[2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 1 IN THE COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA (CIVIL DIVISION) [CIVIL SUIT NO.: WA-22NCC-326-06/2019] BETWEEN 1. DATUK SERI MAGLIN DENNIS D’CRUZ (NRIC No.: 560227-10-5057) 2. DATUK SUBRAYAN A/L SELLAPPAN (NRIC No.: 440402-08-5641) 3. DATO DR LOGA BALA MOHAN A/L JAGANATHAN (NRIC No.: 660403-07-5175) 4. DATO ELAYPPEN A/L MUTHUSAMY (NRIC No.: 631115-06-5201) 5. DATUK DR K D SIVA KUMAR A/L KRISHNADAS (NRIC No.: 640607-10-6967) 6. DATUK MOHAN A/L A KANDASAMY (NRIC No.: 600222-05-5007) 7. DATUK TIONG YAP CHOON (NRIC No.: 610411-08-5263) 8. SATHIAH A/L SUDAKARAN (NRIC No.: 760607-06-5313) 9. DATUK CHIW TIANG CHAI (NRIC No.: 570119-04-5017) 10. DATO’ INDER SINGH A/L BEANT SINGH (NRIC No.: 670508-10-5747) 11. SELVARAJOO A/L PERMAL (NRIC No.: 670418-07-5265) [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 2 12. ASECALIN A/L V. FERNANDEZ (NRIC No.: 640626-08-6527) 13. JAYASELAN A/L RAJOO (NRIC No.: 770108-14-6003) (BRINGING THIS CLAIM IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE FORMER MEMBERS OF myPPP) ... PLAINTIFFS AND 1. TAN SRI DATUK SERI M. KAYVEAS (NRIC No.: 540429-06-5067) 2. KAYVEAS HOLDINGS SDN BHD (COMPANY No.: 829080-V) 3. BINTANG IRADAT (M) SDN BHD (COMPANY No.: 510546-X) 4. DATUK CHANDRAKUMANAN A/L ARUMUGAM (NRIC No.: 611111-08-5215) 5. DATO’ LY KIM CHEONG (NRIC No.: 800307-04-5365) 6. VIJAYAN A/L SINGARAM (NRIC No.: 601205-10-6639) 7. SHANKER KANDASWAMY (NRIC No.:781015-14-5339) 8. KUMARA RAJA A/L R. ARUMUGAM (NRIC No.: 660114-10-6545) 9. DATUK LAU BENG WEI (NRIC No.: 660114-10-6545) [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 3 10. KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI ... DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (No. 2) [1] This judgment deals with the Court’s jurisdiction to grant a quia timet injunction in circumstances where there is a clear abuse of the court process. Background Facts [2] MyPPP was a political party that was established sometime in 1953. [3] A company by the name of Bintang Iradat (M) Sdn Bhd (‘ Bintang Iradat ’) was incorporated in or around 10.4.2000 as the investmen t and corporate entity of myPPP. [4] From 1988, myPPP was headquartered at a building known as Wisma myPPP. This building was initially rented by myPPP but sometime in 2003, myPPP utilising Bintang Iradat, had purchased the same ( ‘the Property’ ). [5] Through a series of legal actions, the Federal Court had in the Civil Appeal No. 02-10-2012(W) ruled on 15.1.2013 that the shares of Bintang Iradat were held in trust for myPPP (‘ Federal Court Decision ’). [6] Sometime after the 14 th General Election in Malaysia, there arose within myPPP an internal dispute regarding who were the actual office-bearers of the party. [7] Sometime on 25.5.2018, Tan Sri Kayveas purportedly convened a Supreme Council meeting to settle the office-bearers of the Supreme Council members of myPPP for the term 2018 - 2023 (‘ the Supreme Council Meeting of 25.5.2018 ’ ). One of the [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 4 motions tabled at this meeting was related to the transfer of the ownership of the Property to its ‘original owner (beneficial owner)’ which entailed the Bintang Iradat shares held by Datuk Mohan Kandasamy and Datuk Seri Maglin Dennis D Cruz to be transferred to one Kumara Raja a/l Arumugam and Shanker Kandasamy respectively. [8] On 27.5.2018, an Annual General Meeting (‘ the 65 th AGM of 27.5.2018 ’) was purportedly called to elect and formally appoint the new panel of office-bearers. At the AGM of 27.5.2018, the Supreme Council meeting and the purported 64 th Annual General Meeting that were conducted on 26.5.2018 by Datuk Seri Maglin Dennis D’Cruz were declared to be null and void. Further, the proposed motion tabled at the Supreme Council Meeting dated 25.5.2018 on the transfer of the Bintang Iradat shares held by held by Datuk Mohan Kandasamy and Datuk Seri Maglin Dennis D Cruz to one Kumara Raja a/l Arumugam and Shanker Kandasamy respectively was tabled and accepted unopposed by the members who attended at the meeting. The said shareholders of the Bintang Iradat shares were stated to hold the shares on behalf of Tan Sri Kayveas as the beneficial owner. Further 13 members of the Supreme Council including Datuk Seri Maglin Dennis D’Cruz and his team were replaced by new appointments made by Tan Sri Kayveas. [9] This culmin