Kok Kon Sang v Tanjung Atlantik Sdn Bhd (BA-24NCvC-2958-12/2025)

TANJUNG ATLANTIK SDN. BHD.

EDMUND CHOI SHING EU/ … DEFENDAN GAN. HO & RAZLAN HADRI GROUNDS OF DECISION (The Defendants’ Striking Out Applications In Enclosures 5 & 7)

The Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and has filed this Originating Summons (“OS”) against the Defendants.

Enclosure 5 is the First Defendant’s application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), Order 18 rule 19(1)(b), Order 18 rule 19(1)(c) 12/05/2026 16:13:33 BA-24NCvC-2958-12/2025 Kand. 45 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Courts 2012 to strike out the OS (“First Defendant’s Striking Out Application”).

Enclosure 7 is the Second Defendant’s application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), Order 18 rule 19(1)(b), Order 18 rule 19(1)(c) and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Courts 2012 to strike out the OS (“Second Defendant’s Striking Out Application”).

The main reason for striking out the OS is that the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant who did not obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before filing this OS.

The Defendants also relied on these reasons for their striking out applications:

to secure the repayment of the financing facility that the Plaintiff obtained from Public Bank Berhad, he created a charge under the National Land Code (now Act 828) in favour of Public Bank Berhad on 12 May 2005, via Presentation No.: 001SC30881/2005, over a property registered as H.S.(D) 97336 (now GRN 298036), No. P.T. 3795 (Lot 7976), Mukim Damansara (now Bandar Subang Jaya), Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“Property”). On 27 February 2025, the Shah Alam High Court granted an Order for Sale. The First Defendant was the successful bidder. The OS was filed solely to delay the execution and transfer of the Property to the successful bidder;

on 28 May 2025, the Plaintiff lodged a private caveat on the Property via Presentation No.: 00B33968/2025 (“Private Caveat”). This was done despite the Order for Sale having been made 3 months earlier, on 27 February

The First Defendant applied and successfully removed the Private Caveat on 15 December 2025 via Shah Alam High Court Originating Summons No.: BA- 24NCVC-2371-10/2025 (“Removal Of Private Caveat Order”). No appeal was filed against the Removal Of Private Caveat Order. However, the Plaintiff is now attacking the said Removal Of Private Caveat Order in this OS. Therefore, the OS was filed with mala fide;

the OS is defective due to non-compliance with Order 7

there is no reasonable cause of action and there are no issues to be tried. ISSUES

For Enclosures 5 and 7, four issues require determination. They are as follows:

as a vexatious litigant, does the Plaintiff need to obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before initiating legal proceedings?;

if the Plaintiff required leave, did he obtain it before filing this OS?;

if the Plaintiff did not obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before filing this OS, should the OS be struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), Order 18 rule 19(1)(b), Order 18 rule 19(1)(c) and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of

based on the additional reasons, is the OS obviously unsustainable and should be struck out? SALIENT FACTS 2023-First Vexatious Litigant Order

On 4 December 2023, the Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant by Roz Mawar Rozain JC (now High Court Judge) in the Kuala Lumpur Originating Summons No.: WA-24NCVC-1904- 06/2022 (“First Vexatious Litigant Order”).

On 28 December 2023, the First Vexatious Litigant Order was gazetted as the Federal Government Gazette No.: 31858 (“First Vexatious Litigant Gazette”). 2024-Second Vexatious Litigant Order

On 16 July 2024, the Plaintiff was again declared a vexatious litigant by Roz Mawar Rozain J in the Kuala Lumpur Originating Summons No.: WA-24NCVC-1212-03/2024 (“Second Vexatious Litigant Order”).

On 12 September 2024, the Second Vexatious Litigant Order was gazetted as the Federal Government Gazette No.: 21417 (“Second Vexatious Litigant Gazette”).

The information regarding the Plaintiff being declared a vexatious litigant can also be found in Institut Akauntan Malaysia v Kok Kon Sang [2024] 8 MLJ 101 and Public Bank Bhd v Kok Kon San [2025] MLJU 954. 6 2025-Order For Sale

On 27 February 2025, the Shah Alam High Court granted an Order for Sale (Public Bank v Kok Kon San [2025] MLJU 954).

On 7 July 2025, an order for execution of the Order for Sale was made.

On 20 August 2025, the First Defendant successfully bid for the Property at a public auction conducted via e-lelong for RM2.88 million.

On 15 December 2025, Shoba Rajah a/p Dorai Rajah JC allowed the First Defendant’s application to remove the Private Caveat and made the Removal Of Private Caveat Order.

