1. Application for leave to adduce further affidavit evidence in a Mareva injunction proceeding after the completion of submissions. (Para 1 , 3 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 271
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
WAN MUHAMMAD AMIN WAN YAHYA, J
1Malaysia Development Bhd & Ors – Plaintiff
Versus
Rosmah bt Mansor & Anor – Defendant
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-22NCC-300-05 OF 2024
Advocates:
Lim Chee Wee (with Lee Shih, Nathalie Ker Si Min, Sachin Nair, Villasha Anbalagan and Carolyn Chiang Jia Yin) (Lim Chee Wee Partnership) for the plaintiffs.
Rajan Navaratnam (with Dinesh Nandrajog, Oazair Tyeb and Sheena Sebastian) (Nandrajog) for the first defendant.
Lim Chee Wee (with Lee Shih, Nathalie Ker Si Min, Sachin Nair, Villasha Anbalagan and Carolyn Chiang Jia Yin) (Lim Chee Wee Partnership) for the plaintiffs.
Rajan Navaratnam (with Dinesh Nandrajog, Oazair Tyeb and Sheena Sebastian) (Nandrajog) for the first defendant.
The court generally prohibits filing further affidavits after submissions are completed to ensure procedural finality and prevent piecemeal litigation, especially in time-sensitive Mareva injunction applications, unless exceptional circumstances and sufficient justification are provided.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 34 rule 1(1)(b) - Admission of further affidavit evidence after completion of submissions - General rule is that once parties have completed their submissions, the evidence is deemed closed (Para 18) - Filing of further affidavit evidence after submissions have been filed is not permitted in the absence of proper justification (Para 22) - Procedural finality is not a mere technicality but an essential component of orderly adjudication and an aspect of substantive justice, protecting parties from an indefinite and unpredictable evidential process (Paras 25-26).
(B) Mareva Injunction - Time-sensitive nature - Risk of asset dissipation must be assessed on the evidence available at the time the relief is sought (Para 43) - Continued supplementation of evidence long after the initial filing contradicts the nature of urgent relief; if evidence was sufficient to justify urgent intervention, there is no basis for progressive strengthening of the case through successive affidavits (Paras 46-47).
(C) Piecemeal Litigation - Court must discourage incremental conduct in affidavit-based proceedings to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (Paras 39-40).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed an application for a Mareva injunction and other injunctive reliefs, supported by multiple affidavits. After written submissions and submissions in reply were completed, the Plaintiffs were granted leave to reopen the evidential record once. Subsequently, more than one year after the initial application and approximately seven months after the completion of submissions, the Plaintiffs applied for leave to adduce further affidavit evidence, citing the discontinuance of the action against one of the defendants as a reason for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiffs had been afforded ample opportunity to place their case fully before the Court through seven initial affidavits and a prior reopening of the record. The discontinuance of the action against the second defendant did not constitute sufficient justification for the further delay in filing the proposed evidence.
Issues: Whether the Court has the discretion to admit further affidavit evidence after submissions have been completed, and if so, whether such discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the Plaintiffs in the present circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the discretion to admit further evidence after submissions must be exercised sparingly and only with sufficient justification. Allowing repeated supplementation of evidence leads to piecemeal litigation, undermines procedural finality, and prejudices the opposing party by disrupting the orderly conduct of proceedings. In the context of a time-sensitive Mareva injunction, the evidence available at the time of filing must be sufficient; progressive strengthening of the case through successive affidavits is contrary to the purpose of such relief.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs argue relevance and substantive justice; Defendant contends evidence is closed, alleging piecemeal litigation and prejudice to procedural finality. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. The court found no sufficient justification for reopening the evidential record, noting the time-sensitive nature of Mareva relief and the necessity of procedural finality. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 )
4. Discretion to admit further affidavit evidence after submissions are completed must be exercised sparingly and only upon demonstration of sufficient justification or exceptional circumstances. (Para 18 , 22 , 56 )
5. Application for leave to adduce further affidavit evidence dismissed with costs. (Para 2 , 59 )
6. When can further affidavit evidence be admitted after submissions have been completed?
Generally, evidence is deemed closed once parties begin their submissions. Further affidavits are not permitted unless the party provides proper justification or demonstrates exceptional circumstances that warrant reopening the evidential record. (Para 18 , 22 )
