The Court of Appeal said it was bound by a 2022 Federal Court ruling that Azinal Sdn Bhd’s dealings were a bona fide commercial transaction with Pasla Holdings Sdn Bhd, an asset-holding company founded by India-born Dawood.
Justice Azman Abdullah, who led a three-member bench, said Azinal’s appeal to strike out the suit filed by respondents Jannath Gani, Shahul Hameed, and Shirin Mobrak Ahmad was therefore allowed.
The three‑member panel, which included Justice Shahnaz Sulaiman and co‑opted High Court judge Chan Jit Li, ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Lawyers M Pathmanathan and Shirin Pathmanathan appeared for Azinal while Ko Jie Yang and Yap Zi Chen represented the respondents.
Dawood, who migrated to Malaya at age 13, died leaving four wives — Patama @ Amajibibi Daud Sah, Ameena Beevi, Maimoon Beevi and Aishah Beevi — and 20 children.
The children of the fourth wife filed a lawsuit in 2013 claiming that the land sale to Azinal in 1989 was illegal as the property was held in trust by Patama.
In March 2017, the High Court ruled in their favour, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in October of the following year.
In 2022, the Federal Court affirmed the appeals court’s decision, ruling that Dawood had not established a family trust when apportioning his shares in Pasla Holdings.
The apex court also conclusively ruled that Azinal’s subsequent sale to Vision Wagon in 2012 was not at an undervalue.
In 2017, the respondents, linked to Dawood’s second and third wives, commenced the present suit against 11 defendants, including Azinal, but undertook to follow the outcome of the 2022 Federal Court verdict.
Azinal then filed a striking out application on Feb 23, 2023, which the High Court refused.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal, ruling on a preliminary objection, held that the dismissal of a striking out application was non-appealable by virtue of the amendment to Section 68(1)(f) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
However, on Sept 9, the Federal Court ruled in Azinal’s favour and ordered Azinal’s striking out appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeal, giving rise to the present proceedings.