Kok Kon Sang v Lee Tze Jiun (BA-24NCvC-2928-12/2025)

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

Enclosure 8 is the Defendant’s application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and/or Order 18 rule 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Courts 2012 to strike out the OS because the Plaintiff did not obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before filing this OS on 23 December 2025 (“Defendant’s Striking Out Application”). 13/05/2026 09:29:01 BA-24NCvC-2928-12/2025 Kand. 32

For Enclosure 8, there are three main issues that 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 against the Defendant under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and/or Order 18 rule 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Courts 2012?. 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 Gazzette”). 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. 2025-Originating Summons

On 23 December 2025, the Plaintiff filed this OS against the Defendant. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the OS are reproduced as follows:

That Plaintiff’s claim RM2 millions against Defendant for defamation as vexatious litigant in Gazette No. 21417 dated 12th September 2024, without service of any application to Plaintiff and without his knowledge;

That Defendant unlawfully lelong Plaintiff’s RM4 millions property for RM3 millions to Tan Fong Fook on 19th June 2025 at Pejabat Tanah Wilayah without Power of Attorney be cancelled, and;

That Defendant be liable for Plaintiff’s RM4 millions property No.22 Jalan SS15/4B, Subang Jaya Town, Selangor Darul Ehsan being auctioned for RM3 millions to Tanjung Atlantik Sdn. Bhd. on 20th August 2025.

That Defendant be held responsible had Messrs. Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri to strike out my Private Caveat before YA Puan Shoba Rajah A/P Doarai Rajah on 18th December 2025.

That Defendant had filed six (6) false Afidavit Penyampaian without serving applications and draft orders before YA Puan Ros Mawah binti Rosain be chargeable for PERJURY under Section 191/193 and Section 420 of Penal Code for daylight property robbery.

That Plaintiff did not commit contempt of court by filing interlocutory applications as self-defense against Defendant’s three (3) Lelongs of his two (2) lifetime properties amounting to RM8 millions.

That Plaintiff’s claim RM5 millions against Defendant for filing order of false arrest and imprisonment for 24-day at Kajang Prison which endanger his life and health.

That all proceedings for CIMB Bank Berhad before Mahkamah Rayuan STAYED until final outcome of this application;

Kos on Cause on this application;

Any other relief as this Honorable Court deemed fit and proper.”

On 15 January 2026, the Defendant filed the Defendant’s Striking Out Application in Enclosure 8.

On 15 January 2026, the Defendant filed his affidavit in Enclosure 9 in support of the Defendant’s Striking Out Application. 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 Defendant contended that, pursuant to the First Vexatious Litigant Order and First 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, First Vexatious Litigant Gazette and Second Vexatious Litigant Order, 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.

After hearing oral arguments, I conclude that the Plaintiff did not obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before filing this OS for these two reasons:

The Plaintiff repeatedly claimed to have obtained 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

In Enclosure 9, the Defendant asserted, among others, that:

the Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant;

the Plaintiff must first obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before he can file this OS; and

no leave was obtained by the Plaintiff from any High Court of Malaya to file this OS. 11 24. The Plaintiff did not file any affidavit in reply to deny all the assertions made by the Defendant.

By not filing any affidavit in reply, the Plaintiff has admitted all the assertions made by the Defendant.

In Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 MLRA 48 CA, the Court of Appeal held that: “[10] Now, it is a well settled principle governing the evaluation of affidavit evidence that where one party makes a positive assertion upon a material issue, the failure of his opponent to contradict is usually treated as an admission by him of the fact so asserted: Alloy Automotive Sdn Bhd v. Perusahaan Ironfield Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLRA 309; [1986] 1 MLJ 382; [1986] 1 CLJ 45; Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v. O’Brien [1988] 1 MLRH 627; [1988] 3 MLJ 332; [1988] 2 CLJ 82.” [Emphasis added]

Besides the two reasons mentioned above, it is the Plaintiff’s habit not to obtain leave from any High Court of Malaya before initiating any legal proceedings in Court.

As a result, the Plaintiff was cited for contempt on 29 April 2025 for initiating 14 other legal proceedings without first obtaining leave from the High Court of Malaya.

If the Plaintiff did not obtain leave from the High Court of Malaya before filing this OS, should the OS be struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and/or Order 18 rule 19(1)(d) 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).

For the foregoing reasons, Enclosure 8 is allowed with costs of RM15,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, subject to the allocatur fee. Dated this 3rd day of May 2026 SGD HELMI BIN HAMZAH JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM NEGERI SELANGOR Plaintiff : Mr. Kok Kon Sang (acting in person) Counsel for the Defendant : Mr. Lee Tze Jiun (Messrs Zairina Loh & Wong)