Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5346
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SPPT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WORLDWIDE PLANTATION SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCvC)(W)-66-01/2023]
The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of issues already adjudicated, affirming the validity of the sale and purchase agreement under Islamic law.
Headnote:(A) Administration of Islamic Law (Amendment) Enactment 1963; Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1955; 2001 Terengganu Enactment - Res judicata - The Appellant's action to terminate a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) was dismissed as it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, given prior judgments on the same matter. The Appellant failed to prove the Respondent breached the SPA. The KL High Court upheld the validity of the KT High Court's earlier decision, confirming the SPA was enforceable under Islamic law. (Paras 7, 44, 56-114)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant, a sub-lessee, sold land to the Respondent under an SPA, which the Appellant later sought to terminate, claiming it was void due to failure to pay the balance purchase price. The KT High Court found no breach, and the Appellant's appeal was subsequently barred by res judicata.
Findings of Court:
The KL High Court affirmed the KT High Court's decision, ruling the SPA valid and binding, noting the Appellant's claims were previously adjudicated.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the KT High Court's order, the applicability of the Syariah Court Consent Order, the doctrine of res judicata, and whether the action constituted an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the SPA was enforceable, and the Appellant was estopped from relitigating the matter due to prior judgments.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondent.
A. Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant, SPPT Development Sdn Bhd, against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court ("KL High Court") in dismissing its action against the Respondent, Worldwide Plantation Sdn Bhd, in Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-293-06/2017 ("Suit 293").
[2] The Appellant is the sub-lessee of the Lands forming part of the Chenderong Concession located in the state of Terengganu Darul Iman, under the Principal Sub-Lease Agreement between it and Tis 'Ata Ashar Sdn Bhd.
[3] In 1999, pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement dated 7 December 1999 between the Appellant and the Respondent ("SPA"), the Appellant sold to the Respondent the whole of the unexpired term of the sub-lease under the Principal Sub-Lease Agreement on an "as is where is" basis for the sum of the RM4,000,000.00. The terms "Lands", "Chenderong Concession", "Original Lease Agreements" and "Principal Sub-Lease Agreement" are defined in the body of this judgment.
[4] In 2001, the Appellant filed Suit No 22-13-2001 ("Suit 13") in the Kuala Terengganu High Court ("KT High Court"), where it sought, inter alia, for a declaration that the SPA be terminated and that it is entitled to forfeit the deposit in the sum of RM400,000.00 paid by the Respondent under the SPA, and for an order that vacant possession of the said Lands be re-delivered to the Appellant.
[5] After four non-consecutive days of full trial, the KT High Court in its judgment in Suit 13 dated 9 December 2012, found that the Appellant failed to prove that the Respondent had breached the SPA. The Court dismissed the Appellant's claim for termination of the SPA and ordered the Respondent to pay the balance purchase price of RM500,000.00 on or before 8 January 2013, which the Respondent duly did. The Appellant's appeal against the KT High Court's Order in Suit 13 was struck out by the Court of Appeal and its application for reinstatement of the appeal was dismissed. Its application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.
[6] The Appellant then, in 2017, filed Suit 293 at the KL High Court seeking, inter alia, to impugn the KT High Court's Order in Suit 13 and for an order that the SPA be terminated.
[7] The KL High Court in its decision dated 22 December 2022 dismissed the Appellant's action in Suit 293 with costs. The dismissal was, principally, on the grounds that the Appellant is estopped from re-litigating the suit in respect of the SPA under the doctrine of res judicata.
[8] The Appellant being dissatisfied with the KL High Court's decision filed this appeal, where it sought for this Court pursuant to the principles of appellate intervention to set-aside the decision of the KL High Court and allow its claim in Suit 293.
B. Material Background Facts
Chenderong Concession
[9] The subject matter of Suit 13, Suit 293 and this appeal are lands known as Block 4 (sublot 71, 72 and 73) and Block 6 (sublot 67) of the Chenderong Concession ("the said Lands").
[10] The Chenderong Concession was a concession made pursuant to the Concessions Enactment (Terengganu) No 3 of 1344 by way of a Royal Grant dated 25 February 1906 by Sultan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu to his daughter, Tengku Nik Maimunah Hajjah binti Sultan Zainal Abidin ("Tengku Maimunah") and her husband, Tengku Ngah bin Tengku Abdul Rahim ("Tengku Ngah"), where His Highness conveyed onto them exclusive rights in perpetuity over the area of land referred to as the "Chenderong Concession".
[11] The Chenderong Concession measures approximately 63,448 acres. It is made up of parcels of land hereditaments lying to the right side of Sungai Cherol in the District of Kemaman, the boundaries whereof are defined (when facing upstream) as following down the Sungai Cherol and the Sungai Chenderong and then entering the Sungai Burong following the Bandi Boundary into Sungai Sendok up to Sungai Rong Kechil and then upstream to the Pahang boundary, then followin
