The jurisdiction of Malaysia's High Courts is distinct, preventing transfer of cases between them without federal legislative authority.

Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin CJM:

Parties

[1] The appellant is a company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 . It has a registered address at Level 21, Menara Hap Seng, Jalan P Ramlee, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, and a business address at Sungai Segama, Jalan Jeroco, Lahad Datu, 91100 Sabah.

[2] The 1st respondent is a company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 . It has a registered address at No 37A, Lorong Bunga Matahari 1B, Taman Maju Jaya, 56100 Kuala Lumpur based on the record of the Companies Commission of Malaysia.

[3] The 2nd respondent is an individual whose last known address is at Taman Mawar, Blok 74, Lot 577, PPM 153, Elopura, 90000 Sandakan, Sabah.

[4] The appellant was the plaintiff and the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent were the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant, respectively, before the High Court. We shall refer to the parties as they were before the High Court.

Proceedings In The High Court

[5] The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-631-05-2012 against the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant on 23 May 2012 in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur ("the KL Suit"). The KL Suit is an action based on fraud and forgery of company resolutions, and a power of attorney purportedly given to the 2nd defendant in 1977 by the previous registered owner of a piece of land in Sabah, authorising him to sell the land and keep the proceeds for himself. The previous registered owner of the land was The River Estates Sendirian Berhad.

[6] In the KL Suit, the plaintiff asked for, among others, a declaration that:

(i) The plaintiff is the lawful registered owner of the land held under CL 095310017, in the District of Kinabatangan, Sabah ("land"); and

(ii) The power of attorney by The River Estates Sendirian Berhad given to the 2nd defendant authorising him, among others, to sell the land and receive all payments from the sale of the land is null and void.

[7] The plaintiff's case against the 2nd defendant is that he had forged the resolutions and the power of attorney; and the 1st defendant knew about the fraud committed by the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant applied to transfer the KL Suit to the High Court at Kota Kinabalu. After hearing submissions from the parties' counsel on 10 August 2012, the learned High Court Judge of Kuala Lumpur ruled as follows:

(a) Both the High Court of Malaya and the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak have jurisdiction to hear the KL Suit;

(b) The forum conveniens, namely the appropriate Court to try the KL Suit, however, is in Sabah for the following reasons:

(i) The 2nd defendant is a resident in Sabah;

(ii) The land in question is in Sabah;

(iii) Another party, an individual, is also claiming beneficial ownership of the land relying on a substantial power of attorney given under the disputed power of attorney, and has filed an originating summons asking the Court to declare, among others, that he is the beneficial owner of the land;

(iv) The witnesses who purportedly attested the disputed power of attorney and sale and purchase agreement are in Sabah;

(v) The Investigation Officer resides in Sabah;

(vi) The Registrar's caveat and private caveat had been entered at the land office in Sabah; and

(vii) One of the defendants' witnesses, Ms Rose Tio, resides in Sabah.

(c) The High Court of Malaya has power under para 12 of the Schedule to Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to transfer the KL Suit to the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.

(d) Under the new Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") which came into force on 1 August 2012, the High Court can transfer a suit from one High Court to