[13] Therefore, as far as Enclosure 1 is concerned, the 4th Defendant argues that it is premature and misconceived, given the pending determination of the Harta Sepencarian Claim. The 4th Defendant also argues that Enclosure 1 is an abuse of the court’s process as the Plaintiffs are fully aware of the Harta Sepencarian Claim prior to initiating this suit and had attempted to bypass the Syariah Court. Findings by the Court [14] The facts show that the 4th Defendant, as the lawful widow of the Deceased, has already filed the Harta Sepencarian Claim pursuant to Section 122 of the Islamic Family Law (State of Penang) Enactment 2004 to determine her rightful share in the Estate, including the shareholding in the Company. [15] Under Islamic law principles, the distribution of and estate under faraid would be contingent upon prior settlement of the harta sepencarian rights, with which the Syariah courts has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate. [16] When a Muslim dies without leaving any instruction, such as a hibah or will, all the assets will be distributed according to faraid, which is the Islamic law on which how a Muslim’s property is divided among heirs. Before applying for the letters of administration, the heirs must first apply for a faraid from the Syariah courts in order to determine who are the rightful heirs and to determine their respective shares of the inheritance. The harta sepencarian (jointly acquired property) is the entitlement of a spouse to property or properties acquired during marriage through joint-effort (whether monetary or non-monetary). [17] With these Islamic principles in mind, I find that even though the Plaintiffs and the 4th Defendant had obtained the LA and the Faraid Order, it is not conclusive due to the pending Harta Sepencarian Claim in the Syariah Court. The Faraid Order would still be subject to the Harta Sepencarian Claim. In other words, the beneficiaries’ shares in the Company shall still be ultimately subject to the order of the Syariah Court in the Harta Sepencarian Claim (which is yet to be determined). [18] The only counter-argument put forth by the Plaintiffs on this issue is that the filing of the Harta Sepencarian Claim should not be taken as a variation to the LA nor recognized as an exemption to the application of Section 109 of the Companies Act 2016. [19] The Plaintiffs argued that, should the 4th Defendant succeed in the Harta Sepencarian Claim, the Company can easily amend the shareholding as per the finally pronounced Harta Sepencarian Claim. With respect, I find the Plaintiffs argument overly simplistic and does not address the issue at hand. [20] Accordingly, I find that the Plaintiffs’ application in Enclosure 1 premature, in that, whilst the Plaintiffs holds the LA and the Faraid Order, their validity and quantification is still subject to the outcome of the Harta Sepencarian Claim. The Plaintiffs reliance on the LA and the Faraid Order at this juncture is incomplete without taking into of the outcome of the Harta Sepencarian Claim. [21] In this respect, I accept the legal authority of Latifah Mat Zin v. Rosmawati Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 CLJ 253, which affirms that civil courts must defer to the Syariah Court’s ruling on Islamic law matters. The Federal Court has decided that where a question arises as to whether a specific property forms part of the assets of an estate of a deceased person who is a Muslim, the determination of that issue and the beneficiary or beneficiaries entitled to it and in what proportion, if relevant, is within the jurisdiction of the syariah court, and the civil court shall give effect to it in the grant of a letter of administration, and subsequently, in distributing the estate. [22] Additionally, the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs also required a demonstration of irreparable harm. However, there is no irreparable harm in this case as the Plaintiffs’ inheritance rights are already preserved in the LA and the Faraid Order, pending the Syariah Court’s determination. Conclusion [23] Accordingly, for the reasons above, Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs fixed at RM 1,000.00 subject to allocator to the 2nd Defendant and costs fixed at RM 1,000.00 subject to allocator to the 4th Defendant. Dated the 10th day of November 2025 …………………………………….. DR. SEOW HOCK PENG JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION NCC2 & ADMIRALTY) HIGH COURT OF KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA Counsel for Plaintiffs: Ms. Ang Carlreen (Messrs. Fahri, Azzat & Co.) Counsel for 1st and 3rd Defendants: Mohammad Hazim Mohd Yaacob (Messrs. Azmi & Assoc.) Counsel for 2nd Defendant: Mr. Rohaizad bin Kasim (Messrs. Rohaizad Law Office) Counsel for 4th Defendant: Mr. Ahmad bin Daud; together with Mr. Riza Makhzan bin Arifin (Messrs. Ahmad Daud & Assoc.)