Koh Kien Hong v Koh Hin Hong (WA-22NCvC-679-11/2025)

KOH KIEN HONG (NRIC No.: 540819-10-5669)

KO SEN HONG (NRIC No.: 520222-10-6011)

KOH SIEW HONG (AUSTRALIAN PASSPORT No.: RA1968954)

KOH CHIN HONG (NRIC No.: 480611-10-5027) ...PLAINTIFFS

KOH HIN HONG (NRIC No.: 530713-10-5311)

KO CHU HONG (NRIC No.: 520222-10-5596)

KHOR BOON HONG (NRIC No.: 601116-10-5503)

KO CHIEW HONG (NRIC No.: 491026-10-5476)

KO TECK HONG (NRIC No.: 551215-10-5709) 12/06/2026 14:42:52

KOR MAY HOONG (NRIC No.: 641004-10-6954) ...DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Before this Court is the Plaintiffs’ application in Enclosure 6 filed pursuant to Order 57 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”), Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for an order that the present proceedings be transferred to the High Court presently managing Guaman Sivil No. WA- 22NCC-587-09/2025 (“Suit 587”). The Plaintiffs further seek consequential orders, including costs in the cause.

The application is opposed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants.

The present action is a contentious probate and estate administration dispute concerning the estate of the late Yap Ban Siong (“the Deceased”), who allegedly died intestate on 29.11.2023.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants are siblings and beneficiaries of the estate.

The Plaintiffs plead that the estate comprises substantial movable and immovable assets allegedly exceeding RM50 million.

The Plaintiffs further plead that many of the same assets and transactions presently form the subject matter of Suit 587, which involves allegations of fraudulent transactions, dissipation of estate assets, and dealings allegedly undertaken during the Deceased’s declining mental condition.

The Plaintiffs also rely on the existence of interim injunctive orders and undertakings recorded in Suit 587 concerning preservation of assets allegedly belonging to the estate.

In the present action, the Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the appointment of administrators for the estate and the issuance of Letters of Administration.

The Plaintiffs contend that both proceedings involve overlapping factual issues concerning:

the estate assets;

the conduct of certain beneficiaries;

the administration and preservation of estate property; and

the mental condition and vulnerability of the Deceased.

The Plaintiffs therefore seek transfer of the present action to the same Court presently managing Suit 587.

The present application is principally grounded on Order 57 rule 1 ROC 2012.

Order 57 rule 1(1) ROC 2012 provides as follows: “Where the Judge of the High Court … is satisfied that any proceedings in that Court can be more conveniently or fairly tried in some other Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, he may on application by any party, order the proceedings to be transferred to the other Court.”

Under Order 57 rule 1(4) ROC 2012, the Court is required to consider, amongst others:

where the cause of action arose;

where the relevant facts exist or are alleged to have occurred; and

whether, for other reasons it is desirable in the interests of justice that the proceedings should be transferred.

The power of transfer under Order 57 ROC 2012 is discretionary in nature. It must be exercised having regard to convenience, fairness, efficient administration of justice, avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, and the risk of inconsistent findings.

It is equally established that the Court retains inherent powers under Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012 to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent injustice or abuse of process. D. THE NATURE OF THE COURT'S DISCRETION UNDER

Before considering the factual circumstances of the present application, it is necessary to emphasise the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised by this Court.

The power conferred under Order 57 rule 1 ROC 2012 is fundamentally a case-management and judicial-administration power. The purpose of the provision is not merely to determine the geographical location of a proceeding, but to enable the Court to ensure that litigation is conducted in a manner that is fair, efficient and consistent with the interests of justice.

In exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is not required to determine the substantive merits of the underlying dispute. Rather, the Court is required to undertake a practical evaluation of whether the proceedings would more conveniently or fairly be managed before another Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction having regard to all the surrounding circumstances.

Accordingly, considerations such as the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, efficient use of judicial resources, consistency of findings, convenience of witnesses, overlap of factual issues and the overall interests of justice are all relevant factors properly falling within the scope of Order 57 ROC 2012.

The Court must therefore adopt a practical and realistic approach rather than a narrow or overly technical one when determining whether a transfer ought to be ordered.