On 16 December 2025, the First Defendant’s solicitors issued a Cease and Desist Notice to the Plaintiff, requiring the Plaintiff to cease from immediately:

collecting, receiving, or demanding any rental payments or any other payments whatsoever from the tenants of the

acting as or claiming to be the landlord of the Property; and

interfering with the First Defendant’s rights in managing and operating the said Property, including those of the tenants. 2025-Originating Summons

On 30 December 2025, the Plaintiff filed this OS against the Defendants. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the OS are reproduced in verbatim:

That Application for Stay of Proceedings under Enclosure 18 for Case Management on 15th December 2025 be reinstated under Order 32 Rules 5(3) “whether or not an Order made on the Hearing has been perfected for re-hearing” in the interest of justice per Exhibit “A” annexed herewith;

That the illegal Online Auction of Plaintiff’s RM4 millions buildings for RM3 millions at Kompleks Mahkamah Kuantan, Pahang for RM3 million on 20th August 2025 be cancelled with costs per Exhibit “B”, OR”;

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s claim RM4 millions on his prime 3- storey freehold building at No.22 Jalan SS15/4B, Subang Jaya Town on Defendant and RM1.5 millions counterclaim against Chargee, Public Bank Berhad per Exhibit “C” annexed herewith;

That Defendants had committed PERJURY to deny receipt of Plaintiff’s documents including Enclosure 9 for sealed Order and costs of RM3,000.00 costs without Hearing be set aside under Order 42 Rule13, Rules of Court 2012 per Exhibit “D” annexed herewith;

That Plaintiff’s claim RM2 millions against lawyer Lee Tze Jiun under Saman Pemula No.No.BA-24NCVC-2928- 12/2025 and to strike out unlawful Gazette No.21417dated 12.9.2024 as vexatious litigant be allowed per Exhibit “E” annexed herewith;

That Plaintiff’s Private Caveat registered on 28th May 2025 be maintained status quo in the interest of justice and Defendants have no contractual right to cancel the Private Caveat under Section 323 of National Land Code the per Exhibit “F” annexed herewith;

That Notice of Cease and Desist by Edmund Choi sing Eu to United Malaysian Travel Corporation Sdn. Bhd. for rental from its Tenant is an abuse of powers be cancelled with costs per Exhibit “G” annexed herewith;

That all proceedings on Guaman No.BA-24NCVC-2371- 10/2025 STAYED until the final outcome of this application;

Kos dijadikan kos dalam kausa permohonan ini;

Any other reliefs as this Honourable Court deemed fit and proper.

On 13 January 2026, the First Defendant filed the First Defendant’s Striking Out Application in Enclosure 5.

On 19 January 2026, the Second Defendant filed the Second Defendant’s Striking Out Application in Enclosure 7. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issue No.1 As A Vexatious Litigant, Does The Plaintiff Need To Obtain Leave From Any High Court Of Malaya Before Initiating Legal Proceedings?

The Learned Counsel for the Defendants contended that, pursuant to the First Vexatious Litigant Order, Second Vexatious Litigant Order, First Vexatious Litigant Gazette, and Second Vexatious Litigant Gazette, the Plaintiff must first obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya prior to filing this OS.

For ease of reference, I reproduce the First Vexatious Litigant Gazette.

I also reproduce the Second Vexatious Litigant Gazette.

The First Vexatious Litigant Order, Second Vexatious Litigant Order, First Vexatious Litigant Gazette and Second Vexatious Litigant Gazette specifically refer to the word ‘proceeding’.

According to Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”): ““proceeding” means any proceeding whatsoever of a civil or criminal nature and includes an application at any stage of a proceeding;” [Emphasis added]

According to Section 3 of the CJA 1964, First Vexatious Litigant Order, Second Vexatious Litigant Order, First Vexatious Litigant Gazette and Second Vexatious Litigant Gazette, the Plaintiff must first seek and obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before filing this OS.

Failure to do so will result in the Plaintiff being barred from commencing this OS. Issue No.2 If the Plaintiff required leave, did he obtain it before filing this OS?

Since the Plaintiff was required to obtain leave from the High Court of Malaya to file this OS, I consistently asked him during the oral hearing whether he had obtained such leave.

The Plaintiff repeatedly claimed that he had received leave from another High Court of Malaya to file this OS.

The Plaintiff’s claim is devoid of merit as the Plaintiff has not produced any Court Order to substantiate his claim that he obtained leave from another High Court of Malaya to file this OS. Issue No.3 If the Plaintiff did not obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before filing this OS, should the OS be struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), Order 18 rule 19(1)(b), Order 18 rule 19(1)(c) and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Courts 2012?