7. How does the principle of procedural finality affect the admission of late evidence?
Procedural finality is an aspect of substantive justice that protects parties from indefinite and unpredictable evidential processes. It prevents piecemeal litigation and ensures the orderly and expeditious disposal of proceedings. (Para 25 , 26 , 40 )
8. Does the nature of a Mareva injunction impact the admission of supplementary evidence?
Yes. Mareva injunctions are time-sensitive, and the risk of dissipation must be assessed on evidence available when relief is sought. Progressive strengthening of a case through successive affidavits contradicts the nature of urgent relief. (Para 43 , 46 , 47 )
9. Does the relevance of proposed evidence automatically justify its admission after submissions?
No. Relevance alone is not determinative. The court must weigh the probative value of the evidence against the prejudice caused by its late admission and the impact on the integrity of the proceedings. (Para 54 , 55 )
Wan Muhammad Amin Wan Yahya J:
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 305)
[1]This is an application by the Plaintiffs (Enclosure 305) pursuant to Order 3 rule 5Order 32 rule 13Order 92 rule 4Rules of Court 2012Enclosures 208 and 296) filed in respect of the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Application dated 10.6.2024 for a Mareva injunction and other injunctive reliefs (Enclosure 18).
[2]After hearing learned counsel and considering the affidavits, exhibits, written submissions and authorities cited, I dismissed Enclosure 305 with costs to the 1st Defendant. These are my grounds.
A] SALIENT BACKGROUND FACTS
[3]On 10.6.2024, the Plaintiffs filed the Injunction Application (Enclosure 18) together with a Certificate of Urgency, seeking urgent injunctive relief, including Mareva relief, premised on an alleged risk of asset dissipation.
[4]Enclosure 18 was supported by two Affidavits in Support affirmed on 10.6.2024.
[5]Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed three further affidavits in support of Enclosure 18, namely:
i)a Supplementary Affidavit dated 13.6.2024 (Enclosures 37–38);
ii)a further Supplementary Affidavit dated 27.6.2024 (Enclosure 51); and
iii)an Additional Affidavit dated 16.7.2024 (Enclosure 140).
[6]The 1st Defendant filed two Affidavits in Reply on 24.7.2024 (Enclosures 208 and 209).
[7]The Plaintiffs subsequently filed two Affidavits in Reply dated 14.8.2024 and 16.8.2024 respectively (Enclosures 219 and 220).
[8]Written submissions and submissions in reply in respect of Enclosure 18 were filed by the parties and were completed on 15.11.2024.
[9]On 11.12.2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Application (Enclosure 276) seeking leave to file a further supplementary affidavit in respect of Enclosure 18 (“Leave Application (1)”).
[10]The matter was subsequently transferred before me, being the third Judge assigned to hear this case. At the first case management before me, I invited parties to consider whether Leave Application (1) could be resolved. The 1st Defendant thereafter agreed not to oppose the application. Leave was accordingly granted, and further affidavits and submissions were thereafter filed in respect of Enclosure 18.
[11]On 9.4.2025, the Plaintiffs entered into a Consent Order with the 2nd Defendant wherein the Plaintiffs discontinued their action against the 2nd Defendant with liberty to file afresh.
[12]On 20.6.2025, more than one year after the filing of Enclosure 18 and approximately seven months after the completion of submissions, the Plaintiffs filed the present application in Enclosure 305 seeking leave to adduce further affidavit evidence in relation to Enclosure 18.
B] THE PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS
[13]The Plaintiffs contended that:
i)the proposed further evidence is relevant and material to the issues arising in Enclosure 18, including the existence of a good arguable case against the Defendants and the alleged risk of asset dissipation;
ii)the Court retains discretion under the Rules of Court 2012 to admit further evidence;
iii)no serious prejudice would be occasioned to the 1st Defendant as she could respond by way of affidavit; and
iv)the overriding objective of justice warrants the admission of the additional material.
[14]The Plaintiffs submitted that the Court should prioritise substantive justice over procedural technicality.
C] THE 1ST DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS
[15]The 1st Defendant submitted that:
i)the evidence was closed upon completion of submissions on 15.11.2024;
ii)the general rule is that parties are not permitted to file further affidavits after submissions have been completed;
iii)the application constitutes piecemeal litigation and an abuse of process; and
iv)allowing further evidence at this stage would cause prejudice and undermine finality.
[16]The 1st Defendant further submitted that litigation must not be permitted to drag on indefinitely.
D] ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
[17]The issues for determination are as follows:
i)Whether the Court has the discretion to admit further affidavit evidence after submissions have been completed; and
i
