Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd v Yong Tshu Khin (BA-24NCvC-365-02/2026)

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but it cannot be abused as a vehicle for endless, meritless litigation. My judgment concerns an application by Originating Summons dated 13 February 2026, the Applicant, Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd, seeks to restrain the Respondent, Yong Tshu Khin, from perpetuating such conduct. The reliefs prayed include a declaration that the Respondent is a vexatious litigant as well as ancillary orders requiring leave of Court and representation by qualified counsel before Respondents commences any future proceedings. The Respondent appeared in person and having considered the evidence, submissions and litigation history, these are the grounds of my decision.

The dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent relates to a piece of land which has been the subject of litigation since as early as 1993, a period spanning more than thirty (30) years. The Property S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg forms the center of all proceedings that have been instituted between the parties across all levels of the Malaysian court hierarchy.

The legal position concerning the Property was conclusively and finally determined by the Federal Court by way of its decision dated 9 July 2018 in Civil Appeals Nos. 02(f)-72-10-2016(B), 02(f)-73-10- 2016(B) and 02(f)-74-10-2016(B). The Federal Court's decision settled the question of title and rights over the Property with finality and binding effect.

Notwithstanding the conclusive determination by the Federal Court in 2018, the Respondent, together with another party, filed a judicial review application in the Federal Court challenging the said decision. That application was heard and dismissed on 30 November 2020, with the Federal Court once again affirming its earlier decision of 9 July 2018 and further ordering costs of RM100,000.00 to be paid by the then-applicants, inclusive of the Respondent, to the Applicant.

Despite both the 2018 and 2020 Federal Court decisions conclusively settling the issues pertaining to the Property, the Respondent has persistently continued to initiate fresh proceedings to re-litigate the same issues, directly and indirectly challenging those decisions and to obstruct the enforcement of court orders obtained by the Applicant. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

Following the Federal Court's decision, the Applicant's then-solicitors made a police report and applied for the issuance of a replacement title document over the Property. However, the Selangor Land and Mines Office informed the Applicant that the application could not be processed as a Registrar's Caveat (Presentation No. 46846/2021) had been lodged against the Property following directions from the police investigating a police report made by the Respondent. High Court Proceedings BA-24NCvC-1127-06/2023 [Dahan Cipta v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor & 4 Others]

Due to the police's refusal to notify PTG Selangor to withdraw the Registrar's Caveat, the Applicant was compelled to commence an action to set aside the said caveat, naming PTG Selangor, the police and the Respondent as defendants. Following the service of the cause papers, the Registrar's Caveat was withdrawn with immediate effect. Nevertheless, the Respondent still filed a counterclaim in that action and the proceedings continued for the purpose of adjudicating the Respondent's counterclaim.

On 23 January 2025, the Honourable YA Puan Elaine Tap Chin Gaik allowed the Applicant's claim with costs of RM7,000.00 and granted S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg an injunction order restraining the Respondent from lodging any caveat over the Property without a court order.

Notwithstanding the above and notwithstanding that the authorities had issued a new title document in the Applicant's name since 23 July 2024 and pursuant to the Federal Court Order of 9 July 2018 confirming that the Respondent has no locus standi or right to lodge any caveat over the Property, the Respondent proceeded to lodge yet another private caveat over the Property. Subsequent Proceedings. BA-24NCvC-1460-07/2025 [Dahan Cipta v

Despite a letter being sent to the Respondent requesting him to withdraw the private caveat, the Respondent refused to do so. The Applicant was thus compelled to file a fresh Originating Summons to set aside the caveat.

The Respondent then filed an application to strike out the Originating Summons. On 11 September 2025, the Honourable YA Puan Hazizah Binti Kassim set aside the caveat forthwith with costs of RM2,000.00. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

The Respondent then filed an application to stay execution of that order, which was also dismissed with costs of RM2,000.00. Appeal to the Court of Appeal B-01(NCVC)(A)-63-02/2025 [Yong Tshu Khin v Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd]

The Respondent, dissatisfied with the High Court decision of YA Puan Elaine Tap Chin Gaik, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Due to the Respondent's failure to file the Record of Appeal within the prescribed 90-day period, the Court of Appeal on 7 November 2025 granted an extension of time on the condition that the Respondent pay costs of RM5,000.00 within 30 days (by 7 December 2025), to which the Respondent failed to comply with that condition.

