Harcos Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd v 1. Noriah Binti Ahmad (WA-12ANCvC-114-04/2021)

1.NORIAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 550917-10-5856) (NO. K/P: 601208-10-6116) (NO. K/P: 630608-10-7700) (NO. K/P: 560913-10-6025) (BERAMAL SEBAGAI FIRMA GUAMAN DENGAN GAYA DAN NAMA TETUAN WAHIZAN & CO) ..RESPONDENTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 2

7KLVLVWKH$SSHOODQW¶VDSSHDODJDLQVWWKHGHFLVLRQRIWKHOHDUQHG Sessions Court Judge that had refused to enter summary judgment on the application of the Appellant.

I had allowed the appeal and entered the following orders against the Respondents : - ³.. (a) Perenggan (a) dan (e) di Notis Pemohonan Perayu untuk penghakiman terus bertarikh 24.11.2020 dalam Saman No. WA-B52NCVC-349-10/2020 adalah dibenarkan; Perayu untuk Penghakiman Terus bertarikh 24.11.2020 dalam Saman No. WA-B52NCVC-349-10/2020 adalah untuk dibicarakan; Perayu tertakluk kepada fi alokatur; dan 3

Kos di sini dan di bawah sebanyak RM 10,000.00 dibayar oleh Responden ke-5 kepada Perayu tertakluk kepada fi alokatur«´

This case centers on the breach of the Sale and Purchase Agreement entered between the Appellant and the Respondents dated 1- 8-2014. The Appellant had agreed to purchase from the Respondents an agricultural and freehold land held under the title bearing Geran Mukim 36, Lot 214, Mukim Ijuk, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Selangor that was currently registered in the name of Ahmat bin Sahid.

The agreed purchase price of the property is to the sum of RM 1,000,000.00. The total sum of RM 200,000.00 was paid to the 5th Respondent as a stakeholder which shall also constitute a deposit of the purchase price.

The 5th Respondent is required to hold the said sum as a stakeholder and the said sum shall not be released to the other Respondents pending the fulfillment of the condition precedent. 4

The condition precedents of the said Sale and Purchase Agreement appears in clause 2 of the said Agreement which is reproduced below: -

2.

CONDITION PRECEDENT 1 The parties hereby agree the completion of the Sale and Purchase Agreement of the said Property is conditional upon the fulfillment of the following: i. The Vendors shall within Six (6) months from the date of this Agreement, cause and procure the registration of the Property in favour of the 4 Vendor [hereinafter referred to as "the Transmission; ii. The Vendors shall within two (2) weeks from the date of completion of the nots stated in Clause 2.1. 1. above apply to the relevant authorities for sub-division of the Master Land in accordance with the said Plan (hereinafter referred to as "the Subdivision") and thereafter to cause and procure the duly issuance of a separate individual title to the said Property withis One (1) year from the date of submission of the said application

2.2 In the event the Vandor fail and or delay in obtaining the Transmission and/or the Subdivision within the time stipulated in Clause 21 mentioned above, the Purchaser agrees to give Vendor an extension of six (6) months to obtain the Transmission and/or the Subdivision

2.3 In the event the Vendor fails to obtain the Transmission and/or the Subdivision of the said Master Land within the time stipulated in Clause 2.1 and subject to Clause 22 herein and subject to a further extension at the Purchaser's sole discretion, this Agreement shall be determined and shall cease to have any effect whatsoever whereupon the Vendor shall refund to the Purchaser all moneys so paid to the Vendor pursuant to Clause 1 hereof free of interest within Fourteen (14) days from the Purchaser's demand and thereafter neither party shall have any claim against the other under this Sale and Purchase Agreement.

2.4 If the Vendor fails to procure the Transmission and/or the Subdivision for any reason attributable to the Vendor, the 5 Purchaser shall be entitled to the remedy of specific performance or alternatively, at the election of the Purchaser to terminate this Agreement. If the Purchaser elects to terminate this Agreement, the Vendor shall undertake to:

pay agreed liquidated damages to the Purchaser in the sum equivalent to the Deposit; and

authorize or procure the Vendor's Solicitors to refund the Balance Deposit Purchaser within Fourteen (14) days from the date of termination, free of interest, and thereafter this Agreement shall be terminated and neither party shall have any claims whatsoever against the other, save and except for any antecedent breaches herein.

2.5 This Agreement shall become unconditional upon receipt by the Purchaser's Solicitors a certified true copy of the issue document of title registered in favour of the 4 Vendor for the said Property. The date of receipt by the 3XUFKDVHU¶V Solicitors of the said title shall be referred to as "the Unconditional Date´

The other material terms of the said Sale and Purchase Agreement are as follows: -

3.

3.1 The balance of the Purchase Price amounting to RINGGIT MALAYSIA EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND (RM800,000.00) only (hereinafter referred to as "the Balance Purchase Price" shall be paid by the Purchaser to the VENDORS Solicitors to hold as stakeholders to be dealt with in the manner stipulated herein within three (3) months from the Unconditional Date (the last day shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Completion Date").

