Successful Defence of Injunction and Declaration Claim in Kuala Lumpur Court
Date of Decision: 25 February 2026
Court: Sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur
Outcome: Plaintiff’s Originating Summons dismissed with costs of RM1,500
JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors is pleased to announce another successful litigation outcome where we acted for the Defendant in resisting an Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiff. On 25.2.2026, the Honourable Sessions Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application in its entirety and awarded costs of RM1,500 to the Defendant.
This decision reinforces important principles of Malaysian law on locus standi, privity of contract, and academic proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a tenancy arrangement involving a commercial unit in Kuala Lumpur. The Defendant was the registered landlord of the premises, while the tenancy agreement had been entered into with a corporate tenant.
Subsequently, a different entity (the Plaintiff in this action) attempted to commence proceedings against the Defendant under Order 7 Rules of Court 2012 and section 7 Specific Relief Act 1950.
Our firm was instructed to defend the Defendant and to challenge the Plaintiff’s legal standing and the merits of the claim.
Plaintiff’s Claim Against our Client
The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant (our Client) for, among others:-
- An Injunction Order that the Plaintiff be allowed to enter into our Client’s premises
- An Declaration that our Client’s action in barring their access into Our Client’s premises is illegal
Key Legal Issues Raised
The Court was invited to determine several critical issues, including:
- Whether the Plaintiff had locus standi to bring the action
- Whether the Plaintiff had privity of contract under the tenancy
- Whether the Defendant had engaged in unlawful self-help remedy
- Whether the action had become academic
These issues went to the very foundation of the Plaintiff’s case.
Our Defence Strategy
At JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors, we adopted a structured litigation approach focusing on jurisdictional and substantive defects in the Plaintiff’s claim.
1. Plaintiff Lacked Locus Standi
We argued that the Plaintiff was not the proper party to bring the proceedings.
The tenancy agreement was clearly between the Defendant and the original corporate tenant. The Plaintiff was a separate entity incorporated later and had no direct legal rights over the premises.
Under section 101 Evidence Act 1950, the burden lies on the party asserting a right to prove it. The Plaintiff failed to discharge this burden.
We relied on appellate authorities affirming that only parties with direct legal interest may institute proceedings.
Result: The Court accepted that the Plaintiff’s standing was highly questionable.
2. No Privity of Contract
We further submitted that the doctrine of privity barred the Plaintiff’s claim.
Malaysian law is settled that:
A contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on a stranger to the contract.
The tenancy agreement was entered strictly between the Defendant and the original tenant. The Plaintiff’s name did not appear in the agreement and therefore it could not enforce any alleged rights arising from it.
This was a fatal defect in the Plaintiff’s case.
3. Allegation of Self-Help Was Unsustainable
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had unlawfully taken possession of the premises.
We demonstrated that:
- The Plaintiff was not a lawful occupier
- The tenancy had been properly dealt with under the contractual framework
- The Defendant acted within legal bounds
Given the absence of privity and standing, the Plaintiff could not rely on section 7 Specific Relief Act 1950.
The Court found the Plaintiff’s allegations to be unsupported.
4. The Claim Had Become Academic
A further decisive point was that the premises had already been rented to a new tenant.
We argued that the Court does not decide hypothetical or academic disputes where no live controversy remains.
Authorities from the Federal Court confirm that courts should only adjudicate real and subsisting disputes.
Because the factual substratum had changed, the Plaintiff’s application served no practical purpose.
Court’s Decision
After considering the parties’ submissions, the Honourable Court:
✅ Dismissed the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons
✅ Awarded costs of RM1,500 to the Defendant
✅ Upheld the Defendant’s position
This outcome reflects the strength of the Defendant’s legal position and the effectiveness of the defence strategy.
Why This Decision Matters
This case is significant for landlords, companies, and litigants because it reaffirms that:
- Only proper parties with legal standing may sue
- Privity of contract remains a strict requirement in Malaysia
- Courts will not entertain academic or moot litigation
- Weakly founded Originating Summons can be struck out with costs
For property owners and businesses, the case underscores the importance of proper contractual structure and timely legal advice.
Our Litigation Capability
This successful outcome adds to JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors’ growing track record in:
- Civil litigation
- Tenancy and landlord disputes
- Commercial disputes
- Striking out unmeritorious claims
- Interlocutory applications
As a focused litigation practice with currently 1 partner and 2 lawyers, our firm delivers strategic, cost-effective representation while maintaining close client attention.
Need Help with a Similar Dispute?
If you are facing:
- A tenancy dispute
- An Originating Summons
- A self-help possession allegation
- Or any civil litigation matter
We, JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors is ready to assist.
Early legal intervention often makes the decisive difference.
Written on: 25th February 2026
Contact JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors to make an appointment today!
🌐 Call us: +6017.6965.966 (Call / WhatsApp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Or fill in the contact form CLICK HERE
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!