The principle of res judicata prevents relitigation of issues already adjudicated, and an interim injunction was deemed an abuse of process due to the Plaintiff's failure to appeal previous decisions.

Introduction

[1] In the afternoon of 16 May 2023, this application came before this Court where the Plaintiff sought for an interim injunction to prohibit the Defendant from enforcing the High Court order dated 25 June 2021, namely (the Plaintiff is the Perayu and the Defendant is the Responden named in the High Court order):

(i) Perayu hendaklah pindah keluar daripada Premis Responden atau memberi milikan kosong dalam tempoh tiga (3) bulan iaitu pada dan/atau sebelum 30 September 2021 yang mana Perayu hendaklah terus membayar sewa buanan seperti kadar sewa bulanan yang telah dibayar sewa bulanan yang telah dibayar sepanjang tempoh 2021 iaitu RM74,911.10 sebulan sehingga 30 September 2021;

(ii) Sekiranya Perayu gagal untuk pindah keluar dari Premis Responden tersebut/gagal memberi milikan kosong selepas 30 September 2021, maka Perayu hendaklah membayar sewa bulanan berganda ("double rental") kepada Responden sehingga urusan pemindahan selesai dan sehingga penyerahan kosong, mana-mana yang terakhir' dan

(iii) Selanjutnya adalah diperintahkan bahawa kesemua hak-hak Responden sepertimana di dalam Perjanjian Penyewaan bertarikh 4 August 2017 adalah dikekalkan.

[2] The High Court order was a decision that dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal against the Session Court order that ruled against it. This Court after perusing the cause papers, affidavits and taking into account the oral submissions by both parties, dismissed this application to injunct the Defendant from executing and enforcing the High Court order, with costs of RM10,000.

[3] This Court found that this was not an instant where the equitable relief of an injunction was appropriate. Before detailing the reasons for the said decision to dismiss, below are the salient facts and the chronology of events that led to the application bearing relevance.

A Narrative Of The Plaintiff's Case

[4] The Defendant, the registered proprietor of the premises with the address of Lot 18.1 Level 18, Menara 2, Menara Kembar Bank Rakyat, No 33 Jalan Rakyat 50470 Kuala Lumpur had tenanted the premise to the Plaintiff. The tenancy was for three years which was from 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2020. There was a dispute that arose as to the extension of the tenancy that resulted in the Plaintiff seeking a Court declaration for an extension of the tenancy.

[5] The Plaintiff sought an injunction to stop the Defendant from eviction but it was dismissed by the Session Court on 2 February 2021. The Plaintiff then appealed to the High Court which was also dismissed on 25 June 2021. This is the High Court order that is the subject matter of the application.

[6] An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, against the High Court order was also dismissed on 29 September 2021. Hence, the High Court order of 25 June 2021 that affirmed the Session Court order of 2.2.201 remains in force. There is no extension of tenancy for the premises and the Plaintiff was required to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the Defendant by 30 September 2021.

[7] The Plaintiff was required to pay rent to the Defendant as agreed until 30 September 2021, after of which the Plaintiff was required to pay to the Defendant double rental amount monthly until the Plaintiff deliver vacant possession of the premises to the Defendant.

[8] At the same time, the Plaintiff then filed a suit to injunct the Defendant from evicting the Plaintiff and to set aside the High Court order. This Originating Summons WA-24NCvC-1705-09/2021 (OS 1705) by the Plaintiff cited that the previous High Court decision lacked jurisdiction so the High Court order was null and void.

[9] On 24 September 2021 (a week before the dismissal of the Pla