Instead, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking to set aside the costs condition. That application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 13 January 2026 with costs of RM5,000.00 and the Respondent's main appeal was also dismissed consequentially due to his failure to comply with the Court of Appeal's condition and failure to file the Record of Appeal. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg Federal Court Appeal — 08(f)-62-02/2026(B) [Dahan Cipta v Yong Tshu

Undeterred, the Respondent filed a further application to the Federal Court on 13 February 2026. The Applicant confirmed it would be filing an interlocutory application to strike out the Respondent's Notice of Motion. Court of Appeal B-02(NCvC)(A)-1903-10/2025 [Yong Tshu Khin v

The Respondent filed yet another appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's order rejecting his application to set aside the Originating Summons in BA-24NCvC-1460-07/2025. That appeal has been fixed for hearing on 23 November 2026. Second Judicial Review Federal Court No. 08(RS)-10-09/2025(B) [Yong Tshu Khin v Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd & 3 Others]

The Respondent further filed a second judicial review application in the Federal Court seeking to challenge the Federal Court decision of 9 July 2018 a decision that had already been challenged by judicial review and dismissed in 2020. The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg to strike out this action, which was fixed for case management on the 30th July 2026. Fresh Originating Summons BA-24NCvC-2469-10/2025 [Yong Tshu Khin v Dahan Cipta & 3 Others]

On 29 October 2025, the Respondent filed a fresh Originating Summons against the Applicant and other authorities concerning issues that had already been determined by the courts. Both parties filed interlocutory applications the Applicant for a striking out order and the Respondent for a declaratory relief concerning the same issues.

The Respondents Originating Summons was struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, frivolous and vexatious, constituting an abuse of the Court’s process.

As of the date of the hearing of this application, the Respondent has failed, neglected and refused to pay costs ordered by various courts totaling RM125,840.00, as set out below: S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg Summary of Outstanding Costs Orders Against the Respondent No. Case Reference Date of Costs

Component / Enclosure Details Amount (Inclusive of Allocatur Fee)

Guaman Sivil 08(RS)-3-

30.11.2020 Final Costs Order RM104,000.00 2. BA-24NCvC- 1127-06/2023 23.01.2025 Interlocutory/Final Costs Order RM7,280.00 3. BA-24NCvC- 1460-07/2025 11.09.2025 Combined costs for Enclosures 1 and 4 RM4,160.00 4. B-01(NCvC)(A)- 63-02/2025 07.11.2025 &

13.01.2026 Combined progressive Appeal Costs Orders RM10,400.00 Total RM125,840.00

The Respondent's persistent failure to satisfy these costs orders is itself indicative of his contemptuous attitude towards the orders of the courts and further reinforces the conclusion that his litigation is conducted without any bona fide purpose. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

The application is brought pursuant to Section 25(2) of the CJA 1964 read together with Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the said Act and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the CJA 1964 provides: "Power to restrain any person who habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground institutes vexatious legal proceedings in any court, whether against the same person or different persons, from instituting any legal proceedings in any court except by leave of a Judge. A copy of any such order shall be published in the Gazette."

Section 25(2) of the CJA 1964 confers additional powers on the High Court in the terms stated in the Schedule, providing that those powers shall be exercised in accordance with any written law or rules of court relating thereto.

Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 further preserves and affirms the inherent jurisdiction of the Court by providing: S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg "For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court." What Constitutes a Vexatious Litigant

The courts have, through a line of authorities, laid down the legal principles governing the declaration of a vexatious litigant. This Court shall have regard to the following cases as mentioned below.

