The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has firmly rejected a legal manoeuvre by three former travel company executives attempting to delay their payment of nearly half a million ringgit to umrah pilgrims whose trips were cancelled during the pandemic. Justice Leong Wai Hong determined that the circumstances presented did not meet the threshold required to warrant a stay of execution, effectively closing off one avenue through which Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff might have postponed their financial obligations while pursuing further appeals.
The ruling represents a definitive conclusion to mounting legal battles that have stretched across multiple court levels. The three defendants, previously serving as directors and shareholders of Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd, now face the imminent reality of parting with RM492,480. This sum represents payments that customers of KRS Travel Sdn Bhd had made for flights to Saudi Arabia that never materialised when the global health crisis forced widespread travel cancellations in early 2020.
The underlying dispute hinges on contractual responsibility and the movement of funds through what appeared to be a straightforward ticketing arrangement. In February 2020, KRS Travel engaged Rehla Travel Services to handle flight bookings for pilgrims heading to Madinah and Jeddah, transferring RM492,480 for these arrangements. Rehla, operating as an authorised ticketing agent for Malaysia Airlines Berhad, subsequently transmitted these funds to the airline and received confirmation of bookings along with Passenger Name Records. The transaction appeared routine and legitimate.
Circumstances shifted dramatically once the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated across global travel networks. Malaysia Airlines cancelled the tickets that Rehla had secured, rendering the bookings void. Simultaneously, Rehla Travel Services suspended its operations entirely, leaving KRS Travel in an untenable position. The company faced mounting pressure from its own customers—pilgrims who had paid substantial sums for religious journeys they could no longer undertake—demanding that their money be returned.
When KRS Travel pursued recovery of the RM492,480, the three defendants adopted a legal position that effectively shifted responsibility elsewhere. They contended that Rehla had functioned exclusively as Malaysia Airlines' ticketing intermediary, arguing that once payments reached the airline's accounts, Rehla bore no further liability for refunds. According to their interpretation, KRS Travel should have directed its refund claim to Malaysia Airlines rather than pursuing Rehla's directors and shareholders. This argument, while superficially appealing to principles of chain-of-command in commercial transactions, did not persuade the courts examining the case.
The Sessions Court, after conducting a full trial and carefully weighing evidence, found that the defendants' conduct constituted fraud. The court determined that the three men had been unjustly enriched through their possession and retention of funds that should have been returned to the pilgrims following ticket cancellation. Critically, the Sessions Court assessed that Rehla Travel's role extended beyond mere technical intermediation—the defendants bore responsibility for ensuring customer refunds happened. When they declined to facilitate those refunds after the airline cancelled flights, they crossed from administrative inaction into fraudulent conduct.
The appeal to the High Court in December 2025 yielded no relief for the defendants. Justice Leong upheld the Sessions Court's reasoning, affirming both the fraud finding and the obligation to remit RM492,480. The judicial consensus across both court levels reflected a recognition that commercial convenience cannot supersede basic obligations of honesty when customers' money remains at stake. The defendants' strategy of characterising themselves as mere pass-throughs for airline payments, while plausible in certain contexts, did not excuse their failure to pursue refunds on behalf of the affected pilgrims.
The subsequent application to stay execution—essentially asking for permission to hold off payment while pursuing further legal remedies—represented the defendants' final procedural option. Such stays are granted only under exceptional circumstances where applicants demonstrate either a strong likelihood of success on appeal or other special factors that outweigh the public interest in enforcing court orders. Justice Leong found neither condition satisfied in this instance. The grounds presented did not constitute the special circumstances necessary to justify postponing enforcement, and accordingly, the court imposed costs of RM5,000 against the applicants.
This case carries broader implications for Malaysia's travel and tourism sector, particularly for companies arranging religious pilgrimages. The ruling establishes clear judicial expectation that intermediary agents cannot simply disappear behind claims of limited responsibility when customer funds have been received. Travel companies operating as ticketing agents retain meaningful obligations toward end customers, and courts will scrutinise attempts to evade refund responsibilities during force majeure events like pandemics.
For the affected umrah pilgrims, the outcome represents vindication after years of legal uncertainty. Many had already suffered the disappointment of cancelled religious journeys during a period when international travel ceased entirely. The protracted litigation, spanning multiple court appearances and appeal processes, would have compounded their frustration. Now, with judicial avenues exhausted by the defendants, these pilgrims finally face genuine prospect of financial recovery, though whether the defendants possess liquid assets sufficient to meet the judgment remains an open question that collection proceedings will ultimately answer.
The case underscores the vulnerability of ordinary Malaysians participating in the pilgrimage industry, a sector generating significant economic activity but operating within a regulatory environment that this judgment indirectly critiques. The journey from initial booking through pandemic disruption to final court enforcement took years, exposing structural gaps in how the industry protects consumer funds during extraordinary circumstances. Whether regulators will implement stronger safeguards—such as mandatory escrow arrangements or insurance requirements for religious travel companies—remains to be seen, but this judgment provides compelling evidence that such protections warrant serious consideration.
