The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has firmly rejected an application by three former travel industry executives to postpone their obligation to repay nearly half a million ringgit to Muslim pilgrims whose overseas trips were disrupted by the global pandemic. The judicial decision underscores the courts' commitment to protecting consumers in the religious tourism sector, an industry with significant cultural and economic importance across Malaysia and the broader Southeast Asian region.
Judge Leong Wai Hong ruled against the stay application filed by Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff, who sought to postpone execution of the payment order while pursuing their appeal. The court determined that the grounds presented by the applicants did not meet the threshold for demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting such a delay. Beyond dismissing the application, the judge imposed costs of RM5,000 against the three men, a decision that reflects judicial disapproval of what courts often view as dilatory tactics intended to frustrate judgment creditors.
The case traces its origins to February 2020, when KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, a pilgrimage tour operator, contracted with Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd to arrange and procure air tickets for umrah travellers bound for the holy cities of Madinah and Jeddah. KRS remitted RM492,480 to Rehla for these bookings, which Rehla then forwarded to Malaysia Airlines Berhad (MAB) as the airline's appointed ticketing agent. The transaction was completed with Malaysia Airlines confirming the reservations and issuing Passenger Name Records for all affected pilgrims. Everything appeared to be in order until global events intervened.
The eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 forced Malaysia Airlines to cancel the ticketed flights en masse. Simultaneously, Rehla Travel Services ceased operations, leaving KRS in an untenable position. The tour operator found itself unable to deliver on its commitment to the pilgrims, who had entrusted both their money and their religious journey aspirations to KRS. The company logically sought recovery of the RM492,480 it had paid, intending to refund clients and fulfil its obligations to them.
However, the three directors and shareholders of Rehla mounted a sophisticated legal defence, arguing that they bore no responsibility for the refund. They maintained that Rehla functioned exclusively as a ticketing intermediary for Malaysia Airlines and that, since the payment had already been transmitted to the airline, the liability for refund rested solely with MAB. According to their position, KRS should have pursued Malaysia Airlines directly rather than attempting to recover funds from Rehla. The courts, however, viewed this argument as an attempt to evade legitimate liability.
A Sessions Court, following a complete trial, determined that the defendants had committed fraud by refusing to return money that belonged to the pilgrims. The court found that despite Rehla receiving payment from KRS specifically for the purpose of purchasing airline tickets, and despite those tickets being cancelled, the company and its directors unjustifiably retained the funds rather than facilitating their return. This finding carried significant implications, as it suggested the defendants had effectively appropriated consumer money under false pretences.
When the three men appealed this Sessions Court decision to the High Court in December 2025, they sought to overturn the fraud finding. That appeal was unsuccessful. The higher court upheld the Sessions Court's judgment entirely, affirming both the factual findings regarding fraud and the order to repay the full RM492,480. Having exhausted their appellate remedies, the defendants then attempted to buy time through a stay application, hoping perhaps that delay might offer some tactical advantage or that circumstances might change.
This latest court decision holds particular relevance for Malaysian consumers engaged in religious tourism, a sector that generates substantial economic activity and touches millions of faithful annually. The ruling establishes a clear precedent that tour operators, travel agents and ticketing intermediaries cannot shield themselves behind technical arguments about agency relationships when consumer funds require protection. It demonstrates judicial willingness to characterise such behaviour as fraudulent when companies knowingly retain monies intended for refund following service cancellation.
The case also illuminates the vulnerabilities that emerged in tourism supply chains during the pandemic crisis. Many travel-related businesses, from small agencies to larger operators, faced severe financial strain when global travel halted abruptly. Some sought to manage this through legitimate means such as negotiating with creditors or restructuring, while others adopted defensive postures that prioritised their own financial survival over consumer obligations. The courts have signalled that such choices have consequences.
For the pilgrims whose funds were tied up in this dispute, the final judgment represents vindication after years of uncertainty. The refund they are now entitled to receive constitutes a recovery of their own money rather than compensation, yet the psychological and financial burden of an extended legal battle cannot be dismissed. Their experience underscores the importance of robust consumer protection frameworks and transparent dispute resolution mechanisms within the pilgrimage tourism industry.
Looking forward, this judgment may prompt travel agencies and ticketing agents to review their operational practices, particularly regarding client fund management and the handling of cancellations. The imposition of costs against the defendants signals that courts view repeated attempts to avoid judgment as unreasonable conduct warranting financial sanction. For consumers considering umrah packages or other religious tourism offerings, the case demonstrates that Malaysian courts provide meaningful recourse when travel companies fail to uphold their financial obligations, even when those failures occur amid extraordinary circumstances.