In Sim Kooi Soon v Malaysia Airlines System (No 2) [2011] 4 MLJ 728, the Court of Appeal defined the characteristics of a vexatious litigant and vexatious proceedings in the following terms: "[1] What is the hallmark of a vexatious litigant? The claimant who sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, is termed as a vexatious litigant. [2] And a vexatious proceeding is one where the vexatious litigant had little or no basis in law and its effect was to subject the opposing party to inconvenience." S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

In Attorney-General v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2015] SGHC 269, the Singapore High Court, interpreting a provision in pari materia with Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the CJA 1964, held: "[24] The mere institution of vexatious proceedings does not itself bring s 74(1) into play. The respondent must have 'habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings'. The term 'habitually' suggests that the institution of legal proceedings occurs as a matter of course, or almost automatically when the appropriate conditions, whatever they may be, exist. The term 'persistently' suggests determination and continuing in the face of difficulty or opposition, with a degree of stubbornness ... The term 'vexatious' also need not be given an exhaustive definition. It is presently sufficient to say that proceedings are regarded as 'vexatious' if, irrespective of the motive of the litigant, they are so obviously untenable as to be utterly hopeless and only serve to tax the resources of the court. They can also be vexatious if they are brought for collateral purposes and not for the purpose of having the court adjudicate on legitimate issues."

In Yan bt Mohd Noordin (sebagai pentadbir pesaka kepada harta pusaka Hj Nordin bin Ayub @ Mat Nordin bin Yeop, si mati) v Kamal Baharein bin Nordin & Ors [2022] MLJU 2587, the High Court set out the following guiding principles in exercising the court's powers under Paragraph 17: S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg "[37] (a) The judge should make an order to declare a litigant a vexatious litigant if the litigant despite losing an earlier claim or suit sues the same party or parties repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, or with minor variations. The vexatious litigant has no basis in law to sue. His intent is motivated by spite and to subject the opposing party to harassment, inconvenience and legal expenses." "(b) The vexatious litigant restraining order is not intended to prevent a litigant from filing a court claim for the rest of his life. It is only intended to prevent him from filing a vexatious action. Therefore, the judge making a vexatious litigant restraining order should determine the scope of the restraining order." "(c) The order declaring a litigant a vexatious litigant only requires the litigant to apply for leave to a judge before he can file a court claim only if the intended court claim falls foul of the vexatious litigant restraining order. If the judge hearing the leave application is of the view the said vexatious litigant has a legitimate claim or is satisfied it is not an abuse of process of the court and there are reasonable grounds for the application, the court will grant leave." S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

In Shaffarizan bin Mohamad v Mohd Adam Daniyal @ Mohanadas & Ors [2024] MLJU 3714, the High Court identified three (3) limbs that must be established before the court's additional powers under Paragraph 17 of the Schedule can be invoked:

There must be a habitual and persistent legal proceeding filed in court;

The legal proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause; and

The legal proceedings were vexatious.

In American Express (M) Sdn Bhd v Matthias Chang Wen Chieh [2012] 7 MLJ 489, it was held that in determining whether the proceedings were vexatious, the court must look at the whole sequence of litigation initiated by the defendant. The court was satisfied that the conduct of the defendant in that case was vexatious and would justify him being declared a vexatious litigant, rendering him subject to restraint under the relevant Act.

In Institut Akauntan Malaysia v Kok Kon Sang [2024] 8 MLJ 101, the High Court, in finding the defendant to be a vexatious litigant, examined the totality of litigation spanning twelve (12) separate legal S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg proceedings and nineteen (19) interlocutory applications filed at various levels of the Malaysian courts over a period of ten years, all related to the same facts and issues. The court found that the defendant's proceedings had been found scandalous, frivolous and vexatious on multiple occasions and that outstanding costs orders remained unpaid.

In Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 637, the Court of Appeal affirmed that whether any particular proceedings constitute an abuse of the court's process depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and that the categories of such cases are not closed. The Court further held that the use of interlocutory proceedings or relief as an instrument of oppression plainly constitutes an abuse of the court's process.

In Perak Integrated Network Services Sdn Bhd v Hj Ahmad Kamal bin Zakaria & Ors [2025] 6 MLJ 136, the Court of Appeal affirmed that an action filed concerning the same facts and issues that had been or ought to have been determined in prior proceedings constitutes an abuse of process and that the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel apply to prevent repetitive litigation.

The court is also guided by the principle enunciated in Tan Wei Hong & Ors v Malaysian Airlines System Berhad & Ors [2017] MLJU 457 S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg that the court has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the judicial system and to prevent the abuse of its process, including where the process is used as a tool of vexation and oppression. Burden of Proof

It is settled law that the burden of proof in establishing that a party is a vexatious litigant lies on the applicant. This Court accepts this proposition and has carefully examined all the evidence adduced to determine whether the Applicant has discharged that burden.