3.2 In the event that the Purchaser shall fail to pay the Balance Purchase Price or part thereof by the Completion Date the VENDORS shall grant an extension of one (1) month from the 6 Completion Date (the last day shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Extended Completion Date") to the Purchaser to make payment of the Balance Purchase Price or any part thereof PROVIDED ALWAYS that the Purchaser shall pay to the VENDORS Interest on the Balance Purchase Price or part thereof remaining unpaid at the rate of Eight per centum (8%) per annum on daily rest basis commencing from the date following the Completion Date up to the date of fall payment of the Balance Purchase Price PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT any delay exceeding tea (10) days caused by the VENDORS in giving any undertakings, confirmations, or documents which is incumbent upon the VENDORS to give to the complete or facilitate the completion of this Agreement shall be excluded from the computation of the Completion Date or the Extended Completion Elate as the case may be and shall be extended accordingly.

3.3 The VENDORS Solicitors shall hold the Balance Purchase Price as stakeholders and shall release the same to the VENDORS in the following manner; -

3.3.1 part thereof to settle the outgoings in Clause 12 below, and 3.3.2 the balance of the Balance Purchase Price payable to the VENDORS within fourteen (14) days upon presentation of the Document of Title, the Memorandum of Transfer, the Discharge Documents and all other relevant documents in respect of the said PROPERTY to the relevant land registry for transfer and registration.

3.3.3 actual vacant possession of the said Property most have been delivered to the Purchaser.

3.4 It is hereby agreed that an undertaking of the Purchasers Financier or the Financier's Solicitors received by the VENDORS Solicitors on or before the said Completion Date or the Extended Completion to undertake to release the Purchaser's Loan to the VENDORS upon the presentation of the said Transfer of the said PROPERTY in favour of the Purchaser and the Charge in favour of the Purchaser's Financier for registration with the relevant land registry shall be deemed a good and valid payment for the purpose of this Clause and the Financier's Solicitors is hereby authorised to present the said Transfer and all other document transfer and registration PROVIDED THAT loan is released by the Purchaser's Financier to the said Solicitors on or before the Completion Date or the Extended Compilation Date as the case may be

3.5 Further, upon receipt of request from the 3XUFKDVHU¶V Financier or the Financier's Solicitors for a letter of undertaking to refund the 7 whole Purchaser's loan sum to the Purchaser's Financier in the event that the said PROPERTY cannot be transferred and or registered in favour of the Purchaser for whatsoever reasons attributable to the VENDORS (hereinafter referred to as the said Letter of Undertaking´ the VENDORS hereby expressly undertake to forthwith forward the said Letter of Undertaking to the Purchaser's Fancier with fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of notification to enable them to release the Purchaser's

3.6 The VENDORS shall at his own cost and expense remove or cause to be removed all encumbrances against the said PROPERTY (if any) on or before the said Completion Date or the Extended Completion Date, save and except for caveats lodged by the Purchaser or the Purchaser's Financier. 4

4.1 The memorandum of transfer of the PROPERTY in favour of the Purchaser shall be executed by the 4 Vendor upon the Unconditional Date and deposit the same with the Purchaser's

4.2 The parties hereto hereby irrevocably request direct and authorise the Purchaser's Solicitors to submit the said Transfer for the purpose of adjudication of the stamp duty payable thereon and not for any other purpose.

6.

6.1 It is also further agreed between the parties hereto that if Purchaser is prepared to comply with Clause 3 hereof and VENDORS fail to comply with his obligations under this Agreement to complete the sale herein the Purchaser shall be entitled to specific performance and all other remedies available to him including all costs and expenses incurred by the Purchaser or alternatively the Purchaser shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement and upon receipt of the notice of termination, the VENDORS shall immediately refund to the Purchaser all monies paid in this Agreement together with an additional sum equivalent to the said Deposit and thereafter neither parties shall have any claims against each other. 8

The deposit of RM 200,000.00 was paid by the Appellant and was forwarded to the 5th Respondent to be kept as a stakeholder in accordance with the terms of the said Sale and Purchase Agreement.

The solicitors for the Appellant, Messrs BK Soong & Ng, then wrote to the 5th Respondent via letters dated 27-4-2016, 16-6-2016, 28-6-2016, 28-6-2016, 3-8-2016, 11-10-2016, 2-12-2016, 13-1-2017, 17-2-2017, 10- 3-2017, 14-3-2017, 31-7-2017, 5-4-2018 and via WhatsApp as to the status of the compliance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement. There was no response from the 5th Respondent save for the eventual WhatsApp FRPPXQLFDWLRQRQFHKHZDVFRQWDFWHGE\WKH$SSHOODQW¶VVROLFLWRUV

