The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has dealt a decisive blow to three former travel industry executives seeking to avoid immediate repayment of nearly half a million ringgit owed to umrah pilgrims. Judge Leong Wai Hong dismissed the application for a stay of execution on June 29, finding that the grounds presented by the defendants did not meet the threshold for special circumstances. The court imposed costs of RM5,000 against the applicants, signalling judicial impatience with what appears to be a delaying tactic in a case already thoroughly adjudicated at multiple levels.
The three men at the centre of the dispute—Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi, and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff—were directors and shareholders of Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd, a travel agency specialising in flight bookings and ancillary services. Their company had been engaged by KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, the primary organiser managing pilgrim travel to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah, to arrange and purchase airline tickets for umrah travellers. The transaction, conducted in February 2020, involved a substantial payment of RM492,480 to Rehla for confirmed bookings on Malaysia Airlines Berhad flights to Jeddah and Madinah.
The sequence of events that led to the fraud conviction reveals how swiftly global circumstances could upend the travel industry. Acting as an accredited ticketing agent for Malaysia Airlines, Rehla received the RM492,480 from KRS and promptly remitted payment to the airline for the flight tickets. Malaysia Airlines issued Passenger Name Records confirming the bookings, seemingly completing a routine commercial transaction. However, when the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe in early 2020, Malaysia Airlines cancelled the affected flights, leaving KRS with a substantial financial loss and pilgrims unable to complete their journeys.
Where matters became legally contentious was in the aftermath of the cancellations. KRS pursued recovery of the RM492,480, contending that the funds should be refunded to the pilgrims who had paid for their travel packages. Rehla Travel Services, however, took a different position, refusing to return the money. The company's directors argued that Rehla had functioned purely as Malaysia Airlines' ticketing agent and bore no responsibility for refunding payments that had already been transmitted to the airline. They maintained that any claims for reimbursement should be directed toward Malaysia Airlines rather than their company, since the funds had been paid directly to the carrier for the tickets.
This legal interpretation, while superficially logical, did not withstand judicial scrutiny. The Sessions Court, following a comprehensive trial examining the full factual record, concluded that the defendants had perpetrated fraud by retaining money that should have been returned to the ultimate purchasers—the pilgrims themselves. The court rejected the argument that Rehla's role as a mere conduit absolved the company of responsibility to its contracting partner, KRS. By the court's reasoning, Rehla had accepted payment from KRS with an implicit obligation to ensure proper discharge of that transaction, whether through refund or successful delivery of services. The Sessions Court awarded KRS the full claim of RM492,480.
The defendants' challenge to this verdict reached the High Court in December 2025, where their appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court's ruling was upheld. This judicial affirmation at the appellate level represented a significant legal precedent regarding the responsibilities of travel agents acting as intermediaries in international ticket bookings. The court's decision established that agents cannot shield themselves from refund obligations by claiming they merely transmitted payments to airlines; instead, they retain contractual obligations to the entities that engaged their services.
The current application to stay execution—now rejected—appeared to be an attempt to delay the inevitable while pursuing further appeals. The defendants sought to prevent immediate payment pending the outcome of their appeal, presumably hoping that continued legal proceedings might somehow alter the outcome. However, Judge Leong Wai Hong viewed this as an insufficient basis for granting a stay, noting that the grounds presented did not constitute the special circumstances required under civil procedure rules. The judge's terse dismissal reflects the judiciary's view that the case had already been thoroughly litigated and the law adequately applied.
For Malaysian consumers and the pilgrimage tourism sector, the judgment carries significant implications. The decision reinforces that travel agents and intermediaries cannot exploit their positioning within transaction chains to avoid accountability for customer funds. This is particularly important in the umrah and hajj tourism sector, which processes substantial sums for vulnerable populations of pilgrims who are often unsophisticated in contractual matters. The ruling provides a strong legal foundation for pilgrims and travel organisers to pursue recovery through the courts when intermediaries refuse refunds, even when those intermediaries claim that funds have been passed to upstream suppliers.
The case also illuminates the practical chaos that ensued during the COVID-19 pandemic when global travel networks seized up. Airlines cancelled flights, travel agencies ceased operations, and funds became trapped in limbo between multiple parties. While pandemic circumstances were extraordinary, the courts have signalled that they will not permit intermediaries to retain customer funds on the pretext that circumstances were beyond their control. The defendants' decision to wind down Rehla Travel Services while retaining the RM492,480 suggested a deliberate choice to withhold refunds rather than pursue recovery from Malaysia Airlines or distribute funds to claimants.
The immediate practical question now concerns enforcement of the judgment. With the stay application dismissed and costs awarded against them, the defendants must proceed with payment of the RM492,480 to KRS Travel Sdn Bhd. Whether this will occur voluntarily or require further enforcement action remains to be seen. The cumulative effect of the Sessions Court ruling, the High Court's December 2025 dismissal of their appeal, and this latest rejection of the stay application has exhausted the obvious avenues for delay. The defendants now face the prospect of execution proceedings if they do not comply voluntarily with the payment order.
For KRS Travel and the pilgrims whose funds had been tied up for several years, the judgment represents vindication of their legal position, though the practical recovery of monies has been delayed by the extended litigation process. The case demonstrates both the strengths and limitations of the Malaysian civil justice system—capable of identifying fraud and imposing accountability, but slow in execution, allowing parties to pursue multiple layers of appeals and procedural applications that postpone final resolution.