It is equally important to recognise that the discretion under Order 57 ROC 2012 is not confined to situations where two proceedings are legally identical. The existence of different causes of action does not, without more, preclude a transfer if the factual matrix underlying the proceedings is substantially interconnected and if separate adjudication may result in unnecessary duplication or inconsistent outcomes.

(A) Whether There Exists Sufficient Overlap Between This

Having considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions of the parties, this Court is satisfied that there exists substantial factual overlap between the present action and Suit 587.

The Plaintiffs’ own Statement of Claim expressly pleads the existence of Suit 587 and the alleged transactions concerning estate assets which form the subject matter of that action.

The Plaintiffs further plead that the reliefs sought in the present action are interconnected with the causes of action and injunctive relief already granted in Suit 587.

In particular, the present probate action is not confined merely to a simple non-contentious application for Letters of Administration. Rather, the present dispute is closely connected to wider allegations concerning:

the identity and preservation of estate assets;

alleged wrongful transactions involving estate property;

the conduct of certain beneficiaries; and

issues relating to the Deceased’s alleged mental condition and vulnerability.

These are matters which appear, at least substantially, to overlap with factual matters already arising in Suit 587.

The Court further notes that the 3rd Defendant himself expressly pleaded that he “has no objection for this action to be heard together with Suit 587.”

Significantly, the 3rd Defendant also seeks appointment as co-administrator of the estate in his own pleaded counterclaim.

(B) The Practical Interconnection Between The Two

The opposing Defendants submitted that the present proceedings concern the administration of an estate, whereas Suit 587 concerns commercial and fraud-related causes of action.

While that distinction is correct at a legal and technical level, the Court is of the view that it does not adequately reflect the practical reality of the dispute presently before the Court.

The Court observes that the administration of an estate necessarily requires identification of the assets forming part of that estate, preservation of those assets pending distribution, determination of competing claims concerning those assets and, where appropriate, examination of transactions alleged to have affected the estate.

From the pleadings presently before this Court, many of those very issues appear to arise in Suit 587.

It is therefore not merely a question of whether both actions bear different legal labels. The more important consideration is whether both proceedings will require examination of substantially overlapping factual issues concerning the same estate, the same assets, and the conduct of substantially the same parties.

Having considered the pleadings and affidavits, this Court is satisfied that the overlap extends beyond mere background facts and touches upon matters which may materially affect the determination of both proceedings.

In such circumstances, separate management by different Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction carries a real possibility that similar factual issues may be considered independently by different Judges.

While different Judges may ultimately arrive at the same conclusion, the law seeks, where reasonably possible, to avoid situations where overlapping factual controversies are litigated repeatedly before different Courts.

The transfer sought by the Plaintiffs therefore serves the legitimate objective of promoting consistency, coherence and efficiency in the management of the litigation.

In the view of this Court, the 3rd Defendant’s pleaded position materially demonstrates the interconnected nature of both proceedings.

(C) Risk of Inconsistent Findings and Multiplicity of

This Court is satisfied that maintaining both matters before different Courts of coordinate jurisdiction may create a real risk of inconsistent factual findings.

Questions relating to:

the composition and ownership of estate assets;

the alleged transactions involving those assets;

the conduct of certain beneficiaries; and

the surrounding circumstances concerning the Deceased’s condition, may potentially arise in both proceedings.

Separate adjudication before different Courts may therefore lead to duplication of witnesses, duplication of documentary evidence, increased litigation costs, and potentially inconsistent findings concerning substantially overlapping factual matters.

The Court is of the considered view that the interests of justice favour coordinated judicial management of both matters before the same Court.

This is particularly so where both proceedings concern the same estate, substantially overlapping parties, and overlapping factual controversies.

(D) Whether The Distinction Between The Causes of Action

Learned counsel for the opposing Defendants submitted that the present action is fundamentally a probate and administration dispute, whereas Suit 587 is a commercial and fraud-related civil action.

This Court accepts that both proceedings are legally distinct causes of action.

However, the mere fact that the legal causes of action are not identical does not necessarily preclude transfer under Order 57

The question before this Court is not whether both actions are identical in law, but whether the proceedings may more conveniently, fairly and effectively be managed before the same Court in the interests of justice.

