The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has decisively rejected a last-ditch attempt by three former travel company executives to postpone repayment of nearly half a million ringgit owed to umrah pilgrims. Judge Leong Wai Hong dismissed the application filed by Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, Sekh Mohd Fazzli Sekh Mohd Ruzi and Wan Azizul Wan Yusoff seeking to stay execution of the payment order whilst their appeal proceeds. The court found that the grounds cited in their appeal did not meet the threshold for special circumstances required to grant a stay of execution, and ordered the applicants to pay costs of RM5,000.
This judgment represents the final chapter in a protracted legal dispute that has highlighted vulnerabilities in Malaysia's Islamic pilgrimage tourism sector during the COVID-19 crisis. The three defendants, who served as directors and shareholders of Rehla Travel Services Sdn Bhd, had consistently argued that they bore no responsibility for returning the funds to pilgrims. Their position was grounded in the technical argument that they functioned solely as a ticketing agent for Malaysia Airlines Berhad and that the money had already been transmitted to the airline itself. This interpretation suggested that any refund obligation should fall squarely on MAB rather than the travel intermediary.
The underlying facts reveal a cascade of events triggered by the pandemic's sudden disruption of travel plans. In February 2020, KRS Travel Sdn Bhd, a company managing pilgrim travel arrangements, hired Rehla Travel Services to purchase flight tickets for umrah travellers heading to Madinah and Jeddah. KRS remitted RM492,480 to Rehla for these bookings, which the agency then forwarded to Malaysia Airlines as the appointed ticketing agent. The airline issued Passenger Name Records confirming the reservations. However, when the global pandemic erupted, Malaysia Airlines subsequently cancelled the entire allocation of tickets, leaving both KRS and its pilgrim clients in a precarious position.
The legal crux of the dispute centred on contractual responsibility and chain of liability. Rehla Travel Services halted operations during the pandemic without processing refunds. When KRS demanded that the RM492,480 be returned to its clients, Rehla's directors steadfastly refused, maintaining that they had no obligation since the funds had transited through them to the airline. They insisted that KRS should pursue its claim directly with Malaysia Airlines, not with the travel agency that had merely facilitated the transaction. This stance effectively left the umrah pilgrims without recourse to their prepaid funds.
The Sessions Court, following a full trial, rejected the defendants' argumentation and found that fraud had indeed occurred. The judges determined that Rehla's directors bore a fiduciary responsibility to return the customer funds when circumstances prevented ticket delivery. By refusing to process refunds or explain the status of payments, they had breached their duty to the ultimate consumers—the pilgrims who had entrusted their money to the system. The court awarded KRS the full amount of RM492,480, effectively requiring the defendants to reimburse the travel company so it could return funds to its clients.
The defendants' subsequent appeal to the High Court met the same outcome. In December 2025, Justice Leong upheld the Sessions Court's conviction for fraud and rejected the appeal in its entirety. The ruling established that despite the technical arguments about being merely an agent for Malaysia Airlines, Rehla Travel Services retained legal and moral responsibility for customer funds it had collected. The judgment reinforced the principle that travel intermediaries cannot escape accountability by pointing upstream to suppliers when their own customers suffer financial loss.
For Malaysian consumers and the broader pilgrimage tourism sector, this case carries significant implications. The decision clarifies that travel agents and booking intermediaries bear direct responsibility to their clients for refunded amounts, even during force majeure events like pandemics. Companies cannot shield themselves behind arguments about being mere conduits for payments to larger suppliers. This ruling should incentivise travel operators to maintain escrow arrangements or insurance protections for customer deposits, rather than treating pilgrim funds as operational cash flows.
The subsequent stay application represented an effort to buy time whilst the appeal process continued. By seeking to delay execution, the three directors hoped to exhaust legal remedies before being required to pay. However, the High Court determined that the appeal grounds did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting postponement of the judgment. This reflects judicial impatience with what appeared to be dilatory tactics aimed at avoiding immediate compliance with a fraud conviction.
The costs order of RM5,000 imposed on the applicants signals the court's disapproval of the stay application as lacking merit. Beyond the financial penalty, the ruling represents a stark message to other travel industry participants that courts will not tolerate efforts to circumvent refund obligations through technical arguments or procedural delay. For umrah pilgrims who have prepaid for religious journeys, this judgment provides critical consumer protection in an industry where advance payments are standard but regulatory oversight remains inconsistent.
The case also illuminates the cascading challenges faced by the Islamic tourism ecosystem during the pandemic. Thousands of Malaysian pilgrims had their journeys cancelled, with complex chains of financial obligation spanning travel agencies, airline ticketing partners, and customers. Where payment flows halted at intermediate points due to business failure, pilgrims often found themselves unable to recover funds. This judgment establishes that such situations cannot be resolved by travel intermediaries simply ceasing operations and asserting that liability belongs elsewhere.
Going forward, the ruling should prompt travel agencies throughout Malaysia and Southeast Asia to examine their contractual frameworks and financial management practices. Holding customer deposits in trust accounts, obtaining parent company guarantees, or securing insurance protection against insolvency would reduce the risk of repeating scenarios like Rehla Travel Services. The judgment demonstrates that courts will hold intermediaries accountable when they fail to safeguard customer funds, regardless of upstream contractual arrangements with suppliers.
