The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has firmly shut the door on a final delaying tactic by three former travel industry operators who sought to postpone repaying nearly half a million ringgit to umrah pilgrims affected by COVID-19 travel cancellations. 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, determining that their grounds of appeal did not meet the legal threshold for granting such relief. The court ordered the defendants to bear costs of RM5,000, adding a financial penalty to their obligation to repay the pilgrims.
This ruling represents the culmination of a lengthy legal dispute dating back to the earliest days of the pandemic in Malaysia. The case originated when KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, a company specialising in umrah packages, engaged Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd in February 2020 to arrange and purchase flight tickets for customers planning to travel to Madinah and Jeddah. KRS remitted RM492,480 to Rehla for these bookings, which the travel agency subsequently forwarded to Malaysia Airlines Berhad as the appointed ticketing agent. The airline confirmed the reservations and issued the required Passenger Name Records, appearing to complete a straightforward transaction.
However, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered this arrangement. Malaysia Airlines cancelled the affected tickets, leaving KRS unable to fulfil its obligations to paying customers who had committed substantial sums for their spiritual journeys. The situation deteriorated further when Rehla Travel Services ceased operations during the pandemic, leaving the funds in limbo. This convergence of circumstances—airline cancellations, agency closure, and unresolved customer claims—created a complex dispute over who bore responsibility for returning the money to the pilgrims.
The defendants' legal strategy throughout the proceedings centred on a technical argument about the flow of funds and responsibility. They maintained that Rehla had functioned solely as Malaysia Airlines' ticketing agent, with the RM492,480 payments having been transmitted directly to the airline rather than retained by Rehla. On this basis, they contended that any refund claims should be directed toward Malaysia Airlines, not toward Rehla or its former directors and shareholders. This position essentially suggested that the pilgrims' remedy lay with the airline rather than with the company that had originally collected their payments.
The Sessions Court, however, rejected this reasoning during the full trial, finding that the defendants had engaged in fraudulent conduct by refusing to return funds that should rightfully have been refunded to the pilgrims. The lower court's analysis recognised that Rehla, despite its role as a ticketing agent, had received customer money from KRS and bore an obligation to ensure those funds reached their intended destination or were returned when circumstances prevented travel. The court concluded that the defendants' refusal to facilitate reimbursement constituted fraud rather than a legitimate dispute over agency responsibility.
When the defendants appealed this decision to the High Court in December 2025, they encountered no relief. The appellate court upheld the Sessions Court's findings entirely, effectively validating the trial judge's analysis of the facts and the legal principles involved. This rejection of the appeal eliminated any realistic prospect of overturning the fraud determination or the RM492,480 repayment obligation through appellate review. The defendants then shifted tactics, seeking a stay of execution—a procedural mechanism allowing them to delay payment while pursuing further appeal opportunities.
Judge Leong's dismissal of the stay application reflects a principled approach to the intersection of appellate rights and debtor protection. While litigants possess the right to pursue appeals, courts must also prevent the appeal process from becoming a mechanism for indefinite delay in executing judgments. The judge found that the defendants had not presented any special circumstances that would justify imposing such a stay. This determination suggests that the grounds for appeal lacked sufficient merit or novelty to warrant putting the payment order on hold, effectively closing off one final avenue for postponement.
For Malaysian pilgrims and the religious tourism industry, this decision carries significant implications. The umrah pilgrimage represents both a spiritual obligation and a substantial financial commitment for many families, often requiring savings accumulated over years. When travel companies or their agents fail to return payments following cancellations—whether due to pandemics or other unforeseen circumstances—the financial and emotional impact on pilgrims extends far beyond the monetary loss. This judgment reinforces that such failures cannot be shielded behind technical arguments about agent status or fund flows.
The case also illuminates vulnerabilities in Malaysia's religious tourism sector that emerged during the pandemic. Travel agencies and ticketing intermediaries occupy positions of trust that require robust regulatory oversight and clear legal frameworks specifying their obligations when disruptions occur. The defendants' attempt to deflect responsibility to Malaysia Airlines, while superficially plausible as a matter of commercial structure, ultimately failed because courts recognised that passengers dealt with Rehla and KRS as their points of contact, not directly with the airline.
For the broader legal community and consumer protection advocates, this decision establishes important precedent regarding fraud liability in the travel industry. Directors and shareholders cannot insulate themselves from responsibility by adopting narrow interpretations of their company's role or by claiming that funds passed through their hands en route to carriers. The court's approach recognises that fraud encompasses not merely overt dishonesty but also the conscious refusal to fulfil obligations to vulnerable parties who relied on a company's undertakings.
The dismissal of the stay application also signals judicial impatience with delay tactics that courts view as lacking substance. By firmly rejecting this application and imposing costs, Judge Leong sent a message that further postponement strategies were unlikely to succeed. The defendants now face the reality that their legal options have been exhausted, and the RM492,480 must be repaid to KRS for distribution to the affected pilgrims. This finality, while overdue by more than five years from the original cancellations, at least provides closure to a matter that has troubled the religious tourism sector since the pandemic's onset.
