Kok Kon Sang v 1. ) Lee Tze Juin/Messrs. Zarina Loh & Wong (WA-25-273-07/2025)

1.

2.

PENTADBIR TANAH & GALIAN/ ATAU MOHD. NASRUL BIN MOHD. NAWI ... RESPONDENTS

The Applicant’s application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings under O. 53, r. 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘RC 2012’) was heard on 16.10.2025 whereby the Applicant’s application in encl. 1 was struck out.

The Applicant is dissatisfied with the decision and he has filed a Notice of Appeal on 17.11.2025.

These are my full grounds of decision.

On 1.7.2025, the Applicant filed an application for judicial review citing O. 53, rr. 2, 3 and 6 of the RC 2012 “to sue in person as follows :- “1. That CIMB Bank Berhad is Not a Party on All False Court Orders filed by Respondents under Saman Pemula WA-24NCVC-1212-03/2024 be set aside under Order 42 Rule 13, Rules of Court 2012;

That Gazette Notification No. 16302 dated 12.9.2024 on false vexatious litigant against Applicant without service of application be struck out under Order 18 Rule 19(a)

and (c), Rules of Court 2012;

That Applicant sue RM1.5 millions against 1st and 2nd Respondents jointly and severally under Order 5 Rule 6, Rules of Court 2012 and under Section 5 Defamation

That unlawful sale of Applicant's RM4 millions property for RM3 millions by Penolong Pengarah, Mohd. Nasrul bin Mohd. Nawi. Pejabat Tanah dan Galian, Rumah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur on 19th June 2025 without compliance of National Land Code 2013 be cancelled with costs;

That all proceedings under Saman Pemula No. WA- 24NCVC-1212- 03/2024 and Gazette No. 16302 against Applicant as vexatious litigant be stayed until final outcome of this application;

That costs on cause of this application;

Relif selanjutnya yang Mahkamah anggap wajar dan sesuai”.

At the first Case Management (‘CM’) on 17.7.2025, the Applicant contacted the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (‘SAR’) at the office line and informed that he was unable to attend the CM due to personal matters and a leg injury. The SAR directed the Applicant to file a Medical Certificate (‘MC’) but this was not done.

The Applicant requested for –

the next CM to be fixed after two months on the ground that there was a pending appeal at the Court of Appeal; and

this case to be heard by a judge not from the Special Powers Division. The SAR informed the Applicant that, notwithstanding the ongoing appeal, the Applicant is required to attend the CM in this court for further directions.

The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent (‘R1’) and 2nd Respondent (‘R2’) was present at the CM and he informed the SAR that the Applicant has another CM scheduled at the Shah Alam High Court (BA-22NCvC-247-06/2025) on the same day. The Applicant was said to have requested a postponement in the Shah Alam matter on the basis that he needed to attend the CM in this Court.

The learned counsel requested for the matter to be fixed before the judge as the Applicant should not have filed encl. 1 without first obtaining leave of the High Court in view of the fact that, upon the application of CIMB Bank Berhad (‘CIMB’), the Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant by the Kuala Lumpur High Court (WA-24NCvC-1212-03/2024) on 16.7.2024 and is prohibited from commencing any further legal proceedings in any court in Malaysia except with leave of the High Court in Malaya [‘Order’; see the Notification No. 21417 in Gazette No. 37, Volume 68 dated 12.9.2024 (‘Gazette Notification’)].

The SAR then directed the Applicant to serve the cause papers on the Attorney General’s Chambers (‘AGC’) and to file the Affidavit of Service at least two weeks before the hearing date on 10.9.2025. R1’s and R2’s counsel had undertaken to inform the Applicant of the SAR’s directions.

Subsequently, the parties were informed that the hearing date on 10.9.2025 was converted to a CM before the learned Deputy Registrar (‘DR’) as the judge had to give priority for the part-heard construction case (WA-22C-13-02/2020).

The Applicant, through the letter dated 9.9.2025 (encl. 17), requested for the CM to be adjourned under O. 32, r. 2 of the RC 2012 and for the matter to be fixed before the SAR. The Applicant also raised the issue of “serious conflict of interest” should the case be heard by myself in the light of my judgment in Kok Kon Sang (operating a business under the name and style of Eddie Kok & Co (formerly known as Kok & Co) Chartered Accountants, Malaysia) v Institut Akauntan Malaysia [2019] 11 MLJ 1.