ated in the Registrar of Societies (‘ ROS ’) issuing a letter dated 10.7.2018 to myPPP stating, inter alia : (a) That the list of office-bearers purportedly issued by myPPP at the 65 th AGM of 27.5.2018 was doubtful; (b) That myPPP would be required to call both sets of parties that were entitled to be office bearers; [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 5 (c) That an interim committee comprising 10 members of myPPP for the period 2014-2019 to be convened for the purpose of determining the issue pertaining to the office- bearers. [10] Sometime on 13.9.2018, the ROS further issued a notice stating, inter alia : (a) That it was not satisfied that myPPP had concluded its internal party conflicts; (b) That myPPP had failed to conclude the dispute pertaining to the resignation of Tan Sri Kayveas; (c) That myPPP had not utilised a validly appointed Supreme Council; (d) That the interim committee for the period 2014 -2019 had failed to carry out its duties to call all entitled parties to resolve its internal disputes. [11] Pursuant to the letter dated 13.9.2018, a Supreme Council meeting took place on 30.9.2018 where the following motions were carried out, namely: (a) That the resignation of Tan Sri Kayveas on 23.4.2018 as President was accepted; (b) That the decision to terminate Tan Sri Kayveas on 23.4.2018 was valid and accepted as such; (c) That the office-bearers of myPPP would be as per the Supreme Council members appointed during the 64 th AGM. [12] As a consequence of the aforesaid, it was clear that as at October 2018, there were 2 camps in myPPP, namely, the camp asserting Datuk Seri Maglin together with his office-bearers, was the [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 6 President of myPPP and the other camp claiming that Tan Sri M Kayveas was the President of myPPP. There was a dispute as to the lawful office-bearers of the Supreme Council of myPPP. [13] Sometime on 29.11.2018, Datuk Chandrakumaran a/l Arumugam commenced an action under WA-22NCC-796-11/2018 against Dato’ Roger LY Kim Cheong in his capacity as the Secretary General of myPPP (‘ Civil Suit 796 ’ ) claiming that sometime on 29.6.2013, the Supreme Council of the party had decided that the trustees of Bintang Iradat be transferred to the original purchaser and first shareholder of Bintang Iradat and further that at the Supreme Council Meeting of 25.5.2018, new shareholding structure of Bintang Iradat had been approved and that Dato’ Roger LY Kim Cheong as the Secretary General of myPPP had failed to abide by the said resolution. [14] Both Datuk Chandrakumaran and Dato’ Roger LY Kim Cheong were part of Tan Sri Kayveas’s camp and had attended the Supreme Council Meeting of 25.5.2018. [15] Sometime on 14.1.2019, the ROS, issued a letter effecting the de - registration of myPPP. [16] At the time of the deregistration of myPPP, the shares in Bintang Iradat were held by the following persons: (a) 700,000 shares by Datuk Seri Maglin; (b)15,000 shares by Datuk Mohan; (c) 15,000 shares by Datuk Lau Beng Wei. [17] Pursuant to the Federal Court Decision, these shares held by Datuk Seri Maglin, Datuk Mohan and Datuk Lau Beng Wei were all held in trust for myPPP. [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 7 [18] However, notwithstanding the aforesaid de-registration of myPPP and the Federal Court Decision, Dato’ LY Kim Cheong entered an appearance in the Civil Suit 796 and immediately thereafter entered into a consent judgment on 16.1.2019 which had the effect of the shares of Bintang Iradat being ultimately transferred to Kayveas Holdings Sdn Bhd, a company belonging to Tan Sri Kayveas (‘ the Consent Judgment ’) . This is notwithstanding that with the de- registration of myPPP on 14.1.2019, all dealings with the assets of myPPP were vested with the Director General of Insolvency pursuant to Sections 15(1A), 17 and 41 of the Societies Act 1966 (‘ the Act ’ ). [19] On 14.6.2019, the Plaintiffs herein as former members of myPPP filed the instant action against the Defendants for, inter alia , conspiracy to defraud seeking various reliefs including an order that the Consent Judgment be set aside and for the rectification of the register of Bintang Iradat. [20] On 19.6.2019, the Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from dealing with the shares of Bintang Iradat and from disposing the Property. This Court had on 21.6.2019 granted to the Plaintiff an order in terms of the ex parte application. [21] On 2.8.2019, the Defendants filed applications to strike out the Plaintiff’s action herein on the ground that the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to commence the action. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have no proprietary interests in the assets of myPPP (‘ the Defendants’ Striking Out Applications’ ). [22] Pending the Court’s decision of the Defendants’ Striking Out Applications, on 7.10.2019, the Registrar of Society in response to an appeal made by Tan Sri Kaveas’ camp against the de - registration of myPPP, issued a letter approving the appeal but [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 8 subject to the following 6 conditions (‘ the Conditions’ ): ‘i. Suatu pertikaian jawatankuasa parti myPPP hendaklah diselesaikan dengan melantik mana-mana pihak ketiga yang berkecuali sebagai sebuah badan yang mengawal dan menyelesaikan iasu pertikaian; ii. pelantikan pihak ketiga yang terkecuali hendaklah dipersetujui oleh pihak-pihak yang bertikai di dalam parti myPPP dan hendaklah dimaklumkan kepada JPPM dengan kadar yang segera; iii. suatu laporan berhubung penyelesaian pertikaian hendaklah disediakan oleh pihak ketiga yang berkecuali yang hendaklah dikemukakan kepada JPPM dengan kadar segera selepas siatu penyelesaian pertikaian dicapai bersama-sama oleh pihak yang bertikai dan persetujuan hendaklah secara kolektif; iv. tempoh masa pelaksanaan bagi mengadakan pemilihan semula jawatankuasa majlis tertinggi parti adalah sehingga 31 Disember 2019 dan hendaklah mengikut tatacara ataupun peruntukan di dalam perlembagaan myPPP sendiri. Sekiranya memerlukan lanjutan masa hendaklah mengemukakan kepada Pendaftar secara rasmi dan adalah kuasa Pendaftar untuk mempertimbangkan; v. jawatankuasa yang bertanggungjawab bagi menyelesaikan isu pertikaian parti myPPP adalah terdiri daripada jawatankuasa 2014-2019 seperti di Lampiran 1; dan vi. tugas jawatankuasa berkenaan adalah terhad untuk melantik pihak ketiga yang berkecuali dan melaksanakan pemilihan semula sahaja bagi tujuan penyelesaian pertikaian [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 9 ini tanpa melaksanakan apa- apa aktiviti lain.’ [23] The present action before this Court is filed by the Plaintiffs premised on the society, MyPPP having been struck out by the ROS and based on section 17 of the Act that the DGI has jurisdiction over the assets of the society. [24] The Plaintiffs’ locus standi to commence this action rests on the fact that upon the society being de-registered, each of the ex- members of the society will have a claim against the assets of the society. [25] On 6.1.2020 , I dismissed the Defendants’ Striking Out A pplications and on 6.8.2020, the Court of Appeal dism issed the Defendants’ appeals and affirmed this Court’s decision dismissing the Defendants’ Striking Out Applications . The Court of Appeal held that there are numerous triable issues concerning the allegations of fraud, abuse of process and conspiracy and that the Plaintiffs as ex- members of myPPP possess residual rights to maintain the present action. [26] It is pertinent that in the Defendants’ Striking Out Applications, the Defendants did not at all challenge the decision by the ROS on 14.1.2019 striking out the society. Neither did the Defendants challenge the letter dated 7.10.2019 which was the decision by the Minister imposing the Conditions as the prerequisites for the de - registration of the myPPP to be cancelled. [27] Further, whilst the Defendants ’ Striking Out A pplications were being litigated before this Court, unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, various proceedings were filed in different parts of the country involving myPPP and or pertaining to its de-registration status. In particular : [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 10 (a) On 19.11.2019, Chandrakumaran filed a judicial review application at the High Court at Kuala Lumpur under WA-25- 524- 11/2019 (‘ the KL JR ’ ) against ROS, Jabatan ROS and Home Affairs Minister seeking the following reliefs: i. That Chandrakumanan is the Vice-President of myPPP; ii. That the appointment of the Supreme Council for 2014 - 2019 and 2018-2023 is legitimate; iii. That the Conditions imposed by ROS is contrary to myPPP’s Constitution; iv. That the time period given by ROS to resolve the dispute, until 31.12.2019 is ultra vires ; v. That the