Back
2020 MarsdenLR 1928
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
NAZARUDDIN MOHD SHARIFF @ MASARI & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ROSLAN MAULUD & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: 22NCVC-599-12/2018]
Pursuing multiple suits on identical issues constitutes an abuse of process, warranting the striking out of duplicative claims.
Headnote:(A) Rules of 2012 – Order 18 r 19 – Application to strike out pleadings – Plaintiffs filed Suit 599 and a Counter Claim in Suit 327 raising duplicative issues regarding Lot 864 – Substantial duplication of issues found – Court ruled that Suit 599 constitutes an abuse of process by pursuing similar claims across two suits. (Paras 1-22)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiffs are administrators of a deceased's estate and initiated two suits regarding ownership of Lot 864, raising identical claims against the Defendants who filed a counterclaim. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court: The court finds significant duplicity in the claims made by Plaintiffs in both suits, justifying the striking out of Suit 599 as an abuse of process. (Paras 12-18)
Issues: Whether the claims in Suit 599 are duplicative of Suit 327, and if so, whether this constitutes an abuse of court process. (Paras 12-18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that proceeding with multiple suits based on the same facts and issues constitutes an abuse of judicial process. (Paras 18-20)
Result: Application to strike out Suit 599 granted; costs awarded to Defendants. (Paras 21-22)
[1] This is a Notice of Application dated 24 April 2019 ('encl 27') filed by the Defendants pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ('ROC') and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court wherein the Defendants pray for, amongst others, the following reliefs:
(a) That the entire Writ and Statement of Claim dated 13 March 2019 filed by the Plaintiffs herein to be struck out against the Defendants in its entirely for being scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and/or may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action and/or an abuse of the process of the Court;
(b) That costs of the application to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants; and
(c) Any other orders and/or reliefs deemed just and suitable by this Honourable Court
Background Facts
(1) The Plaintiffs are the administrators of the late Masri bin Khatib's estate. The deceased (the father to Plaintiffs) who died intestate in 1988 where the Letters of Administration were obtained in 2017.
(2) In 2008, on 30 June 2008, a Power of Attorney ('PA') dated 30 June 2008 had been executed in favour of the Defendants at which time there were no Letters of Administration issued for the estate of the late Masri bin Khatib.
(3) Initially, the Plaintiffs filed a counter claim in Suit 327 and subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed Suit 599 (the current suit) against the Defendants.
History Of Suits 599 And 327
(1) The Plaintiffs filed Suit 599 here against the Defendants for the determination of ownership of Lot 864 which is only one of the properties / plots of land under the Estate of one Sultan Palembang.
(2) The Defendants filed the Shah Alam High Court Civil Suit No: BA-22NCVC-327-07/2018 (herein referred to as Suit 327) against the Plaintiffs for the determination of ownership of five (5) plots of land, including Lot 2225, Lot 2227, Lot 2228, Lot 2230 and Lot 864 which form part of the Estate of Sultan Palembang while the Plaintiffs (who are the Defendants in Suit 327) have filed a counterclaim which raised substantially the same issues, facts and reliefs with regards to Lot 864 and they further asserted that their late father Masri bin Khatib is the sole proprietor of Lot 864.
Counter Claim Which Was Followed By Suit 599
(3) The Plaintiffs have on 14 March 2019 filed a Counter Claim against the Defendants (Tuntutan Balas Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga) in Suit 327 dated 13 March 2019.
(4) Subsequent to the filing of the Counter Claim in Suit 327, the Plaintiffs proceeded to file Suit 599 before this Honourable Court on 7 March 2019.
(5) The parties named in both suits are essentially the same and inter related with each other namely, Nazaruddin bin Mohd Shariff and Roslan bin Maulud.
Main Ground In Support
[2] In support of Enc. 27 the principal ground was multiplicity/duplicity of proceedings in Suits 599 and 327. It was contended that the Plaintiffs have filed two exactly similar suits based on the same facts, issues, matters and reliefs in both Suit 599 herein (vide the Writ and Statement of Claim) and Suit 327 (vide the Counter-Claim of Defendants 1) to 3).
Duplicity Of Issues In Suit 599 And Suit 327
[3] As pointed out by the Defendant, both suits vide their counterclaim and claim respectively contain identical averments, issues and allegations as enumerated below:
(1) The late Masri bin Khatib is the sole proprietor of Lot 864 and the late Kamin bin Khatib is not entitled to any share in Lot 864.
(2) The 'Surat Kuasa' dated 30 June 2008 is in actual fact a 'Surat Kuasa Wakil' ('Power of Attorney').
(3) The 'Surat Kuasa' is 'cacat, batal, tidak sah, bertentangan dengan undang-undang'.
(4) The late Naharuddin did not have any authority to enter into the 'Surat Kuasa' with the Defendants (Roslan bin Maulud and Mohd Najib).
(5) The 'Surat Kuasa' was not filed in the High Court and the Land Office.
(6) There was no valuable consideration for the said 'Surat Kuasa';
(7) That Roslan bin Maulud and Mohd Najib had r