The Applicant was informed that the CM before the DR on 10.9.2025 would be maintained (encl. 18).

On 10.9.2025, the Applicant was absent for the CM. The learned counsel for R1 and R2 was present and he undertook to inform the Applicant of the court’s directions. The learned counsel stated that –

he has no knowledge on whether the Applicant has served the cause papers on the AGC. The DR noted that no Affidavit of Service was filed by the Applicant;

he intends to apply to be heard at the leave application stage as putative Respondents for the purpose of seeking that leave be dismissed on the basis that the Applicant did not file an application for leave as he has been gazetted as a vexatious litigant by virtue of the Order; and

part of the subject matter raised in encl. 1 relates to property allegedly belonging to the Applicant which has been successfully auctioned in June 2025. The purchaser has paid the deposit and it was pending payment of the balance amount.

The DR directed that written submissions be filed by 2.10.2025 and fixed 16.10.2025, 10.00 a.m. for hearing of the leave application.

The learned counsel for R1 and R2 had written to the Applicant on the same date (10.9.2025) to convey the directions by the court (encl. 19).

R1’s and R2’s written submission was filed on 30.9.2025 (encl. 20) while the Applicant’s written submission was filed on 9.10.2025 (encl. 23).

In the letter dated 30.9.2025 (filed on 9.10.2025; encl. 25), the Applicant applied for the hearing on 16.10.2025 to be postponed “… kerana saya ada Pendengaran dihadapan YA Dato’ Hazizah binti Kassim pada 16hb Oktober 2025, tarikh yang ditetapkan oleh peguam Lee Tze Jiunn dahulu.”.

As the matter in the Shah Alam High Court was in the morning of 16.10.2025, I directed that the hearing on 16.10.2025 was to be maintained but the time was changed to 2.30 p.m. The DR had duly informed the Applicant vide e-mail on 10.10.2025.

The Applicant then wrote a letter dated 13.10.2025 (filed on 14.10.2025; encl. 28) seeking a stay of the hearing on 16.10.2025 under O. 32, r. 4 of the RC 2012 for the following reasons: “(a) I attach herewith Polis Report on 12.10.2025 against Respondents Lee Tze Jiun under Section 191/193 and Section 420 of Penal Code, the contents of which are self-explanatory per Exhibit "A" annexed herewith.

I was fabricated me as vexatious litigant under Gazette No. 16302 dated 18.9.2025 absolutely without my knowledge per attached Exhibit "B".

I have no locus standi before this Honorable Court UNLESS represented by lawyers and request for extension of time to find lawyers.

Respondents had unlawfully auctioned my property valued RM4 millions for RM3 millions on 19th June 2025 to buyer Tan Foong Yook who claimed payment of RM1 million to Respondents on my property.

I had an important personal matter on 16.10.2025 afternoon.

In the light of special circumstances, I apply for Stay of Hearing on 16.10.2025 pending final outcome of Polis investigations and report to Attorney-General Malaysia. ...”. I rejected the Applicant’s application and this was conveyed by the DR to the Applicant.

The case was called up in open court on 16.10.2025 at 2.42 p.m. with only the learned counsel for R1 and R2 being present. Before that, I was apprised of the following:

in the e-mail to the court dated 13.10.2025 (encl. 27), the Senior Federal Counsel said that: “2. … Pemohon di dalam kes di atas telah diwartakan sebagai seorang litigan yang menyusahkan (“Vexatious Litigant”) melalui Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 16.7.2024 yang dikeluarkan oleh YA Puan Roz Mawar Rozain. Berdasarkan semakan, pihak AGC tidak pernah menerima sebarang kertas kausa dan/atau Perintah Mahkamah yang membenarkan Pemohon untuk memulakan apa-apa prosiding di Mahkamah termasuk berkaitan kes di atas.

Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan kepada perkara-perkara tersebut, saya telah diarahkan untuk memaklumkan pihak puan bahawa tiada wakil AGC yang akan hadir pada tarikh sepertimana yang telah ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah.”; and

the Applicant had sent an e-mail to, among others, the DR, SAR and court interpreters on 15.10.2025 at 5.41 p.m. stating as follows: “I forward herewith Sick Certificate for 2 days on Thursday and Friday. I will not be able to attend Court tomorrow as I need to be admitted to Universiti Hospital. Please be informed accordingly.”. I had seen the MC but it was blurry and not legible. On 16.10.2025, 10.52 a.m., I e-mailed to the DR to contact the Applicant for a clearer MC. The DR then called the Applicant twice but there was no answer.