As previously mentioned, the Plaintiff did not obtain any leave from the High Court of Malaya to file this OS.

In Hardial Singh Sekhon v PP [2009] 5 CLJ 101, the Court of Appeal discussed the consequences of a vexatious litigant who failed to obtain leave from the High Court Judge and held that: “[6] As a result of the above order of Mahadev Shankar J, the following notifications, which are the second and third matters referred to in the prayers discussed earlier, were published in the Gazette:

Notification No. 10937 relates to Selangor Criminal Application No 44–26 of 1989 and it reads, inter alia, as follows: ‘... adalah diperintahkan bahawa permohonan berkenaan dengan ini ditolak dan adalah juga diperintahkan bahawa pada menjalankan kuasa-kuasa yang diberi kepada Mahkamah menurut perkara 17 di dalam Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Keadilan 1964, Hardial Singh Sekhon adalah dihalang daripada memulakan apa-apa prosiding undang-undang di mana-mana Mahkamah kecuali dengan kebenaran seorang Hakim dan adalah diperintahkan selanjutnya bahawa satu salinan Perintah ini akan diwartakan di dalam Warta. Diberi di bawah kuasa dan meterai Mahkamah pada 12hb Oktober 1990.’

(ii) Notification No. 10938 relates to Selangor Criminal Appeal No 41–118 Tahun 1989 it reads, inter alia, as follows: ‘... adalah diperintahkan bahawa permohonan berkenaan dengan ini ditolak dan adalah juga diperintahkan bahawa pada menjalankan kuasa-kuasa yang diberi kepada Mahkamah menurut perkara 17 di dalam Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Keadilan 1964, Hardial Singh Sekhon adalah dihalang daripada memulakan apa-apa prosiding undang-undang di mana-mana Mahkamah kecuali dengan kebenaran seorang Hakim dan adalah diperintahkan selanjutnya bahawa satu salinan Perintah ini akan diwartakan di dalam Warta. Diberi di bawah kuasa dan meterai Mahkamah pada 12hb Oktober 1990.’ [7] The effect of the above orders (‘the said orders’) are clear, viz, the court, pursuant to art 17 of the Sch to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, has restrained the appellant in the instant appeal before us from instituting any legal proceedings in any court save by leave of a judge after having found that he is a person who has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings. … “[12] Before us, the federal counsel who appeared for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection, namely, that the appellant has not been granted leave to institute the proceedings and consequently to pursue this appeal. He urged the court to strike out the appeal. The appellant argued he needed no leave to pursue this appeal. We disagreed. What was clear to us is that in view of the said orders, the applicant will not be in a position to make the application in the court below unless leave has been granted by a judge. As the learned judge had pointed out, the said orders still stand. There is nothing to show that the said orders have been reversed by a higher court. Since the appellant has not obtained leave of a judge to make the application, which was clearly tantamount to instituting legal proceedings, we upheld the preliminary objection raised by the first respondent…” [Emphasis added]

In a related case involving the Plaintiff in Kok Kon Sang v Malaysia Institute of Accountants and Anor [2024] CLJU 420, Hazizah Kassim JC (now High Court Judge) had this to say: “[9] The basis of the Respondents’ preliminary objection to Enclosure 3, 6, 12, and 16 is through the Originating Summons 1904, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur on 4th December 2023 declared the Applicant as a vexatious litigant. The decision of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur on 4th December 2023 is as follows: … [12] Based on the said Order of 4th December 2023, the Applicant must obtain leave from the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur before filing any claims against the First Respondent. The Court refers to Enclosures 3, 6, 12, and 16 and finds that the Applicant failed to obtain leave from the High Court of Kuala Lumpur before commencing further proceedings against the First Respondent. Therefore, the Applicant has no locus standi to institute legal proceedings against the Respondents in Enclosures 3, 6, 12 and 16.” [Emphasis added]

Without the leave being obtained from the High Court of Malaya, the Plaintiff did not have the locus standi to file this OS (Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36; Thong & Anor v Saw Beng Chong [2013] 3 MLJ 235; Tony Pua Kiam Wee v Government of Malaysia and another appeal [2019] 12 MLJ 1). Issue No.4 Based on the additional reasons, is the OS obviously unsustainable and should be struck out?