The power to declare a litigant vexatious is an exceptional and extraordinary jurisdiction. However, where the evidence clearly and persistently demonstrates the trademarks of vexatious litigation, namely, the habitual and persistent creation of proceedings without reasonable cause, the repeated re-litigation of settled issues and the use of court processes as an instrument of harassment, the Court is both entitled and obliged to exercise this power.

The Respondent, in his written submissions, raises the following grounds in opposition to the Applicant's application: S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

There has been no abuse of the court's process as the Respondent's actions form part of legitimate litigation;

(ii) The Respondent has been acting to protect his legal rights, including in relation to caveats, land title issues and enforcement of court orders and such actions are defensive, reactive and lawful;

(iii) The doctrine of res judicata does not apply as the Respondent's actions concern procedural rights, subsequent developments and continuing issues;

(iv) The Affidavit in Support of Lee Gee Seng fails to establish that the Respondent is a vexatious litigant as the allegations therein are general, repetitive and unsupported by cogent evidence of abuse;

The existence of pending appeals, in particular the Court of Appeal appeal (No. B-02(NCvC)(A)-1903-10/2025) fixed for hearing on 23 November 2026 and Federal Court proceedings No’s. 08(RS)-10-09/2025(B) and 08(f)-62-02/2026(B) renders this application premature, unjust and contrary to due process;

(vi) This application seeks to unjustly curtail the Respondent's constitutional right of access to justice under Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution; S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

(vii) The Applicant has failed to demonstrate bad faith, harassment or improper motive; and

(viii) The Respondent has only commenced one fresh originating action (BA-24NCvC-2469-10/2025) and the other proceedings are appeals or consequential proceedings arising from existing disputes. ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

Whether the Respondent’s 30-year revival of a property dispute already settled by the Federal Court amounts to a systemic abuse of process, thereby justifying his designation as a vexatious litigant under Section 25(2) and Paragraph 17 of the CJA 1964 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction in Order 92 Rule 4.

Whether the Courts have repeatedly found the Respondent's proceedings to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of the court's process.

Whether the Respondent demonstrates any genuine intention to cease instituting proceedings against the Applicant or whether his S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg conduct evidences a continuing pattern of litigation that sustains the case for declaring him a vexatious litigant. THE COURT'S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issue 1 - Whether the Respondent is a Vexatious Litigant

This Court has examined the whole sequence of litigation initiated by the Respondent against the Applicant, as required by the Court of Appeal in American Express (M) Sdn Bhd (supra). The chronology of events, which is graphically and helpfully presented in Diagram A of the Applicant's Written Submissions, is a clear and compelling picture of a litigant who is unable or unwilling to accept the finality of litigation.

The core issue, namely the Applicant's title and rights over the Property, was conclusively and finally settled by the Federal Court in 2018 and re-affirmed in 2020. These are the highest judicial determinations in Malaysia and their finality ought to have put an end to the dispute. They did not, however, deter the Respondent.

Since those final Federal Court determinations, the Respondent has been relentless in his efforts to re-open and re-litigate the very same S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg issues. This Court finds, without reservation, that the Respondent has done so through the following conduct:

Filing new caveats over the Property, even after being restrained by court order from doing so and even after a new title had been issued in the Applicant's name;

Filing counterclaims and interlocutory applications in proceedings initiated by the Applicant to remove those caveats, thereby turning defensive proceedings into fresh battlegrounds to relitigate the same issues;

Appealing every adverse decision to higher courts, including the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, even where those appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the conditions set by those courts;

Filing a second judicial review application in the Federal Court seeking to challenge the same 2018 Federal Court decision that had already been the subject of a failed judicial review in 2020; and

Filing a fresh Originating Summons (BA-24NCvC-2469- 10/2025) raising the same or substantially similar issues to those already determined. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

In the case of Sim Kooi Soon (supra), the Court of Appeal described a vexatious litigant as one who "keeps on filing the same application one after another" and who "does not know when to stop". In my opinion, I find that the Respondent's conduct mirrors precisely the conduct condemned in Sim Kooi Soon.