The learned counsel agreed with the court that the MC is blur and it does not state what the Applicant’s illness and there is no proof of the Applicant’s admission to the University Hospital.

According to the learned counsel, –

it was the norm for the Applicant not to pick up his phone and to give false reasons in requesting for adjournments as has happened in this court when the Applicant asked for an adjournment for the reason that he has a matter in the Shah Alam court. However, upon checking by the learned counsel, it turned out that the Applicant had also asked for an adjournment of the Shah Alam case on the ground that he has a case in this court; and

the Applicant has stopped attending matters in relation to CIMB Bank Berhad since 29.4.2025 when the Kuala Lumpur High Court found him guilty of contempt of court by wilfully and persistently breaching the Order and he was –

committed to prison for a period of 24 days;

(ii) to pay CIMB the sum of RM50,000.00 within seven days from the date of the order as compensation for the costs and expenses incurred as a result of his contemptuous conduct;

(iii) to pay to CIMB the costs of the application in the sum of RM30,000.00; and a Warrant of Committal was issued forthwith for the arrest and detention of the Applicant for the period specified in subparagraph (i) above (see CIMB Bank Berhad v Kok Kon Sang [2025] 10 CLJ 92 and the letter from R1’s and R2’s solicitors to the court dated 9.7.2025 (encl. 5); see too the Applicant’s letter to the President of the Court of Appeal dated 1.10.2025 (encl. 26) requesting that the Notice of Appeal and four Notice of Motion in W-02(IM)(NCvC)-2127- 12/2024, W-02(IM)(NCvC)-861-05/2025, B-92(A)-4612- 03/2025 and B-02(IM)(NCC)-349-03/2023 to be reinstated as, among others, he had filed a MC for 25 and 26 September 2025 but these were deleted or blocked for hearing before the presiding judge Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA).

In view of the fact that the Applicant did not provide a copy of the MC which was intelligible and proof of his hospitalisation on 16.10.2025, and the previous failure by the Applicant to provide a MC for 17.7.2025 and interchangeably using the attendance in one court as an excuse to be absent from another court, I decided to proceed with the hearing of the leave application in the Applicant’s absence. There appears to be a pattern to the Applicant’s conduct in giving all kinds of excuses to avoid physical attendance in court as he is aware that a Warrant of Committal was issued on 29.4.2025 for his arrest and detention.

Although encl. 1 is an ex-parte application, I had exercised my discretion in allowing the learned counsel for R1 and R2 to be heard as putative respondents and for encl. 1 to be heard on an opposed ex-parte basis as R1 and R2 have raised a valid point of law and precious judicial time would be saved by allowing R1 and R2 to be heard at the early stage of the proceedings (see Mukhriz Mahathir v Datuk Seri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abdul Razak (suggested contemnor) & Anor [2018] 3 MLJ 715 at p 722). Moreover, based on the correspondence, the Applicant is similarly fully aware of R1’s and R2’s participation in the proceedings in respect of encl. 1.

Basically, the legal issue which was highlighted by R1 and R2 was that, by virtue of the Order and the Gazette Notification, the applicant is barred from filing encl. 1 without first obtaining the requisite leave from the High Court in Malaya. Up to the date of hearing, the Applicant did not produce any evidence of such leave having been obtained. Furthermore, he did not serve the cause papers on the AGC as directed by the court.

The learned counsel contended that the Applicant has continuously breached the Order by filing, without leave, proceedings after proceedings in court against, inter alia, the Respondents, including the application for leave to commence judicial review in encl.

1.

I agreed with the learned counsel’s submission that, to allow the Applicant to be heard on encl. 1 without first obtaining leave, would defeat the purpose of the Order in declaring the Applicant as a vexatious litigant (see Hardial Singh Sekhon v PP [2009] 5

For the avoidance of doubt, –

I did not consider the Applicant’s written submission in encl. 23 because it was filed late without leave of the court; and

I am of the opinion that the Applicant’s allegation of “serious conflict of interest” if I was to hear encl. 1 is absolutely baseless.

Premised on the aforesaid considerations, I allowed R1’s and R2’s prayer that the Applicant’s application in encl. 1 be struck out. No order was made as to costs. DATED: 21 NOVEMBER 2025 (ALIZA SULAIMAN) JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR (BKK1) Solicitors for the 1st and 2nd Respondents: