High Court rejects former directors’ bid to delay RM492,480 refund owed to umrah pilgrims

KUALA LUMPUR, June 29 — The High Court here today dismissed an application by three former directors and shareholders of a tourism company seeking to postpone repayment of RM492,480 to umrah pilgrims pending the outcome of their appeal.

Judge Leong Wai Hong dismissed the application by Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff to stay execution of the payment order.

“The grounds of appeal filed do not constitute special circumstances that justify granting a stay. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs of RM5,000,” the judge ruled.

Lawyer Mohd Shahril Madisa represented the three applicants at the proceedings, while lawyer Teoh Bi Shan appeared for KRS Travel Sdn Bhd (KRS), the company that manages the pilgrims’ travel to Makkah.

In December 2025, the High Court dismissed the trio’s appeal and upheld the Sessions Court’s ruling that they had committed fraud by failing to return RM492,480 that should have been refunded to umrah pilgrims after their trips were cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Following a full trial, the Sessions Court found that there was fraud on the part of the defendants and allowed KRS’ claim amounting to RM492,480.

According to the facts of the case, the three defendants were directors and shareholders of Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd, a travel agency offering ticket booking and related services.

In February 2020, KRS engaged Rehla to arrange and purchase flight tickets for its clients travelling to Madinah and Jeddah, and paid RM492,480 for the bookings.

As an appointed ticketing agent for Malaysia Airlines Berhad (MAB), Rehla remitted payment to MAB for the purchase of the flight tickets. The bookings were confirmed, and MAB issued Passenger Name Records. 

However, following the outbreak of the global Covid-19 pandemic, MAB cancelled the tickets. During that period, Rehla also ceased operations.

KRS contended that the RM492,480 paid to Rehla ought to be refunded to its clients. The defendants refused, maintaining that Rehla acted solely as MAB’s ticketing agent and that the ticket payments had already been transmitted to MAB.

They further argued that KRS’s claim for a refund should be directed to MAB, not Rehla, since the payments had been made to the airline for the tickets. — Bernama