The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has firmly rejected an attempt by three former company executives to delay paying back nearly half a million ringgit to Muslim pilgrims whose travel plans were derailed by the coronavirus outbreak. Judge Leong Wai Hong dismissed the application filed by Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff, who sought to stay execution of a payment order while pursuing an appeal. The court ruled that the grounds presented did not meet the threshold for special circumstances and imposed costs of RM5,000 against the applicants.
This latest court decision brings closure to a lengthy legal battle that has exposed vulnerabilities in Malaysia's pilgrimage tourism sector, where payment disputes and operational failures have left vulnerable consumers bearing the financial burden. The three directors had worked for Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd, which served as a ticketing agent for the hajj and umrah travel company KRS Travel Sdn Bhd. The dispute centres on what transpired after Malaysia Airlines Berhad cancelled flight bookings during the pandemic, leaving KRS facing mounting pressure from its clients who expected full refunds.
The chronology of events reveals how institutional breakdowns cascaded into consumer losses. In February 2020, before COVID-19 became a household concern in Malaysia, KRS engaged Rehla to arrange and secure flight tickets for pilgrims heading to Madinah and Jeddah. KRS transferred RM492,480 to Rehla for these bookings, which Rehla then remitted to Malaysia Airlines as the airline's authorised ticketing agent. The airline confirmed the reservations and issued Passenger Name Records, the standard documentation proving valid flight bookings. The transaction appeared routine and legitimate at that stage.
Within months, however, the global pandemic triggered flight cancellations across the industry. Malaysia Airlines terminated the tickets that Rehla had booked, creating an immediate crisis for KRS and the pilgrims awaiting refunds. What followed exposed a problematic gap in the contractual chain. Rehla, the intermediary that held KRS's funds, simply ceased operating without processing refunds. The three directors, who controlled both the company and its assets, refused to reimburse KRS. They contended that their responsibility ended once they forwarded payments to Malaysia Airlines, arguing that KRS should instead pursue the airline for compensation.
This defence mechanism—shifting liability upstream to the airline rather than accepting responsibility as the direct recipient of customer funds—resonated with neither the trial court nor the appellate judges. During the full trial in the Sessions Court, judicial findings concluded that the defendants had engaged in fraudulent conduct by unlawfully withholding money that rightfully belonged to the umrah pilgrims. The trial court validated KRS's claim and ordered the repayment of the entire RM492,480 amount. When the three directors appealed that verdict in December 2025, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court's judgment without modification, effectively closing off their last substantive avenue for reversal.
The current application for a stay of execution represented a procedural manoeuvre designed to delay payment while the applicants explored remaining legal remedies. Such applications are granted only when there are compelling reasons—typically involving irreparable harm, serious questions about the law, or balance of convenience heavily favouring postponement. Judge Leong's dismissal indicates that the court found none of these factors present. The defendants had already exhausted their main appeal, the underlying judgment was sound, and continued delay only perpetuated the deprivation experienced by pilgrims who paid for a service they never received.
From a consumer protection perspective, this case underscores how pilgrimage tourism operates in a grey zone where multiple intermediaries (the traveller, the local agency, the ticketing agent, and the airline) create opportunities for disputes when systems fail. Malaysian pilgrims investing substantial sums for umrah are entitled to clear legal recourse, yet the journey from dispute to enforcement has proven labyrinthine and protracted. The defendants' stubborn refusal to acknowledge liability forced the matter through multiple court proceedings, extending the pilgrims' wait for compensation by years.
The RM5,000 cost order appended to the judgment carries symbolic weight. Courts impose costs against losing parties partly to deter frivolous applications and to acknowledge the burden placed on opposing counsel and the judicial system. In this instance, the cost serves as a marker that the judges viewed the stay application as lacking merit and perhaps as a dilatory tactic. For KRS Travel and the pilgrims it represented, the cost order provides marginal compensation for the legal expenses incurred throughout the protracted dispute.
The broader implications for Malaysia's tourism and financial sectors are notable. Travel agencies and ticketing agents operate under expectations of transparent fund management and prompt refund processing, particularly when force majeure events render services impossible. The court's steadfast rejection of the defendants' positions—across multiple hearings and judicial levels—signals that Malaysian courts will not tolerate contractual circumvention or asset withholding by company directors seeking to avoid customer restitution. This reinforces fiduciary duties and establishes precedent for future disputes involving cancelled trips and disputed refunds.
The dismissal also highlights the importance of regulatory oversight in the pilgrimage sector. While Islamic tourism is culturally significant and economically important for Malaysian agencies, operators must maintain robust systems for handling customer deposits, particularly given the vulnerable populations often involved. The RM492,480 dispute might have been preventable with clearer contractual language, segregated client accounts, or mandatory insurance mechanisms. As Malaysian hajj and umrah operators grow in sophistication, regulatory frameworks should evolve to match.
Looking ahead, the enforcement of this judgment will determine whether the three directors comply voluntarily or whether KRS must pursue further mechanisms to recover the funds, potentially including asset seizure or garnishment. Either way, the legal principle is now firmly established: directors cannot hide behind corporate structures to avoid refunding customers harmed by cancellations. The High Court's consistent rejection of postponement applications demonstrates judicial impatience with protracted non-compliance and signals that remedies must be executed promptly once court orders are finalised.
For the affected umrah pilgrims, this judgment represents the culmination of years of frustration and uncertainty. While the refund restores their financial position, the delayed repayment itself constitutes a form of loss—opportunity cost, emotional stress, and disrupted religious plans. Nevertheless, the courts' unwavering stance has vindicated their claims and established that Malaysia's judiciary takes contractual obligations and consumer protection seriously, even when defendants occupy positions of relative power within the tourism supply chain.
