court's exclusive jurisdiction.

This High Court decision in the Commercial Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns the interaction between company law and Islamic inheritance where a deceased Muslim's estate includes private-company shares. The plaintiffs, children of the deceased, sought declarations that the corporate defendants, including Mega Meisa Sdn Bhd and Israa Corporate Advisory Sdn Bhd, had breached Sections 109(4) and 109(5) of the Companies Act 2016 by failing to register the transmission of the deceased's shares within 60 days of a notice enclosing a grant of letters of administration and a faraid order (an Islamic inheritance-distribution order), and a mandatory injunction to register them as shareholders in the faraid proportions. The complicating fact was that the deceased's widow, a co-administrator, had filed a claim for harta sepencarian (jointly acquired matrimonial property) in the Syariah Court before this suit. The court held that under Islamic law the distribution of an estate under faraid is contingent on the prior settlement of any harta sepencarian rights, and that the Syariah Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such rights. Applying the Federal Court's decision in Latifah Mat Zin v Rosmawati Sharibun & Anor, the court held that where a question arises whether property forms part of a deceased Muslim's estate, that determination lies with the Syariah Court and the civil court must give effect to it. The grant of letters of administration and the faraid order were therefore not conclusive while the harta sepencarian claim remained pending, and the plaintiffs' shareholding entitlements could not yet be fixed. The court also found no irreparable harm to justify a mandatory injunction, since the plaintiffs' inheritance rights were already preserved pending the Syariah Court's determination. The court dismissed the originating summons with costs fixed at RM1,000 each to the 2nd and 4th defendants. The judgment is a useful statement of how civil courts defer to Syariah jurisdiction before registering a faraid-based share transmission.