I am of the considered opinion that the OS should also be struck out for the following reasons:

firstly, the Plaintiff filed this OS with mala fide intent and as a tactical manoeuvre to delay and prevent the First Defendant from registering the Property in its name after successfully bidding for the Property via e-lelong;

secondly, if the Plaintiff is dissatisfied or aggrieved with the Removal Of Private Caveat Order, there is only one option available: to appeal against that Order to the Court of Appeal, subject, of course, to obtaining leave to file the notice of appeal from any High Court of Malaya. In this case, the Plaintiff has not obtained leave to file the notice of appeal against the Removal Of Private Caveat Order. Consequently, the Plaintiff has accepted the correctness of the Removal Of Private Caveat Order. Given that, the Plaintiff cannot now blow hot and cold by challenging the Removal Of Private Caveat Order and seeking a stay of proceedings of the Shah Alam High Court Originating Summons No.: BA-24NCVC-2371-10/2025 through this OS. This is a collateral attack on a binding Court Order. It is a clear abuse of the court process;

thirdly, the OS is defective and does not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court 2012. The intitulment of the OS should have included the provisions of the law that the Plaintiff is relying upon. Here, the Plaintiff did not refer to any provision of the law at all in the OS.

fourthly, it is important to note that the Plaintiff did not file any affidavit in support of the OS. Based on the OS itself, there is no reasonable cause of action. About the definition of ‘cause of action’, the Federal Court had in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang; United Engineers (M) Bhd v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 held that: “A cause of action” is a statement of facts alleging that a plaintiff's right, either at law or by statute, has, in some way or another, been adversely affected or prejudiced by the act of a defendant in an action. Lord Diplock in Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 at P 242 defined “a cause of action” to mean “a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person”. In my view the factual situation spoken of by Lord Diplock must consist of a statement alleging that, first, the respondent/plaintiff has a right either at law or by statute and that, secondly, such right has been affected or prejudicated by the appellant/defendant’s act.” [Emphasis added]

fifthly, as alluded to earlier, the OS is a collateral attack on the successful public auction and Removal Of Private Caveat Order. The OS is frivolous and vexatious. About the words ‘frivolous and vexatious’, the Court of Appeal had in Middy Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors v Arensi-Marley (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 MLJ 511 held that: “In short, the words ‘frivolous or vexatious’ under r 19(1)(b) refer to cases which are obviously unsustainable or wrong. The words connote purposelessness in relation to the process or a lack of seriousness or truth and a lack of bona fide; they also include proceedings where a party is not acting bona fide and merely wishes to annoy or embarrass his opponent, or when it is not calculated to lead to any practical result (see Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau & Ors [1990] 1 SLR 1251; Afro Asia Shipping Co Ltd v Haridass Ho & Partners [2003] 2 SLR 491; and Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat & Anor [2005] 2 SLR 188).” [Emphasis added] CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons:

Enclosure 5 is allowed with costs of RM15,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiff to the First Defendant, subject to the allocatur fee; and

Enclosure 7 is allowed with costs of RM15,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Second Defendant, subject to the allocatur fee.

Since it has become a habit for the Plaintiff to disobey and disrespect the First Vexatious Litigant Order, the Second Vexatious Litigant Order, the First Vexatious Litigant Gazette, and the Second Vexatious Litigant Gazette, and to file proceedings in Court without first obtaining leave from any High Court of Malaya, I now make the following consequential Orders against the Plaintiff:

that the Plaintiff, Kok Kon Sang (NRIC No.: 470526-10- 5605) is not permitted to file any further applications or civil suits, amongst others, but not limited to writ and originating summons pertaining to:

the property registered as H.S.(D) 97336 (presently GRN 298036), P.T. No. 3795 (Lot 7976), Mukim Damansara (presently Bandar Subang Jaya), District Petaling, Selangor, bearing address at No. 22, Jalan SS15/4B, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul

(ii) the Order of the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam in Originating Summons No.: BA-24NCVC-2371- 10/2025 dated 15 December 2025, before the Registry of the High Court of Malaya, pursuant to his status as a vexatious litigant previously declared by the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur on 4 December 2023 via Originating Summons No.: WA-24NCVC-1904- 06/2022 and on 16 July 2024 via Originating Summons No.: WA-24NCVC-1212-03/2024; and

nevertheless, the Plaintiff, Kok Kon Sang (NRIC No.: 470526-10-5605) shall only be permitted to file any further applications or civil suits pertaining to the above subject matter upon obtaining leave to commence legal proceedings from any High Court of Malaya. Dated this 3rd day of May 2026 SGD HELMI BIN HAMZAH JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM NEGERI SELANGOR Plaintiff : Kok Kon Sang (acting in person) Counsel for the Defendants : Mr.Razlan Hadri Zulkifli (Mr.Edmund Choi Sing) (Messrs. Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri)