Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4406
HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
TYE WAN OON & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
LOH BAN HOCK & ORS (ENCLS 7 & 9) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-22NCvC-73-05/2024]
The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of claims previously adjudicated, emphasizing the finality of consent judgments.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 25(2) - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 Rule 19 - Striking out of pleadings - The court struck out the Plaintiffs' suit against the relevant Defendants on grounds of res judicata, finding the claim to be frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of process. The Plaintiffs sought to set aside a consent judgment from a previous suit, alleging lack of authority of their former chairman to enter into the judgment. The court held that the issues raised were identical to those in the previous action, which had been dismissed. (Paras 32, 36, 59, 80)
(B) Res Judicata - The court emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata applies to prevent relitigation of issues that have been previously adjudicated, reinforcing the principle of finality in litigation. (Paras 62, 64)
(C) Consent Judgment - The court found that the consent judgment was valid and binding, as the Association had the capacity to enter into it, and the grounds for setting it aside were previously considered and dismissed. (Paras 55, 58)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, as office bearers of a registered society, sought to set aside a consent judgment from a prior suit involving the sale of land, claiming their former chairman acted without authority. The relevant Defendants had previously sued for trespass and obtained a consent judgment for the sale of land.
Findings of Court:
The court found the Plaintiffs' current action to be an abuse of process due to the identical nature of the claims in the previous action, which had been dismissed.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Plaintiffs could relitigate the consent judgment and whether the action was barred by res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiffs could not relitigate the same issues as in the previous action, emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation and the validity of the consent judgment.
Result: The Plaintiffs' action was struck out, and their application for an interim preservation order was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiffs filed a notice of application dated 23 August 2024 vide Enclosure 7 for an interim preservation order to preserve the status quo of the subject land pending the disposal of this suit. Enclosure 7 is made under s 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and O 29 r 2 of the Rules of 2012.
[2] The 2nd and 3th Defendants (collectively the "relevant Defendants") in turn filed a notice of application dated 3 September 2024 vide Enclosure 9 to strike out the Plaintiffs' suit against them. Enclosure 9 is made under O 18 r 19 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Rules of 2012.
[3] The 1st Defendant ("D1") did not enter an appearance in this suit.
[4] On 2 December 2024,1 allowed encl 9 and struck out the Plaintiffs' suit against the relevant Defendants. Consequently, I dismissed the Plaintiffs' application for an interim preservation order vide encl 7. Here are the grounds of my decision.
Consent Judgment
[5] This suit is commenced by the Plaintiffs to set aside a consent judgment that was entered into on 28 September 2022 ("consent judgment"). The consent judgment was recorded in another suit, namely Penang High Court Civil Suit No: PA - 22 NCvC - 134 - 05 / 2019 ("initial suit").
[6] In this suit, the Plaintiffs are suing as the office bearers of the Kew Loong Sern Tze (Cheng Choo Tze) Devotee Association in Batu Maung, Penang ("Association"). The de facto plaintiff is the Association. I shall refer to the Plaintiffs as the Association.
[7] The Association is a society registered under the Societies Act 1966 . The 1st Plaintiff is the current chairman of the Association. The 2nd Plaintiff is the current treasurer of the Association. They were appointed as such on 26 April 2024.
[8] The relevant Defendants in this suit were the plaintiffs in the initial suit. The two defendants in the initial suit were sued as the office bearers of the Association. They were the then chairman and the secretary respectively of the Association.
[9] The terms of the consent judgment are as follows (for easy reference, the parties will be addressed according to their capacity in this suit):
(i) The Plaintiffs shall sell the portion of the land that they currently own which is 757 square feet (said portion of the subject land), and the relevant Defendants shall purchase the said portion of the subject land at a price of RM250.00 per square foot;
(ii) The Plaintiffs must hand over vacant possession of the said portion of the subject land that they are occupying by demolishing all the Chinese temple buildings / structures erected thereon within 10 months from the date of this consent judgment;
(iii) The relevant Defendants agree to pay 50% of the purchase price to the Plaintiffs upon signing of the sale and purchase agreement in respect of the said portion of the subject land within the period agreed to in paragraph (iv) below. And the balance 50% of the purchase price will be paid to the Plaintiffs after vacant possession of the said portion of the subject land is handed over as agreed in paragraph (ii) above;
(iv) The sale and purchase agreement in respect of the said portion of the subject land will be signed by both parties within 1 month from the date of this consent judgment; and
(v) The Plaintiffs shall pay the costs of the said suit amounting to RM1,500.00 to the relevant Defendants, which is to be deducted from the purchase price agreed upon above.
Background Facts
[10] The Association and the relevant Defendants are amongst the registered owners of a piece of undivided land situated at Tempat Bayan Lepas, Daerah Barat Daya, Negeri Pulau Pinang ("subject land"). The Association owns an undivided share of 14976 / 2695680 in the subject land.
The Initial Suit
[11] The relevant Defendants commenced the initial suit against the Association based on trespass. They claimed vacant possession of the portion of the subject land on which the Chinese temple and the surrounding structures are erected on. They sought an o