The Respondent argues that he has only filed one fresh originating action, namely BA-24NCvC-2469-10/2025 and that the remaining proceedings are appeals or consequential proceedings arising from existing disputes. I reject this characterization and the distinction between "fresh" actions and "appeal" proceedings is immaterial in assessing vexatious conduct. What is substantial is whether the totality of the proceedings viewed holistically, discloses a pattern of habitual and persistent litigation on issues that have already been settled or are essentially the same as issues that have been settled.

The Respondent's conduct reveals the following characteristics which, taken together, satisfy the three (3) limbs identified in Shaffarizan bin Mohamad (supra):

Habitual and Persistent Filing The Respondent has been engaged in litigation against the Applicant across all levels of the Malaysian courts, from the Magistrates' Court to the Federal Court, for more than thirty (30) years. Even after two Federal Court decisions in 2018 and 2020 S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg conclusively settling the core issues, the Respondent has continued to file proceedings. He has filed multiple interlocutory applications, two caveats, two Court of Appeal appeals, a fresh Originating Summons and a second judicial review in the Federal Court.

Without Reasonable Cause The fact that courts at various levels have consistently dismissed the Respondent's claims, applications and appeals and have, in the majority of those proceedings, ordered costs against him is strong evidence that those proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause. The Respondent cannot justify his continued litigation by claiming he is merely "protecting his rights" when those very rights have been conclusively determined to be non-existent by the Federal Court.

Vexatious Nature The characteristic of a vexatious proceeding is that the litigant "had little or no basis in law and its effect was to subject the opposing party to inconvenience" (Sim Kooi Soon, supra). The Respondent's proceedings, which repeatedly raise the same facts, the same exhibits and the same legal arguments, are precisely of this nature. In my view, the Applicant has been forced to defend multiple proceedings, incur substantial legal costs, amounting to at least RM125,840.00 in outstanding unpaid costs orders and deal with repeated attempts by the S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg Respondent to encumber the Property with caveats despite a court order restraining him from doing so.

I stand guided by Institut Akauntan Malaysia (supra), where the High Court found a defendant who had filed twelve proceedings and nineteen interlocutory applications over ten years to be a vexatious litigant. The facts before me, are at least equally compelling, if not more so, given the existence of two Federal Court decisions, the Respondent's deliberate non-compliance with costs orders and his repeated attempts to re-litigate through different procedural vehicles what is in substance the same dispute. Issue 2 - Whether the Courts Have Repeatedly Found the Respondent's Proceedings to be Scandalous, Frivolous and/or Vexatious

An important indicator of whether a litigant's proceedings are vexatious is whether the courts have previously made such findings. This Court finds that the Respondent's proceedings have been repeatedly rejected, dismissed and/or struck out by various courts at different levels, as summarised below:

Federal Court (30 November 2020), namely the Respondent's judicial review application was dismissed with costs of S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg RM100,000.00, reaffirming that the issues had been conclusively determined.

(ii) High Court (23 January 2025), the BA-24NCvC-1127-06/2023 suit where the Respondent's counterclaim was dismissed and the Applicant's claim allowed with costs of RM7,000.00. The Respondent's action was clearly without merit.

(iii) High Court (11 September 2025), in which suit BA-24NCvC- 1460-07/2025 was filed and the Respondent's caveat was set aside forthwith with costs of RM2,000.00. The Respondent's stay application was also dismissed with costs of RM2,000.00.

(iv) Court of Appeal (13 January 2026), namely suit B- 01(NCvC)(A)-63-02/2025, where the Respondent's main appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the conditions of the court and failure to file the Record of Appeal. His Notice of Motion to set aside the costs condition was also dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00.

This repeated pattern of dismissals across multiple courts and across multiple years leads this Court inescapably to the conclusion that the Respondent's proceedings lack merit and have been instituted and continued for collateral purposes, namely to harass the Applicant and to obstruct the enforcement of the Property title vested in the Applicant by order of the Federal Court. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

The findings and conclusions in Institut Akauntan Malaysia v Kok Kon Sang (supra) are instructive and directly applicable here. In that case, the court found that the defendant's proceedings had been found scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in four separate proceedings and that all nine interlocutory applications before the court itself were also found to be of the same character. The parallels with the present case are striking and I find myself in full agreement with those findings in relation to the conduct of the Respondent herein. Issue 3 - Whether the Respondent demonstrates any genuine intention to cease instituting proceedings against the Applicant.

