The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has delivered a decisive blow to three former travel company directors attempting to forestall repayment of nearly half a million ringgit to umrah pilgrims affected by pandemic-related flight cancellations. Judge Leong Wai Hong firmly rejected the stay application filed by Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff on June 29, finding that their grounds of appeal failed to present the exceptional circumstances required to justify delaying execution of the payment order. The court imposed costs of RM5,000 against the applicants, signalling the judiciary's firm stance against what it viewed as dilatory tactics.
The case represents a significant consumer protection outcome for Malaysian umrah pilgrims who faced financial losses when their religious travel plans collapsed under the weight of global pandemic disruptions. The three defendants held directorial and shareholding positions in Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd, a travel agency that had been contracted to handle flight bookings and ticketing arrangements. Their refusal to return the disputed funds after airlines cancelled services has now been definitively characterised as fraudulent conduct by the courts, establishing important precedent for how travel agencies must handle customer deposits during force majeure events.
The financial controversy originated in February 2020, when KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, the primary organiser managing pilgrims' journeys to Makkah, engaged Rehla Travel Services to procure airline tickets destined for Madinah and Jeddah. The arrangement involved KRS remitting RM492,480 to Rehla for ticket purchases, which Rehla subsequently forwarded to Malaysia Airlines Berhad as the appointed ticketing agent. MAB confirmed the bookings and issued Passenger Name Records, formalising the passenger reservations across the ticketing system.
When the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the world and disrupted air travel on an unprecedented scale, Malaysia Airlines made the commercial decision to cancel the affected flights. Simultaneously, Rehla Travel Services ceased business operations, creating a complex situation where KRS Travel and its pilgrim clients faced immediate uncertainty about recovering their substantial financial outlay. The principals of Rehla Travel took the position that since they had transmitted the payments directly to Malaysia Airlines in their capacity as ticketing agents, the liability for refunds rested with the airline rather than with their agency.
This defence strategy proved fundamentally unconvincing to the courts. The Sessions Court, following a comprehensive trial, determined that the defendants had engaged in fraudulent conduct by retaining funds that rightfully belonged to the pilgrims whose travel plans had been terminated by circumstances beyond anyone's control. The lower court's judgment finding liability and ordering repayment of the full RM492,480 amount was subsequently upheld by the High Court in December 2025, when the three directors launched an appeal seeking to overturn the conviction. That appellate rejection now carries additional weight, as the June 2025 decision refusing to stay execution demonstrates the appellate court's confidence in its earlier ruling.
The significance of this judgment extends beyond the immediate parties involved, particularly for Malaysia's substantial umrah and hajj pilgrimage sector, which generates considerable economic activity and represents a deeply valued religious obligation for many Muslims. Travel agencies operating in this space now face clear legal precedent that they cannot rely upon technical arguments about payment flows and agent status to escape responsibility for customer funds when services are cancelled. The court's reasoning implicitly recognises that from the customer's perspective, their relationship is with the travel agency they contracted with, not with distant airlines, and that agencies bear fiduciary obligations to protect client interests.
The case also illuminates the vulnerability of Malaysian consumers during crisis periods when service providers cease operations. Rehla Travel Services' collapse left customers with no recourse against the original contractor, but the courts determined that the directors personally remained accountable for funds received in their corporate capacity. This principle offers some protection to consumers, though it also highlights the importance of robust consumer protection mechanisms and travel agency bonding requirements that regulators should consider strengthening.
For the umrah pilgrimage industry more broadly, the decision signals that courts will not sympathise with technical defences when ordinary people lose substantial sums to travel disruptions. The rejection of the stay application carries particular significance because it prevents the defendants from further delaying compensation while their appeal winds through the system, a tactic that would have caused prolonged suffering to pilgrims and their families already disappointed by cancelled religious journeys. The imposition of costs against the applicants reinforces that such delay tactics carry financial penalties.
The legal teams representing the parties reflected the adversarial positions: Mohd Shahril Madisa acted for the three defendants, mounting the unsuccessful stay application, while Teoh Bi Shan represented KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, successfully defending the execution order. The outcome demonstrates that Malaysian courts take seriously their role in protecting consumers from travel industry failures, particularly during extraordinary circumstances like pandemics that were beyond travelers' control. The finality of this judgment, absent further Supreme Court intervention, should now enable the affected pilgrims to recover their funds and, to some extent, gain closure on a disappointment that cost them financially and in terms of their religious aspirations.
