Res judicata prevents re-litigation of issues definitively resolved in earlier court orders, emphasizing the necessity for finality in legal proceedings.

(Enclosure 1)

Introduction

[1] The parties in this suit are related to each other. Plaintiff (P) filed the present suit to determine whether the contents of the three (3) safe deposit boxes belonging to the late Loh Ah Moy @ Loh Siew Keng (LAM) should be distributed according to the last will of the deceased dated 4 March 1992.

[2] On 19 December 2024:

2.1 After considering all cause papers, evidence at the trial, and the parties' respective arguments on a balance of probabilities, I find that the plaintiff failed to discharge his burden to establish his case against the defendants. Accordingly, I dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

2.2 After hearing parties on costs, I have awarded global costs of RM60,000.00 to D1-D2, RM35,000.00 to D3-D7, RM5,000.00 to D8- D9, payable by P within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, subject to the allocator.

2.3 Aggrieved, P filed this appeal, and my reasons are as follows:

[3] The witnesses at the trial are:

(1) Plaintiff:

PW1:Mr Tay Kin Meng

PW2: Mr Tan Hun Ee, solicitor for LAM's estate

(2) D2 and D3:

DW1: Mr Siow Kwen Sia (Forensic Handwriting Expert)

DW2: Mr Ong Ghee Soon

(3) D3 to D7:

DW3: Mr Ong Ghee Sai (as representative of the estate of his father, Ong Soo Kan (originally the 3rd Defendant), who was a beneficiary of the estate of LAM and one of the administrators de bonis non of the estate of LAM.

(4) On the hearing date:

(a) The learned counsel for P informed me that P would not take the stand to give evidence and be cross-examined by the Ds counsels.

(b) The defendants' counsels were taken by surprise since they were not informed, and they were, in fact, ready to cross-examine P on his witness statement.

(c) At this juncture, I agree with the D3-D7's counsels that since P did not take the stand at trial, his witness statement (encl 122) was never admitted into evidence and should be disregarded.

[4] The Background Facts In Anutshell:

4.1 One Loh Ah Moy @ Loh Siew Keng (LAM-the deceased) has a vast estate located in Malaysia and overseas:

(1) She passed away on 25 March 2001, leaving her last Will and Testament (Will) dated 4 March 1992, which is not disputed:

L.106, CBOD, pp 7-9

(2) A grant of probate was initially issued on 11 December 2001:

L.106, CBOD, p 6

(3) P and D1 were appointed co-executors and co-trustees of the deceased's estate under the Will.

(4) However, under a Court Order dated 22 December 2022 at Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit N WA-22NCvC-542-08/2021, it was ordered that P be removed as the executor and trustee of the deceased's estate.

(5) P's appeal to the CoA was dismissed, and his motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was similarly dismissed.

(6) On 20 June 2023, the Grant of Letters of Administration de bonis non dated 19 June 2023 was issued to D8 and D9 vide OS No WA- 31NCvC- 1631-05/2023.

4.2 The present dispute is founded on P's claim for three (3) safety 110 deposit boxes in the estate of LAM:

(1) Initially, there were five (5) disputed safety deposit boxes, but the parties later conceded that two (2) of the safety deposit boxes were to be given to P.

(2) P claimed that these three (3) safety deposit boxes are not included in the deceased's will and, therefore, are not subject to be distributed to the other beneficiaries (the defendants) of the estate of the deceased. He claims the boxes and their contents for himself.

(3) Upon the expiry of the Will trust on the 20th anniversary (25 March 2021) of the deceased's passing, it opened the door for P to claim the three (3) boxes and their contents, disregarding the other beneficiaries.

4.3 P took out the present action under OS: WA-24NCVC-673-04/2021, notwithstanding substantial factual disputes and allegations of fraud 125 involved. On 15 December 2021, the Court ordered the OS action be converted to t