JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION

1. The Appellant (the Plaintiff in the court below) appealed against the Sessions Court's decision dated 20 May 2025. The Sessions Court dismissed the Appellant's claim with costs of RM5,000.00. The Appellant had sought several court declarations to reclaim a house known as Lot 84, Phase II, Semporna, Sabah ("the house"), cancellation of the Writ of Possession dated 4 February 2015, and to nullify the sale and transfer of the house to the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent argued that the lawsuit was illegal because the same problem was already decided by a court in 2014.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 6 December 1995, the Appellant agreed to buy the house from Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan Dan Bandar (LPPB) for RM25,000.00. The terms required regular monthly payments over 20 years. If the buyer defaulted in the repayment thereof, LPPB had the right to end the contract and take back the house.

3. On 23 February 1998, LPPB transferred all its legal rights over the housing contract to the 1st Respondent, the financier of the purchase of the house.

4. The Appellant defaulted in his payments towards the financing facility. Consequently, the 1st Respondent sued the Appellant in the Semporna Magistrate's Court under Suit No. SEM-A72NCVC-7/1-2014.

5. On 19 February 2014, the Magistrate's Court ruled against the Appellant. The Court issued a Writ of Possession on 26 August 2014, allowing the 1st Respondent to legally repossess the house.

6. The Appellant hired legal Counsel to challenge the repossession order, but the Magistrate's Court threw out his application on 21 September 2021. The Appellant never appealed that final decision and the Judgment.

7. The house was subsequently repossessed and sold to the 2nd Respondent.

8. The Appellant then filed a Writ of Summons at the Sessions Court [Suit No. SEM-A52NCvC-2-5/2023] to reclaim the subject property and consequently seeking to invali date the earlier Magistrate's Court Judgment and Order.

9. The Sessions Court dismissed the Appellant's Writ of Summons with costs, giving rise to the present appeal.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

(1) That the Learned Session Court Judge erred in law and in fact when the Learned Sessions Court Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's claim on the following grounds:

(a) The Learned Sessions Court Judge failed to recognise that no written notice of repossession was issued by LPPB as required by Clause 3 of the SPA;

(b) The Learned Sessions Court Judge failed and refused to make finding that the 1st Defendant had no contractual right of sale, not being a party to the SPA;

(c) The Learned Sessions Court Judge failed and refused to consider that the sale was conducted privately, without notice, public auction, or judicial oversight;

(d) The Learned Sessions Court Judge failed, neglected and refused to make finding and/or did not take into consideration that the Plaintiff is entitled and has an equitable ownership to the Property based on the basis that substantial payment of purchase price has been made by the Plaintiff and good faith attempts to settle, all weigh in favour of the Plaintiff.

(2) The Learned Session Court Judge erred in law and in fact in dismissing the Plaintiff based on the reasons of res judicata when in it is clear that fact that res judicata does not operate in this suit as the subject matter and issues in the current proceedings are fundamentally different from those litigated previously, as follows:

(i) The 2014 JID was entered ex parte and purely on the basis of alleged default in instalment payments. The Plaintiff was unrepresented and did not enter appearance due to lack of legal knowledge and financial means. He gave unchallenged evidence that he was unaware of the judgment until after its entry.

(ii) Secondly, the 2020 application dealt narrowly with setting aside the Writ of Possession. It did not adjudicate on whether the repossession was procedurally lawful or whether the 1st Defendant had authority to resell the Property. The Plaintiff's current cause