The Malaysian High Court has firmly shut the door on a last-ditch attempt by three former travel industry figures to postpone repaying nearly half a million ringgit to umrah pilgrims caught up in the pandemic's disruption of pilgrimage plans. Judge Leong Wai Hong's dismissal of the stay application on June 29 represents a decisive conclusion to a protracted legal struggle that has exposed fault lines in how Malaysia's travel industry manages client funds during crises.
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—had sought to pause execution of the payment order while they pursued an appeal of an earlier High Court decision. The judge, however, found their grounds insufficient to justify such a delay, ruling that the circumstances presented did not meet the legal threshold for a stay. The court imposed costs of RM5,000 against the applicants, adding financial weight to the rejection.
The underlying case traces back to the early months of the pandemic in 2020, when Malaysia Airlines Berhad cancelled flights booked through a ticketing arrangement. KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, which manages pilgrim travel to Makkah, had contracted with Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd to secure flight tickets for clients travelling to Madinah and Jeddah. The transaction involved a payment of RM492,480, funds that were ultimately never returned to the pilgrims who had entrusted KRS with their travel arrangements.
Rehla, operating as a ticketing agent authorised by Malaysia Airlines, had received the payment and remitted it to the airline for ticket purchases. Once Malaysia Airlines confirmed the bookings through Passenger Name Records, the arrangement appeared settled. Yet when the airline subsequently cancelled those tickets as pandemic restrictions tightened, the normal flow of refunds became tangled in corporate structures and competing claims of responsibility. Rehla ceased operations during the chaos of the early pandemic period, leaving pilgrims in limbo.
The fundamental dispute centred on who bore responsibility for returning the money. Rehla's directors—the three men now attempting to avoid payment—contended that they had acted purely as an intermediary, a ticketing agent channelling KRS's payment directly to Malaysia Airlines. From their perspective, any refund claim should be directed at the airline, not at Rehla, since the company had simply passed the money along the chain. This argument essentially sought to position Rehla as a neutral conduit rather than a party accountable to the pilgrims or to KRS.
KRS Travel, however, took a different view rooted in the contractual relationship between the two companies. KRS argued that it had contracted with Rehla for a service—arranging flights for its clients—and paid for that service in good faith. When the trips fell through, KRS expected Rehla to return the funds or arrange compensation. The company refused to accept that its paying clients should absorb the loss simply because a chain of intermediaries existed between them and Malaysia Airlines.
A Sessions Court, after a full trial, sided decisively with KRS. The court determined that the three defendants had committed fraud by refusing to return the money, rejecting their claims about being merely a passive ticketing agent. This finding carried serious implications: it meant the defendants had knowingly withheld funds to which they had no rightful claim. In December 2025, the High Court upheld this judgment, affirming the fraud finding and the RM492,480 liability.
The attempted stay application represented a final manoeuvre by the defendants to buy time before executing the payment order. Such applications are typically granted only in exceptional circumstances where the appellant can demonstrate that their grounds of appeal involve genuinely novel legal questions or that irreparable harm would result from proceeding. The judge's curt dismissal—finding the grounds insufficient and lacking special circumstances—suggests the bench viewed the effort as procedurally thin, a delay tactic rather than a meritorious legal argument.
For Malaysia's pilgrimage tourism sector, the ruling carries broader significance. The case illustrates the vulnerability of pilgrims' funds when they flow through multiple intermediaries during global crises. COVID-19 created unprecedented stress on the travel industry, but it also exposed regulatory gaps and contractual ambiguities. The court's stance reinforces that companies handling pilgrims' money cannot simply shift blame down a supply chain when arrangements collapse; they retain responsibility to their ultimate clients and to the companies they contract with.
The RM492,480 at stake represents real hardship for individuals who had saved and planned for a spiritual journey. These were not speculative business losses but funds earmarked for a religious obligation. That money now must be returned, ending years of dispute. The court's unwillingness to grant a stay sends a clear message: companies in the travel sector cannot indefinitely defer accountability through procedural delays, and those who manage pilgrim funds must be prepared to honour their obligations when circumstances change.
The case also highlights the importance of clearer regulatory frameworks governing how travel agents and ticketing intermediaries hold and manage client funds. Malaysia's pilgrimage industry continues to grow, attracting thousands of worshippers annually. Ensuring their financial protection during crises—whether pandemics or other unforeseen events—should be a priority for industry regulators and lawmakers. This judgment, while providing closure in one dispute, underscores the need for preventive reforms that could spare future pilgrims and travel companies from similar entanglements.
