Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4836
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 court reaffirmed the applicability of res judicata and issue estoppel, holding the Appellant's claim inadmissible due to prior litigation resulting from the same factual basis and legal principles.
Headnote:(A) Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1955; Administration of Islamic Law (Amendment) Enactment 1963 (1382) - Sections 63 and 64; Wakaf Validating Enactment No 10/1972 - Appeal against dismissal of claim - Appellant's action found caught by res judicata; appeal dismissed based on doctrine of abuse of process and estoppel. (Paras 7, 44, 47, 119)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant, SPPT Development Sdn Bhd, appealed the KL High Court's dismissal of its case against Worldwide Plantation Sdn Bhd regarding the termination of a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) involving lands identified as wakaf, previously litigated under Suit 13. The Appellant argued that its authority to transfer the lands was restricted. (Paras 1, 3, 58, 60)
Findings of Court:
The KL High Court properly applied res judicata, determining that the Appellant's claims were previously litigated and dismissed; the SPA remains valid and enforceable. The Appellant was determined to be abusing court processes by attempting to relitigate matters settled by prior judgments. (Paras 7, 120)
Issues: (a) Validity of the KT High Court's order in Suit 13; (b) Relevance of the Syariah Court Consent Order; (c) Applicability of res judicata to Suit 293; (d) Whether the filing constituted an abuse of process. (Paras 56-60)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the Appellant’s SPA was valid under statutory provisions and that its attempts to challenge earlier findings were precluded by doctrine; the procedural integrity of the judicial system demands finality and discourages repetitive litigation. (Paras 107, 114, 118)
Result: Appeal dismissed. (Para 120)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to appeal context (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. background of chenderong concession and wakaf (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. lease agreements and their implications (Para 21 , 22 , 29 , 35 , 39 , 42) |
| 4. parties' arguments on spa validity (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 5. legal framework of wakaf and trustee rights (Para 56 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 6. nature of rights in spa and enforceability (Para 72 , 73 , 81 , 82) |
| 7. obligations and illegalities under spa (Para 84 , 86 , 92) |
| 8. jurisdiction and authority in contracts (Para 93 , 94 , 96) |
| 9. judicial findings supporting res judicata (Para 101 , 105 , 114 , 119) |
| 10. final ruling and costs (Para 120) |
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
