Res judicata precludes a party from litigating identical issues already adjudicated in a competent court.

[1] The Notice of Application filed by the defendant sought to strike out the plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 9 December 2014 pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of 2012. The application was premised principally on the defendant's contention that the same issues and claims had already been adjudicated by the High Court vide the Originating Summons No: 24-2896-2008 which led consequently to the said Originating Summons being struck out of which there was no appeal filed by the plaintiff (the first suit). The plaintiff's present action, therefore, is barred by res judicata. The High Court dismissed the Notice of Application on 21 May 2015. We heard the appeal against the decision of the learned judge in dismissing the defendant's application. On 5 May 2016, at the conclusion of the arguments by both learned counsel, we unanimously allowed the appeal. For the ease of reference, parties to this appeal will be referred to as they were in the Court below. We shall lay down the summary of some of the material facts first and thereafter consider the merits of, and give our reasons for allowing, the appeal.

[2] The Government of the State of Johor (the State Authority) had approved the alienation to the plaintiff two pieces of land known as PTD 1057 HS(D) 7586 and PTD 1057A HS(D) 7587 Mukim of Sedili Besar in the District of Sungai Kota Tinggi, Johor having an area of approximately 418 acres and 260 acres respectively (collectively referred to as the said land). It is an irrefutable fact that the said land is a Malay reservation.

[3] Pursuant to a lease agreement dated 5 May 1987, in consideration of the sum of RM130,000.00, the plaintiff leased the said land to Selangka Sdn Bhd for a period of 60 years to be developed into an oil palm plantation (Exh AK-1). The lease was approved by the State Authority on 2 March 1988 and subsequently registered as No 10507/1988 Jilid 9, Folio 54 (Exhs AK-3 and AK-4). Selangka Sdn Bhd at the material time was wholly owned by Malays.

[4] The facts gleaned from the Statement of Claim revealed that in 2008, the plaintiff had made a search at Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia and they discovered that the defendant was not a Malay holding as the shareholders were not Malays. The plaintiff therefore averred that the lease was not valid and void by virtue of s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. On 24 July 2014, the plaintiff applied to the Land Office, Johor to revoke the lease on like grounds. In August 2014, the land title in respect of the said land was returned by the Land Office to the plaintiff with the lease endorsement thereon cancelled. The plaintiff's solicitors thereupon sent a notice dated 6 October 2014 to the defendant stating that the lease was null and void as it had contravened the law and giving one month to the defendant to vacate the said land and surrender it to the plaintiff.

[5] The plaintiff had also alleged that the defendant's solicitors CF Wong & Co had written to the plaintiff on 27 October 2014 notifying them that the subject matter in the notice of 6 October 2014 had already been adjudicated by the High Court in Johor Bahru vide the first suit. However, the plaintiff averred that the first suit actually challenged the registration of the defendant's lease and was thus different from the present action.

[6] In their present action, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the registration of the lease No 10507/1988 Jilid 9, Folio 54 lease was void as the shares in Sungai Dinar Sdn Bhd qua the defendant were owned by non-Malays and an order that the defendant immediately returned the vacant possession of the