The court affirmed the applicability of Res Judicata, ruling that plaintiffs cannot relitigate claims previously adjudicated, as it constitutes an abuse of process.

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin JC:

A. Introduction

[1] The 1st to 7th Defendants have applied to strike out the claim against them under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata based on the judgments of the Magistrate Court in the Suits bearing number: WA-A72-183-11/2020 and WA-A72NCVC-837-2021 instituted by the 1st and the 4th Defendants.

[2] As stated earlier, there were two suits filed by the 1st Defendant and the 4th Defendant before the Magistrate Court against the 1st Plaintiff.

[3] In the Suit 183 the 4th Defendant was seeking a recovery for vacant possession of the property and in the suit 837, the 1st Defendant was seeking recovery of rentals and charges outstanding against the 1st Plaintiff. These two suits were commenced separately by each of the aforesaid Defendants against the 1st Plaintiff.

[4] In the Defence filed by the 1st Plaintiff in both suits before the Magistrate Court, the said Plaintiff had pleaded that:

4.1 It had undertaken the business of an inn and a restaurant jointly with DZH Health Resort Sdn Bhd on the said land. DZH Resort Sdn Bhd is the second Plaintiff in this proceeding.

4.2 The 1st Plaintiff had undertaken the said business and resided on the said land as a tenant since 2013. The tenancy should have been continued until 2029 based on the options available in the said tenancy agreement dated 12 December 2013.

4.3 The tenancy on the said land should be governed by the agreement dated 12 December 2013 and not the Tenancy dated 25 April 2019.

4.4 The 1st Plaintiff also raised the issue of 3 letters that were allegedly issued by one Lee Man Onn to renew the said tenancy.

4.5 However, the 1st Plaintiff received a notice of assignment dated 10 March 2020 to assign the Terms of the Tenancy Agreement dated 25 April 2019.

4.6 The said tenancy Agreement dated 25 April 2019 is not valid as the 1st Plaintiff did not sign or execute it.

4.7 The 1st Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the 12 December 2013 Tenancy Agreement and the right to purchase the said land if it was for sale.

4.8 The 1st Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the arbitration agreement appearing in the said Tenancy Agreement dated 12 December 2013.

4.9 The 1st Plaintiff also alleges, without sufficient particulars, that the transactions were undertaken by way of fraud, that the documents were forged and fraudulent misrepresentation against the 1st Defendant. These issues were also raised in this suit.

[5] The 4th Defendant sought summary judgment against the 1st Plaintiff in the suit WA-A72-183-2020 (183 Suit) and was successful in the proceedings before the Magistrate Court. The Magistrate Court found in favor of the 4th Defendant and entered summary judgment against the 1st Plaintiff on 4 March 2021 in the suit bearing number WA-A72-183-2020.

[6] The 1st Plaintiff then filed an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate Court. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court in the appeal bearing number WA011ANCVC-37-02/2021 on 20 April 2021.

[7] The 1st Defendant also sought summary judgment against the 1st Plaintiff in the suit bearing number WA-A72NCVC-837-2021 (837 Suit) and judgment was entered on 28 May 2021. An appeal was filed against the said decision and was apparently dismissed by the High Court.

[8] Parts of the grounds of the learned Magistrate are reproduced herein:

WA-A72-183-2020

[6] Mahkamah ini kemudiannya meneliti eksibit LMO-10 dalam lampiran 15 dan eksibit C-3 dalam lampiran 8 di mana deponen selaku pengarah Defendan telah menerima dan memperakui notis penyerahan hak kepada Tropicana Makmur (tuan tanah baru) tanpa sebarang bantahan. Defendan bertindak meneruskan urusan penyewaan dengan tuan tanah baru juga tanpa bantahan. Deponen sendiri memperakui LMO-10 ini dan tiada sebarang bantahan dikemukakan atas penyerahan hak kepada tuan tanah baru pada 13 Mac 2020.

[7] Penelitian lanjut terhadap eksibit LMO-4 mendapati Defendan mengakui tunggakan sewaan apabila membuat permintaan b