appointment of the Supreme Council is to be via the AGM which is to be convened on or before 26.11.2019; vi. That the terms of the letter dated 7.10.2019 under paragraphs 4(i) – (vi) and 5 be stayed. (b) On 19.11.2019, Dato’ Sri Gandi filed an action at the High Court of Seremban against ROS, Tan Sri Kayveas, myPPP and Roger LY under Originating Summons No. NA- 24NCVC-349- 11/2019 (‘ the Seremban OS ’) seeking the following reliefs: i. Declaration that the next AGM is to be held on or before 26.11.2019; ii. Declaration that the Supreme Council mentioned in Article 8.5.1 is the Supreme Council appointed on 27.5.2018; [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 11 iii. Declaration that the Minister’s decision according to Section 18 of the Act is final and there is no legal provision to add conditions or cancel the society automatically; iv. Declaration that according to Article 8.2, the AGM is to be convened within 18 months; v. Declaration that ROS/myPPP cannot stop Roger Ly from convening the AGM. (c) On 20.11.2019, Datuk Soma Sundaram filed an action at the High Court of Alor Setar under Originating Summons KA- 24NCVC-1000- 11/2019 (‘ the Alor Setar OS ’) seeking identical reliefs as in the Seremban OS. [28] These proceedings were all taken out by persons aligned to Tan Sri Kayveas’s camp or involved persons aligned to him. As can be seen from the reliefs sought in these proceedings, the plaintiffs thereto are clearly aligned to Tan Sri Kayveas’s camp and are seeking to validate the proceedings at the 65 th AGM dated 27.5.2018 thereby installing persons aligned to Tan Sri Kayveas as members of the Supreme Council and to have myPPP declared as being re-instated. [29] The Plaintiffs were completely kept in the dark of these proceedings. The effect of these proceedings will be to scuttle the Plaintiffs’ present action and to exclude the Plaintiffs from being members of the Supreme Council of myPPP once its de-registration is cancelled. One of the consequences of these proceedings once myPPP is re-instated is tha t the Plaintiffs’ locus standi to continue with the present action will be adversely impacted. [30] Whilst there is nothing wrong for Tan Sri Kayveas and those aligned to him avail themselves of the legal process to pursue their [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 12 legal interests, what is disturbing, however, is the manner in which these proceedings are being conducted. In particular: (a) Relevant parties affected by the prayers sought in these proceedings were not made parties to the same. For instance, neither the Plaintiffs nor the DGI were parties to these proceedings. Instead, myPPP was a party to these proceedings notwithstanding the fact that it has been de- registered; (b) Although the ROS was made a party to these proceedings, the cause papers were not served on them; (c) In the Seremban OS, the 2 individual defendants sought to be compelled by the Plaintiff to be subject to the various declarations thereto were the 2 nd and 5 th Defendants in this action. Notwithstanding that these 2 individuals were clearly aware of the present action and notwithstanding that they had not challenged the de- registration of the society in this action, both of them, without notifying the Court in Seremban of the present action and the stance taken by them herein, proceeded with haste to record a consent judgment in terms which are inconsistent with their stance taken in the present action; (d) Equally disturbing is the fact that a similar application was taken out in the Alor Setar OS where again the 5 th Defendant in this action was made a defendant. Again, the 5 th Defendant also proceeded with haste to record a consent judgment without the ROS, although being made a party to the action being served with the cause papers; [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 13 (e) The modus operandi in both the Seremban OS and the Alor Setar OS appear to share the same features as alleged in respect of the Consent Judgment that was obtained in the Civil Suit 796, which is a subject matter of the present action. In particular, persons who are within the same Tan Sri Kayveas’s camp would file the proceedings in court against members of their own camp who have been appointed as office bearers of myPPP. These office bearers would then consent to the prayers sought in these proceedings which would result in Tan Sri Kayv eas’ camp