The third and perhaps most critical consideration is whether there is any prospect that the Respondent will, of his own accord, cease his pattern of vexatious litigation. In my view and on the totality of the evidence before me, that there is no such prospect.

The Respondent has demonstrated, through his conduct, a consistent and implacable refusal to accept the finality of litigation. Every decision of every court that has gone against him has been followed by a further proceeding. His own written submissions reveal his intention to continue pursuing his claims. Even the present application, the Originating Summons to declare him a vexatious litigant, has been met not with a concession that his conduct has been S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg excessive, but with a further filing, his Reply Submissions dated 14 April 2026.

Most suggestively, the Respondent himself acknowledges in his written submissions that he has pending proceedings before the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. Rather than acknowledging that this court activity demonstrates the very pattern of conduct complained of, he seeks to rely on these pending proceedings as a reason why this Court should not intervene. This Court rejects that argument. The pendency of appeals is not a bar to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction under Paragraph 17. A declaration of vexatious litigant status does not affect existing appeals, which will continue to be heard on their merits, the declaration only operates prospectively in respect of any new proceedings the Respondent may wish to institute.

In Sim Kooi Soon (supra), the Court of Appeal sternly warned the vexatious litigant in that case that if he persisted in "instituting any further legal proceedings in any court without leave of the Court of Appeal, a contempt proceeding may be initiated against him." This Court echoes that warning. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg Addressing the Respondent's Specific Contentions

This Court now addresses the Respondent's specific contentions seriatim.

No Abuse of Process / Legitimate Litigation

The Respondent contends that his actions form part of legitimate litigation and that the right to commence proceedings, file applications and pursue appeals is a fundamental legal right. This Court does not dispute the existence of those rights. However, as the Court of Appeal held in Jasa Keramat (supra), those rights are not absolute and the use of those rights as an instrument of harassment and oppression rather than for the bona fide purpose of adjudicating legitimate grievances which crosses the line into abuse of process.

The Respondent has had his day in court indeed, he has had many such days. His rights and claims to the Property were adjudicated upon by the Federal Court in 2018 and 2020. The continued institution of proceedings by the Respondent is not an exercise of his legal rights, it is a misuse of the court's processes for purposes that have no reasonable prospect of success in law. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

Acting to Protect Legal Rights

The Respondent submits that his actions are defensive, reactive and aimed at protecting his legal rights, particularly in relation to caveats and land title. I disagree with this line of submission. The Respondent cannot take refuge behind the logic of "protecting his rights" when those rights have been conclusively determined not to exist by the Federal Court. The Respondent has no legal right or locus standi to lodge caveats over the Property. His continued attempts to do so and his continued litigation challenging the consequences of doing so, are not an exercise of legitimate rights. They are an abuse of the court's process.

Res Judicata Does Not Apply

The Respondent contends that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply because his subsequent actions involve procedural rights, subsequent developments and continuing issues. I disagree as held in Perak Integrated Network Services (supra), an action filed on the same facts and issues that have been or ought to have been determined in prior proceedings is an abuse of process and the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel apply. The Respondent cannot escape the application of these doctrines by relabeling substantive issues as "procedural" ones or by framing old issues as "new developments." S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

Affidavit of Lee Gee Seng Does Not Support the Application

The Respondent criticises the Affidavit in Support of Lee Gee Seng as being general, repetitive and unsupported by cogent evidence of abuse. Once again, I disagree as the Affidavit in Support, read as a whole together with its exhibits, sets out in clear and documented detail the full history of the litigation between the parties. The exhibits, which include orders of court, grounds of judgment and correspondence, speak for themselves. The Respondent has not pointed to any specific inaccuracy in the affidavit. The evidence contained therein is more than sufficient to establish the Applicant's case.

