Litigants bypassing established court jurisdiction to consolidate claims inappropriately limits fair judicial process, leading to a transfer to the appropriate subordinate court.

JUDGMENT

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin JC:

A. Introduction

[1] I called the matter up for case management on 23 May 2022 and questioned parties whether this matter should appropriately be heard before the Sessions Court.

[2] The defendant agreeing to the same, applied orally for this Court to exercise its power to transfer the proceedings to the Sessions Court under O 57 r 1 of the Rules of 2012.

[3] The plaintiffs unhappy with the said order, have since appealed to the Court of Appeal.

[4] The following paragraphs contain my reasons for exercising my powers under O 57 of the Rules of 2012 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to have the matter heard before the Sessions Court. I find that based on the disputes between the parties, this suit will be conveniently and fairly tried before the Sessions Court.

B. The Dispute Between The Plaintiffs And The Defendant

[5] When I peruse the Statement of Claim by the 16 plaintiffs, it is apparent to me that the claims relate to the alleged failure by the defendant to deliver vacant possession according to the time frame provided for under each of the Sale and Purchase Agreements and under the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966.

[6] Each plaintiff had entered into separate agreements with the defendants on different dates and paid booking fees on different dates as seen in Table 1 that appears in the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim.

[7] I also note that each plaintiff is seeking separate specific amounts below the sum of RM 1,000,000 against the defendant. The late delivery claim for their private property and common property, interest payable and the date of vacant possession for each plaintiff are different.

[8] If one looks at the claim, it is apparent that each of the plaintiff claims in Schedule 1 is for a sum less than RM 1,000,000.00 and one even as low as RM 28,000.00. For ease of convenience, I reproduce the aforesaid Table 1 of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim:

C. Reasons Why The Matter Should Be Heard In The Sessions Court

C.1 Each Plaintiff's Cause Of Action Falls Within The Jurisdiction Of The Sessions Court

[9] I find that each plaintiff has a separate cause of action with their separate remedy claimed against the defendant. Each of these claims, although similar in nature and law, is based on separate agreements. The liability of the parties is not joint and several in any form whatsoever and are independent of one another based on each agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

[10] I find that as each plaintiff's claim falls within the threshold of the civil jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, this matter should be heard by the Sessions Court.

[11] It must be noted that the Sessions Court's jurisdiction was increased from RM 250,000.00 to RM 1,000,000 under the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010 . The Sessions Court has also been given powers to grant an injunction and make a declaration in respect of any action that falls within its jurisdiction.

[12] The plaintiffs' counsel contends that he is entitled to have the matter heard in the High Court as they have decided to consolidate the action into a single suit according to O 15 r 4 of the Rules of 2012. He contends that the reason for this consolidation is to enable (i) the same common question of law or fact that appears in each separate claim to be heard once and for all in a single suit and (ii) that the rights to relief arises out of the same series of transaction ie, similar sale and purchase agreements with the defendant. Therefore, he argues that this entitles the plaintiffs to collate the total sum claim against the defendant which exceeds the sum of RM 1,000,000 thus failing exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Court.

[13] I have no qualms about the plaintiffs' consolidation and utilization of O 15 r 4 in filling a single claim against the defendant. This however does not mean that the "amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter" exceeds RM 1,000,000.00. Despite the conso