Kcsb Konsortium Sdn Bhd v Menteri Pertahanan (WA-21NCvC-25-05/2025)

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ...DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Order 18 Rule 19 Application – Enclosure 14)

These are the Court’s Grounds of Judgment in respect of the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 14 brought pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). 16/03/2026 16:37:53

By this application, the Defendants sought an order to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim on the grounds that:

the action discloses no reasonable cause of action; and/or

the action is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

After considering the pleadings, affidavits, written submissions and the authorities relied upon by the parties, this Court dismissed the application. These are the Grounds of Judgment.

The Plaintiff’s claim arises from a Tripartite Privatisation Agreement for the Design and Construction of the Skudai Army Camp entered into between the Plaintiff, the 3rd Defendant and another party.

The Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the arrangement it became entitled to certain parcels of land through a land swap mechanism.

The Plaintiff further contends that the Defendants have continued to occupy the land in question despite the termination of the privatisation arrangement and subsequent legal proceedings between the parties.

The Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:

A declaration that the Defendants are required to deliver vacant possession of the Occupied Land to the Plaintiff as the lawful proprietor of the Plaintiff’s Land.

A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to impose and recover rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land from the year 1999 until the present and continuing, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, from the year 1999 until vacant possession of the Occupied Land is delivered by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

The sum of RM484,600,549.30, being rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land from September 1999 until 10 May 2011, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land based on market value to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Honourable Court from 1999 until 10 May 2011.

The sum of RM312,323,351.68, being rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land from 11 May 2011 until 21 November 2018, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land based on market value to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Honourable Court from 11 May 2011 until 21 November 2018.

The sum of RM18,623,932.80, being rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land from 22 November 2018 until 30 April 2019, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land based on market value to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Honourable Court from 22 November 2018 until 30 April 2019.

The sum of RM127,573,939.68, being rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land from 1 May 2019 until 30 April 2022, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land based on market value to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Honourable Court from 1 May 2019 until 30 April 2022.

The sum of RM140,331,324.88, being rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land from 1 May 2022 until 30 April 2025, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land based on market value to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Honourable Court from 1 May 2022 until 30 April 2025.

The sum of RM3,894,535.81 per month, being rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land from 1 May 2025 until vacant possession of the Occupied Land is delivered by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, rental and/or compensation and/or payment for the Defendants’ use and/or occupation of the Occupied Land based on market value to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar of this Honourable Court from 1 May 2025 until vacant possession is delivered to the Plaintiff.

Interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum on the above judgment sums from the date of filing of this action until full settlement.

General damages, to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar.

Exemplary damages, to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s claim is unsustainable and applied under Order 18 rule 19 ROC 2012 to strike out the action.

Order 18 rule 19 ROC 2012 empowers the Court to strike out pleadings where they disclose no reasonable cause of action, are frivolous or vexatious, or constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.

However, it is well established that the striking-out jurisdiction is a draconian power and must be exercised sparingly.

A pleading should only be struck out where it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed.

In exercising this jurisdiction, the Court does not conduct a mini trial nor evaluate the strength of the parties’ evidence.

These principles have been consistently affirmed in authorities such as Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36; and Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur [2016] 3

The Court must therefore be satisfied that the Plaintiff’s claim is clearly unsustainable before striking it out at this preliminary stage.

Whether the Plaintiff’s Claim Discloses A Reasonable Cause of Action

In the present case, the Plaintiff’s action seeks declaratory relief, vacant possession of land and the recovery of rental and/or compensation arising from the Defendants’ alleged continued occupation of the land.

These are recognised causes of action in law.

Whether the Plaintiff will ultimately succeed in establishing those claims is a matter that must be determined at trial after the evidence has been properly tested.

At this stage, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action.

Existence of Disputed Facts

From the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties, it is apparent to the Court that there are substantial disputes of fact between them.

These include, among others:

the legal and practical effect of the Privatisation

the impact of earlier proceedings between the parties;

the status of the land following compulsory acquisition; and

the basis upon which the Defendants continued to occupy the land.

These matters form the factual foundation of the dispute between the parties. Such issues cannot properly be resolved at the striking-out stage on affidavit evidence alone.

They are matters that require a full trial where the relevant evidence may be adduced and tested through examination and cross-examination.

In circumstances where the pleadings and affidavits disclose substantial disputes of fact, the Court should be slow to terminate the action at an interlocutory stage. The proper course is for those disputes to be resolved at trial where the evidence may be fully adduced and tested.

Whether The Action Constitutes An Abuse Of Process

The Defendants further contended that the action constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.

However, having considered the pleadings and the matters raised by the parties, this Court was not satisfied that the Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.

The Plaintiff has pleaded a claim based on its alleged proprietary rights and entitlement to compensation for occupation of the land.

These allegations raise substantive issues which ought properly to be determined at trial.

In the circumstances, this Court was not satisfied that the Plaintiff’s claim is plainly unsustainable or that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

The issues raised involve substantial disputes of fact and law which cannot properly be resolved at the interlocutory stage and must be determined at trial.

Accordingly, the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 14

Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause. Dated: 16th March 2026 ………..…………………………………………………… (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiff : Lim Kien Huat & Bryan Ching Tze Yeow Messrs. Lee & Lim (Petaling Jaya) Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendants : Pn Siti Aisyah binti Ramlan & Anis Najwa Jabatan Peguam Negara,