Pending Appeals as a Critical Factor

The Respondent submits that the existence of pending appeals renders this application premature, unjust and contrary to due process. This Court disagrees for the following reasons:

A declaration of vexatious litigant status operates prospectively. It does not affect or stay existing proceedings, which will continue to be heard on their merits. Existing appeals by the Respondent are not affected. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

(ii) The jurisdiction to declare a litigant vexatious is not contingent upon the finalisation of all existing proceedings. The court is entitled to assess the whole pattern of conduct, including pending proceedings, in determining whether the threshold has been met.

(iii) If the Respondent's argument were correct, a vexatious litigant could perpetually avoid a declaration of vexatious litigant status simply by maintaining one or more pending proceedings. That cannot be the law and this Court rejects such a proposition.

Constitutional Considerations

The Respondent invokes Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. I do acknowledge this constitutional provision but reject the Respondent's arguments. The declaration of vexatious litigant status does not deny the Respondent access to justice. It merely requires the Respondent to obtain the prior leave of a High Court Judge before filing new proceedings against the Applicant. The leave mechanism is itself a judicial safeguard, if the Respondent's proposed new proceedings are legitimate and have a proper legal basis, leave will be granted. The constitutional right of access to justice is not an absolute or unconditional right and its exercise is subject to reasonable procedural controls designed to prevent abuse of the court's process. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

No Bad Faith or Harassment

The Respondent submits that there is no evidence of bad faith, harassment or improper motive. This Court finds otherwise. While it is true that specific proof of malicious intent is not an absolute requirement for a finding of vexatious litigation, the pattern of the Respondent's conduct, namely, repeatedly filing the same or similar proceedings across multiple courts, failing to comply with costs orders, lodging fresh caveats in defiance of court orders restraining him from doing, speaks for itself. In my opinion, the objective effect of this conduct is to harass the Applicant and to impose significant and continuing financial and administrative burdens upon it. That in itself are sufficient. As the Applicant correctly submits, the pattern of the Respondent's own conduct suffices to establish the element of vexatiousness.

This Court wishes to make clear that this decision is not made lightly. The power to declare a litigant vexatious is an exceptional one and this Court is conscious of the constitutional and fundamental right of every person seeking recourse to the courts of law. That right, however, is not absolute. It cannot be exercised in a manner that constitutes an abuse of the court's processes or that causes unjust burden and harassment to the opposing party. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

The Respondent is not without remedy. If he has a genuine, bona fide legal claim against the Applicant that is not barred by the principles of res judicata or by the finality of prior judicial determinations, he is entitled to apply to the High Court for leave to file such proceedings and leave will be granted if the proposed claim is not a continuation of the pattern of vexatious litigation that has characterised the present dispute.

It is the court's duty to ensure that its processes are not misused. Vexatious litigants consume precious judicial resources, impose unwarranted costs on their opponents and diminish the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system as a whole. This Court's decision serves not only to protect the Applicant, but also to uphold the integrity of the administration of justice.

Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence, the full history of the litigation between the parties, the written submissions of both parties and the applicable law and authorities, this Court is satisfied that the Applicant has discharged the burden of proof and has established on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent is a vexatious litigant within the meaning of Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the CJA 1964. S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg

The Court finds that the Respondent has, over a period exceeding thirty years, habitually and persistently commenced proceedings against the Applicant in multiple courts. These proceedings, taken together, have been instituted without reasonable cause, as reflected in their repeated dismissal and the consistent orders of costs made against the Respondent. They are vexatious in nature, seeking to re-litigate matters already conclusively determined, lacking legal merit and subjecting the Applicant to harassment, inconvenience and financial burden. The Respondent has further shown no intention of ceasing this conduct, continuing to file fresh proceedings even after the present application was initiated. In the circumstances, the Court allows the Applicant’s application with costs. Date: 14 July 2026 SGD SHOBA DORAI RAJAH JUDICAL COMMISSIONER SHAH ALAM HIGH COURT Solicitor for the Applicant: Pramjit Singh bersama Sajanee Sukumaran [MESSRS VILASINY GAN & CO. (PETALING JAYA)] Solicitor for the Respondent: Yong Tshu Khin respondent present in court in person S/N jIAPH0rm8kiIk1kZnPmNdg