The central legal principle established is that a litigant can be declared vexatious for persistently pursuing previously adjudicated claims, thereby abusing the court process.

[1] To determine whether a litigant is a vexatious litigant is an unpleasant process, to say the least. Considerations must be made to the facts at hand that demonstrate repeated filing of suits on matter(s) already decided upon, which in turn, may conclude actions ill-favoured that they tantamount to habitual and persistent conduct. The declared vexatious litigant would thereafter not be allowed to commence any further legal suits save by leave of the court. Such an order shall be gazetted. For this case, such application stemmed from the unfortunate protracted legal drama between father and son that had flooded our superior courts since 2017.

[2] The 1st Plaintiff, the patriarch of the Kam family, together with 10 of the companies hereinafter referred to as the Raub Mining Development Company Sdn Bhd or RMDC Group, had filed this application by way of Originating Summons (OS) to declare his estranged son, the Defendant, a vexatious litigant. The 2nd Plaintiff (Raub Mining & Development Company Sdn Bhd or RMDC) wholly owns the 3rd Plaintiff (Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd or ROM). The 4th to 11th Plaintiffs collectively own approximately 90% of the RMDC, making the 4th to 11th Plaintiffs the Corporate Shareholders of RMDC.

[3] The 1st Plaintiff is the majority shareholder of the Corporate Shareholders. The first ground relied upon by the Plaintiffs in seeking to have the Defendant declared a vexatious litigant is the Defendant's continued pursuit of a cause of action that has already been conclusively determined. Despite the court of Appeal's ruling that the Defendant holds no beneficial or indirect interest in the shareholdings of the 2nd to 11th Plaintiffs, he has persisted in asserting this claim, most notably through the filing of Kuala Lumpur High court Suit No WA-22NCC-103-03-2024 (Suit 103).

[4] In addition to Suit 103, the Defendant has initiated various other proceedings, including applications for leave to commit the 1st Plaintiff and several directors of the RMDC Group of Companies for contempt, the filing of garnishee proceedings to enforce cost orders in his favour notwithstanding his own substantial unpaid cost liabilities to the Plaintiffs, an application under the Mental Health Act 2001 for an inquiry into the mental capacity of the 1st Plaintiff, and multiple applications to recuse judges from hearing his matters.

[5] The Plaintiffs contended that these actions, taken collectively, are vexatious in nature and constitute a misuse of the judicial process. They further submitted that the Defendant's consistent failure to satisfy costs orders made against him reinforces the conclusion that he is deploying litigation oppressively, burdening the court system and the Plaintiffs with an onslaught of unwarranted legal proceedings.

[6] In determining this application made by the Plaintiffs, this court considered the oral arguments by the learned counsels for all parties and the written submissions filed. All the facts disclosed in the affidavits, including the cause papers and judgments by the court, were taken into account in arriving at this decision. With the application of the authorities cited, this court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' application ought to be allowed.

History Of The Legal Proceedings

[7] The genesis of this long-running family dispute appears to trace back to a pivotal and highly publicised event on 7 March 2017, when the 1st Plaintiff publicly disowned and disinherited the Defendant via a national newspaper announcement. What followed was, in many respects, a decisive and confrontational response by the Defendant — an act that marked the crossing of a proverbial Rubicon. He as