obtaining various declaratory orders fashioned to advance their own interests bearing the imprimatur of the Court; (f) At the first hearing of the Plaintiffs’ application for quia timet injunction under Enclosure 82 on 25.2.2020, counsel for the Defendants had objected to the Plaintiffs’ application for an ad interim injunction pending the disposal of Enclosure 82. Instead, the Defendants had agreed to provide an undertaking through their counsel that they would inform the Plaintiffs’ solicitors if the Defendants and or their agents were to commence any new suits or if they were named as parties to any proceedings apart from the KL JR, the Seremban OS and the Alor Setar OS (‘ the Defendant s’ Undertaking ’). Notwithstanding the Defendants’ Undertaking, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs informed this Court that sometime on 26.2.2020 (the next day after the Defendants’ Undertaking was given to Court, during the case management of the KL JR, the Plaintiffs’ solicitors had come to know that there was a further suit pending [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 14 before another High Court in Kuala Lumpur pertaining t o myPPP (‘ the 2 nd KL JR ’ ). The 2 nd KL JR is conducted by the same solicitors acting for Datuk Chandrakumanan in the KL JR. Despite requests made to his solicitors for details of the 2 nd KL JR, no reply has been received. [31] Based on the aforesaid, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs urged this Court to issue a quia timet injunction against the Defendants herein given what he contended are clear evidence of a blatant abuse of the Court process. [32] Learned counsel for the Defendants contended that there is no basis for the quia timet injunction applied for by the Plaintiffs. The KL JR, the Seremban OS and the Alor Setar OS are not proceedings dealing with the Property and shares of Bintang Iradat which are the subject matter of the Plaintiffs’ action before this Court. There is no multiplicity of proceedings. [33] Further, there is no evidence that the parties who commen ced these proceedings are agents of Tan Sri Kayveas. According to learned counsel for the Defendants, myPPP has many members and it is practically impossible to prevent any of these members from filing legal proceedings in Court throughout the country. [34] In any case, learned counsel for the Defendants contended that this Court ought not to grant an injunction to stay proceedings that are already before other High Courts in Malaysia. [35] Further, the Defendants have already intervened in these proceedings. [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 15 Court’s Decision [36] The Court’s jurisdiction to grant a quia timet injunction was discussed by Haidar J in PPES Resorts v. Keruntum [1990] 1 MLJ 436 where His Lordship (as he then was) said as follows: ‘Faced with such a situation, it would appear that PPES decided, if I may describe it, ‘to draw the gun first’ by obtaining the quia timet injunction against Keruntum. Be that as it may, has the court the jurisdiction to grant such an injunction? Now, the power of the court to grant an injunction, tem porary or perpectual, is provided under s. 50 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (‘SRA’) and such power is a discretionary one. I do not think that it is seriously disputed that a quia timet injunction is a form of an interlocutory injunction, that is, until the determination of PPES’ legal rights vis-à-vis Keruntum’s legal rights over the forest area that is in dispute. In fact I would venture to say that Keruntum’s proposed action and the present action of PPES would in effect be based on more or less similar facts and the court eventually determining as to who has the legal rights to the forest area in question. .... A quia timet injunction is a proceeding by which the court is enabled to prevent its jurisdiction from being stultified (See Harris v. Griffith [1928] Ch 290). In my view, the present wordings of our s. 54(b) does not muzzle the court in any way from granting an interlocutory injunction in the nature of quia timet to restrain a person from instituting or prosecuting a [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 16 proceeding ... In the result, I would rule that the court has jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction as it did and since it is my view that s. 54(b) of the SRA does not in any way muzzle the court in granting a quia timet injunction, the submission of Mr Colin Lau that ‘where the re can be no perpetual injunction, there can be no temporary injunction’ cannot be sustained. I fully subscribe to the views that ‘inherent power of the court cannot be invoked to nullify or stultify a statutory provision’ (see p 1273 of the Indian Cotton Corp case AIR 1983 SC 1272). But here the court us not invoking the inherent powers of the court. Having thus ruled that the court has the power to grant the interlocutory injunction. I next have to consider whether there are valid grounds for me to set aside the interlocutory injunction granted to PPES.’ [37] The learned judge cited with approval the following passage by Parson J in Fletcher v. Beatley [1885] 28 Ch D 688 who explained the law as to actions quia timet as follows: ‘There are at least two n ecessary ingredients for a quia timet action. There must, if no actual damage is proved, be proof of imminent dangers, and there must also be proof that the apprehended damage will, if it comes, be very substantial. I should almost say that it must be proved that it will be irreparable, because, if the danger is not proved to be imminent that no one can doubt that, if the remedy is delayed the damage will be suffered, I think it must be shown, if the damage does not occurred at any time, it will come in such a way and under such circumstances that it will be impossible for the plaintiff to protect himself against it if relief is denied [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 17 to him in a quia timet action.’ [38] In Ting Chuen Peng & Ors v. Yap Kian @ Yap Sin Tian & Anor [2016] 7 MLJ 445 at S Nanda Balan JC (as he then was) issued a quia timet injunction to avoid the imminent danger of Dong Zhong being de-registered arising from a leadership crisis not very much dissimilar with the present case facing myPPP. Thus, the fact that the Court has the jurisdiction to grant a quia timet injunction is now beyond doubts. [39] In this case, what the Plaintiffs are seeking is not an injunction to restrain the proceedings in the KL JR, the Seremban OS and the Alor Setar OS as the Plaintiffs have already intervened in those proceedings. Instead, what the Plaintiffs are seeking is an injunction to restrain the Defendants and or their agents or servants from commencing any further proceedings pertaining to the status of myPPP and or seeking similar reliefs to that prayed for in the KL JR and or Seremban OS or the Alor Setar OS. [40] The manner in which these proceedings are conducted smacks of an abuse of the court process that this Court cannot condone and must act to prevent. I can do no better than to quote the following passage by Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) in Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v. Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 637 at p. 646: ‘ At other times, the abuse can only be shown by extrinsic evidence that the legal process is being used for an improper purpose. On the face of it, in any particular case, the legal process may appear to be entirely proper and correct. What may make it wrongful is the purpose for which it is used. If it is done in order to exert pressure so as to achieve an end which is improper in itself, then it is a wrong known to the law. [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 18 Abuse of process in the context of a step taken in the proceedings would, in my judgment, include the use of interlocutory relief as an instrument of oppression. Th e law provides for remedies, both interim and final, to a litigant to set right, or to prevent, some harm or injury that has been done or may be reasonably apprehended. It is plainly an abuse of the court’s process where relief at law or in equity is used, not to remedy a genuine grievance, but as an instrument of oppression. There have been instances before our courts where an interlocutory injunction has been found to have been used as an instrument of oppression. We have always intervened in such cases and set the matter right. See, for example Motor Sports International Ltd (Servants or agents at Federal Territory of Labuan) & Ors v. Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd [1996] 2 MLJ 605; Tsoi Ping Kwan v. Loh Lai Ngoh & Anor [1997] 3 MLJ 165’. [41] I do not agree with learned counsel for the Defendants that the proceedings in the KL JR, the Seremban OS and the Alor Setar OS do not involve the Property or the shares of Bintang Iradat. These proceedings seek to validate and to advance the resolutions p assed at the 65 th AGM of 27.5.2018 which included the resolution that the shares of Bintang Iradat be held on trust for Tan Sri Kayveas instead of myPPP. This relates to the Consent Judgment which is one of the subject matter of this action. [42] Further, these proceedings directly affect the status of the Plaintiffs in the present action as they seek to not only to re-instate the registration of myPPP but also to validate the members of the Supreme Council of myPPP comprising members which exclude Datuk Ser i Maglin Dennis D’Cruz and his team. [43] These proceedings are taken behind the Plaintiffs’ back, filed [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 19 surreptitiously and in flagrant abuse of the court process. No proper disclosure was made to the Court in any of these proceedings of the Plaintiffs’ present action and the fact that the ROS had by a letter dated 26.2.2020 confirmed that the status of myPPP remains as struck out. In particular, the relevant paragraph of the letter states: ‘4. Berhubung dengan isu pelaksanaan Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan, parti myPPP yang telah dibatalkan pendaftaran pertubuhannya pada 14 Januari 2019 telahpun dipertimbangkan permohonan rayuannya dengan keputusan lulus bersyarat pada 07 Oktober 2019. Oleh yang demikian, Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan selaras dengan perkara 8.2. tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan sehingga semua syarat yang ditetapkan telah dilaksanakan sewajarnya dan diperakui oleh YB Menteri. Sehingga itu, status parti myPPP adalah masih kekal batal melainkan tindakan yang disyaratkan telah dilaksanakan dan diperakui. [44] In my judgment, the Plaintiffs have satisfied this Court that unless restrain by a quia timet injunction, there is indeed imminent danger of substantial, if not irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs if the Defendants were to proceed to initiate further similar proceedings in the High Court to seek reliefs which are similar or substantially similar to those prayed for in the KL JR and or the Seremban OS and or the Alor Setar OS. [45] In the event that the Defendants were to be successful in launching another action and obtaining by way of a consent order the prayers to validate the resolutions taken at the 65 th AGM of 27.5.2018 and to re-instate myPPP without the Plaintiffs and or the relevant parties being served with the actions, not only will the Plaintiffs be deprived of their locus standi to continue with the action before this Court, the Plaintiffs would also be excluded from being members of [2020] 1 LNS 1137 Legal Network Series 20 the Supreme Council of myPPP and the shares of Bintang Iradat would be transferred out to Tan Sri Kayveas thereby depriving the Plaintiffs and myPPP of the Property. Damages will not be adequate remedies for the Plaintiffs. [46] The granting of the quia timet injunction is also necessary to put a stop to the blatant abuse of the court process which apart from the issue of multiplicity of proceedings also display a wanton and contumacious disregard of the sanctity of the legal process in this country. The use of separate legal proceedings filed throughout the country to obtain consent orders is inimical to the due administration of justice and a strong message must be sent to both lawyers and litigants against such practices of putting the justice system into disrepute. [47] Accordingly, I hereby make the following orders: i. A quia timet injunction be granted to restrain and prohibit the the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th , 6 th , 7 th and or 8 th Defendants, whether acting by themselves or through their agents, servants, representatives and or nominees from initiating and or fili ng any civil proceedings in any Court or tribunal in Malaysia in respect of the same or substantially the same matters and or reliefs in the following actions: a. High Court at Kuala Lumpur in Suit No. WA-25-524- 11/2019 (‘ the KL JR ’); b. High Court at Seremban in Originating Summons No. NA-24NCVC-349- 11/2019 (‘ the Seremban OS ’); and c. High Court of Alor Setar in Originating Summons KA- 24NCVC-1000- 11/2019 (‘ the Alor Setar OS ’). ii. That pursuant to the Undertaking given by the Defendants