The court emphasized that a transfer of jurisdiction is discretionary and must be based on genuine claims with sufficient particulars, rejecting the Plaintiff's attempt to transfer the case as a delay tactic.

Decision

[1] On 3 June 2025 this Court dismissed the Plaintiff's application to transfer CivilSuit No: WA-A52NCvC-856-10/2024 from the Sessions Court to the High Court. Having heard the submissions of all parties and having considered the affidavits filed, this Court finds that:

(i) The Sessions Court has adequate jurisdiction to hear this matter under ss 65 and 66 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 ( SCA );

(ii) The transfer of the case to the High Court would not serve the interests of justice - O 57 r 1 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC);

(iii) The threshold assessment of the genuineness of the counterclaim was not fulfilled by the Plaintiff;

(iv) Procedural impropriety and delay on the part of the Plaintiffs;

(v) Prejudice and judicial efficiency warrant the Sessions Court to continue adjudicating the case.

[2] The Plaintiff has lodged an appeal against this Court's decision.

Background Of The Case

[3] On 9 October 2024 the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed an action against the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court for vacant possession of the property held under C04-10 Palm Court Condominium, Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad, Brickfields 50470 Kuala Lumpur. The 2nd Defendant is the lawful registered proprietor and/or owner of the property. They also claimed from the Plaintiff the sum of RM129,105.65 which was the rental for the property from 2019 to 2024.

[4] The Plaintiff sought extensions of time and finally filed her Defence and Counterclaim on 31 December 2024. in the Plaintiff's Counterclaim is a whole host of allegations, amongst them, fraud.

[5] On 7 February 2025, the Defendants filed an application to strike out the Plainitff's Defence and Counterclaim. This was simultaneous with their filing of Reply to the Plaintiff's Defence and their Defence to the Plaintiff's Counterclaim.

[6] On 3 March 2025 the Plaintiff filed this application to transfer the case to the High Court. The Plaintiff's counsel in her oral submissions before this Court reasoned that the transfer was required because this was a family and a probate matter. She had also argued that the Counterclaim seeking RM1,000,000.00 against each Defendant was beyond the Sessions Court's jurisdiction.

[7] The Defendants objected to the transfer application pointing out that the case is not a probate matter but one claiming vacant possession and rental owing. The property is under the name of the 2nd Defendant. They were seeking for vacant possession of the same.

[8] The counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants highlighted that there was a delay on the part of the Plaintiff that showed the transfer application was not bona fide. First of all, the time of 3 months for the filing of the Plaintiff's Defence and Counterclaim was granted to her. That, according to the Defendants had allowed to crystalize her afterthought of claiming a sum of RM1,000,000.00 from each of the Defendants without particulars. Then, her filing of this transfer application which was only filed after the Defendants sought to strike out the Plaintiff's Defence and Counterclaim at the Sessions Court, was a deliberate calculation to delay the prompt resolution of the latter at the Sessions Court.

[9] The 1st and 2nd Defendant contended that the Plaintiff's action to transfer the case to the High Court was a delay tactic to frustrate the Defendant's case at the Sessions Court and to prejudice them as they have to incur higher legal costs at the High Court. It was submitted that thi