Back
2026 MarsdenLR 2010
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NIXON KENNEDY KUMBONG, JC
WONG SHI KHAI – Appellant
Versus
SIA MING YAN – Respondent
[Case No: WA-24NCvC-5882-12/2025]
Mandatory and interlocutory injunctions require clear, undisputed facts. They will be refused where damages are an adequate remedy, where the applicant fails to meet procedural requirements, or where the relief would effectively determine the substantive dispute by shutting down a long-standing business operation before trial.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 20, Order 29 rule 1, Order 32 rule 13(2) - Interlocutory injunction - Mandatory injunction - Procedural requirements for affidavits and amendments - An affidavit filed after the exchange of pleadings without leave of the court may be disregarded to maintain procedural fairness (Paras 26, 28, 31). Substantive amendments to pleadings during a hearing require a formal application and cannot be introduced orally (Paras 35, 36).
(B) Interlocutory and Mandatory Injunctions - Governing test - Serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages, and balance of convenience (Para 37). Mandatory injunctions require a higher threshold and should be reserved for exceptional cases where the factual matrix is clear and undisputed (Paras 38, 49, 50). Where damages are an adequate remedy for business losses and there is a risk that the injunction would effectively determine the final dispute by shutting down an existing business, the balance of convenience dictates the preservation of the status quo (Paras 43, 45, 47, 48).
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought prohibitory and mandatory injunctions to restrain the respondent from occupying the premises and to compel the respondent to vacate, claiming rights as a new tenant. The respondent, who had been in occupation for several years, disputed the applicant's standing and the validity of the occupancy documents. The applicant attempted to introduce an additional affidavit without leave and sought to amend the prayers for relief orally during the hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the preliminary objections against the filing of an unauthorized affidavit and the oral amendment of prayers. Applying the test for interlocutory relief, the court held that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant had not shown irreparable harm as commercial losses were compensable. The balance of convenience favored the respondent, as granting the injunction would force the closure of an existing business and effectively grant final relief before trial.
Issues: The main issues were the procedural propriety of filing an additional affidavit and amending reliefs orally, the standard for granting mandatory injunctions at an interlocutory stage, and where the balance of convenience lies between conflicting claims of lawful possession.
Ratio Decidendi: Interlocutory and mandatory injunctions are not to be granted when the facts are sharply contested, the threshold for mandatory relief is not met, and the balance of convenience warrants preserving the status quo to avoid irreparable prejudice to an existing business operation.
Result: Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and procedural history of the injunction application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 2. admissibility of additional affidavits and procedural requirements for amending relief. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 3. test for interlocutory and mandatory injunctions and existence of serious issue. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 4. assessment of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and final determination. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is my decision on the plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunctive relief filed by way of encl 1. The plaintiff seeks a series of prohibitory and mandatory injunctions to restrain the defendant from continuing business operations at the premises known as B-01-06, B-01-07, B-01-08 and B-01-09, Vista Mutiara, Kepong ("the premises"), and to compel the defendant to vacate the premises and cease all alleged interference with the plaintiff's rights as tenant.
[2] The application was initially filed ex parte on 28 November 2025 pursuant to O 29 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"), but was directed to be served on the defendant following the Court's order on 4 December 2025.
[3] The plaintiff's case is premised on a series of novation agreements dated 26 September 2025 and tenancy agreements dated 15 October 2025, pursuant to which the plaintiff asserts that he is the lawful tenant entitled to exclusive possession of the premises.
[4] The plaintiff contends that the defendant's continued occupation constitutes trespass and unlawful interference with his proprietary rights. These assertions are supported by the plaintiff's Affidavit in Support (encl 3) and Affidavit in Rejoinder (encl 8).
[5] The defendant, on the other hand, vigorously opposes the application. The defendant maintains that he has been in occupation of the premises since 2023, operating a snooker business under the name Century 21 Snooker Centre, and paying rent directly to the respective owners.
[6] The defendant alleges that the plaintiff's tenancy was procured without his knowledge, through a purported "proxy" arrangement involving one Cho Wai Kit and that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to seek eviction.
[7] These matters are set out in the defendant's Affidavit in Reply (encl 6) and elaborated in the defendant's Written Submissions (encl 12) and Additional Written Submissions (encl 18).
[8] The Notice of Application states that these orders are sought "sehingga penghakiman dalam tindakan ini atau perintah selanjutnya". The plaintiff subsequently attempted to amend these prayers orally during the hearing, seeking to tie the injunctions to the duration of a separate writ action. That attempt forms the subject of one of the preliminary objections addressed below.
[9] As expected, the defendant opposes the application on both procedural and substantive grounds. Two preliminary objections were raised at the hearing on 20 February 2026:
(i) that the plaintiff's Additional Affidavit (encl 14) was filed without leave and ought not to be read; and
(ii) that the plaintiff's oral attempt to amend prayers 1-4 of encl 1 was procedurally improper.
[10] Having heard learned counsel for both parties, considered the affidavits, written submissions, authorities and the applicable legal principles, I now deliver my full grounds of decision. For clarity, I address the preliminary objections first before turning to the substantive merits of the injunction application.
Background
[11] The material facts are largely undisputed in chronology, though sharply contested in substance. They are drawn from the plaintiff's Affidavit in Support (encl 3), the defendant's Affidavit in Reply (encl 6), the plaintiff's Affidavit Balasan (encl 8), and the parties' written submissions.
Plaintiff's Acquisition of Tenancy Rights
[12]