In the present case, notwithstanding the differing legal causes of action, the factual matrix appears substantially interconnected.

(E) Transfer Is Not Equivalent To Consolidation

The Court considers it important to clarify the precise nature and effect of the order sought.

The application before this Court is an application for transfer under Order 57 ROC 2012.

It is not an application for consolidation. It is equally not an application seeking a mandatory order that both actions be tried together. The distinction is important.

By allowing the transfer application, this Court is not making any determination that the two proceedings must necessarily proceed by way of a joint trial.

Neither is the Court making any determination that the causes of action should be merged or treated as a single proceeding.

The effect of the present order is merely that both matters shall come under the supervision and case-management jurisdiction of the same Court.

Once transferred, the transferee Court retains full discretion to determine the most appropriate future course of management.

Depending on the circumstances then prevailing, the transferee Court may direct that the matters proceed separately, sequentially, by way of a joint hearing of specific issues, or by any other procedure permitted by law.

Accordingly, the present order should not be understood as predetermining any future procedural arrangement beyond the transfer itself.

The Court considers this distinction significant because the principal concern at this stage is the efficient and coherent management of related litigation rather than the substantive consolidation of different causes of action.

This Court is therefore unable to agree that the distinction in legal character alone is sufficient to defeat the present transfer application.

(F) The Issue Relating to the 6th Defendant

The opposing Defendants further raised issues concerning the alleged absence of appearance and/or proof of service upon the 6th Defendant.

In the view of this Court, those issues do not presently constitute a sufficient basis to refuse the transfer application.

The present application concerns case management and transfer between Courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

The transfer order sought does not determine substantive rights of the parties nor finally determine any issue concerning liability, entitlement, or administration of the estate.

Any issue relating to service, appearance, jurisdiction over individual parties, or procedural objections may still be addressed before the transferee Court where appropriate.

Accordingly, this Court does not consider the present procedural objection sufficient to defeat the application for transfer.

Having considered the affidavits, pleadings, submissions and authorities filed by all parties, this Court is satisfied that the circumstances of the present case justify the exercise of the Court's discretion under Order 57 ROC 2012.

First, there exists substantial factual overlap between the present estate-administration proceedings and Suit 587.

Second, the overlap concerns matters of significance, including the identification, preservation, and management of estate assets, alleged transactions affecting those assets and the conduct of various beneficiaries.

Third, separate management of both proceedings before different Courts creates a real risk of duplication of evidence, duplication of witnesses, increased costs, and inconsistent factual findings.

Fourth, the Court is satisfied that transfer would promote coherent judicial management of disputes arising from substantially the same factual matrix.

Fifth, the Court is not persuaded that any prejudice incapable of being remedied has been demonstrated by the opposing Defendants.

Sixth, the Court is satisfied that the transfer sought concerns judicial administration and case-management rather than the determination of substantive rights.

Seventh, the Court reiterates that no order for consolidation has been made and no party's substantive rights have been affected by reason only of the transfer.

The Court therefore concludes that the interests of justice are best served by transferring the present action to the Court presently managing Suit 587.

For completeness, this Court also clarifies that this decision does not amount to an order for consolidation or mandatory joint trial at this stage.

Any future directions concerning whether the matters should proceed jointly, sequentially, or otherwise remain within the discretion of the transferee Court.

(G) DECISION AND ORDERS

Accordingly, Enclosure 6 is allowed.

The present action is hereby transferred to the High Court presently managing Guaman Sivil No. WA-22NCC-587-09/2025.

Further directions concerning case management, including whether both matters ought to be heard together or otherwise jointly managed, shall be determined by the transferee Court.

Costs shall be costs in the cause. Dated: 12th June 2026 ……………………………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiffs : Maurice Scully and Tan Wee Juin Messers. M Scully Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant : Dato' K. Kirubakaran, Martin 1, 2, 4 and 5 Cho Cheng Yu and Bernard Kiong Sze Min Messrs. Shui Tai (Petaling Jaya) Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant 3 : Alan Tan Fu Seng Messrs. Tan, Moh &