The said land was however sold or transferred to TMT Industry Sdn Bhd. Due to the breach of the terms of the said Sale and Purchase Agreement, the Appellant sought the return or refund of the deposit paid to the sum of RM 200,000.00 paid to the 5th Respondent. As I have said HDUOLHUWKHVDLGVXPVVKRXOGKDYHEHHQNHSWLQKLVFOLHQW¶VDFFRXQWDVD stakeholder pending compliance with the condition precedent. 9

A demand was issued by Messrs BK Soong & Ng dated 30-7-2016 to the 5th Respondent wherein the said Sale and Purchase Agreement was terminated, and the said firm demanded the refund of the sum of RM 200,000.00 that should have been held as a stakeholder in accordance with the terms of the said agreement. B. Appellate Intervention and the law relating to summary judgment application

It is trite law that this Court should not lightly interfere with the findings made by the Sessions Court Judge unless it could be shown that WKHGHFLVLRQZDV³RQHWKDWQRUHDVRQDEOHMXGJHFRXOGKDYHUHDFKHG´I refer to the decision of the English Supreme Court in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited [2014] UKSC 41, the Malaysian Court of Appeals in MMC Oil & Gas Engineering Sdn Bhd v Tan Bock Kwee & Sons Sdn Bhd [2016] 4 CLJ 665 and the Malaysian Federal Court in Ong Leong Chiou v Keller (M) Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 CLJ 821.

I make specific reference to the decision of Raus Sharif FCJ (as he then was) in UEM Group Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd [2010] 9 CLJ 785, where his Lordship stated: - 10 ³>@ Thus, the prime issue in respect of Questions 1 to 3 is whether the Court of Appeal had erred in interfering with the findings of facts of the trial judge. It is well settled law that an appellate court will not generally speaking, intervene with the decision of a trial court unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. A plainly wrong decision happens when the trial court is guilty of no or insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence. (See Chow Yee Wah & Anor v. Choo Ah Pat [1978] 1 LNS 32; Watt or Thomas v. Thomas [1947] AC 484; and Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309 ´

I also make reference to the judgment of Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) who in his usual manner, eruditely explained under what circumstances could an appellate court interfere with the exercise of the discretion by the lower courts in Paya Trubong Estates Sdn Bhd v Pusaka Warisan Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 CLJ 909: - ³>@ Thus, the prime issue in respect of Questions 1 to 3 is whether the Court of Appeal had erred in interfering with the findings of facts of the trial judge. It is well settled law that an appellate court will not generally speaking, intervene with the decision of a trial court unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. A plainly wrong decision happens when the trial court is guilty of no or insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence. (See Chow Yee Wah & Anor v. Choo Ah Pat [1978] 1 LNS 32; Watt or Thomas 11 v. Thomas [1947] AC 484; and Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309 ´

Taking my cue from the judgment of the above-referred Judges, I again remind myself that I should only interfere with the findings of the Sessions Court if it could be shown: -

The said decision is one that no reasonable Judge could have reached.

There are errors of law that should be rectified by the Superior Courts.

An appellate Court has the power to intervene if it is shown that decision is plainly wrong either as to applicable law or the facts of the case.

I am also reminded that concerning an appeal from a decision dealing with a summary judgment, the appeal shall be by way of a rehearing as provided under Order 55 rule 2 of the Rules of Courts 2012. 12

The applicable law concerning a summary judgment application is also trite.

I summarise the legal position as follows: -

The application for a summary judgment application is based on the pleadings and the affidavit evidence presented by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

(ii) This Court should not enter judgment against the Defendant if it finds that the defence or issue or question in dispute between parties that ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial of the claim or part of the claim. This Court must analyse the affidavit evidence of both parties.

(iii) Generally, in the normal way, it is not appropriate for me to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit alone but where such statement or assertion, denial or dispute is unequivocal or lacking in precision or is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or statements then I am duty-bound to reject them and enter judgment. 13

(iv) This power should be exercised by me in a very clear case where the defence and affidavit filed in opposition do not show any bona fide defence and there are no real issues to be tried.

If a Defendant even raises a single triable issue, it will not be a fit and proper case for summary judgment.

For a party to successfully obtain an order for summary judgment, it must be shown to Court that the Defendants have no defence to a claim.

The above legal position can be gleaned from the plethora of cases within our jurisdiction. For our purposes, I refer to the decision of Mohamad Azmi SCJ (as His Lordship then was) in Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail [1992] 1 CLJ 627 (parts of the judgment of his Lordship reproduced in the summary), South East Asia Insurance Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia [1998] 1 CLJ 1045 and Ng Hee Thoong v Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 CLJ 609. 14 C. Decision of the Sessions Court Judge and Why this Court decided to interfere and allowed the appeal

I note that the learned Sessions Court Judge did correctly identify the principles of law that are applicable in an application for summary judgment. I refer to paragraphs 30 to 44 of the grounds of the learned Sessions Court Judge.

However, I find that the learned Sessions Court Judge had committed a serious error of law that justifies an appellate interference. I find that the decision was so wrong that no competent or reasonable Judge could have come to the same conclusion having considered all the facts and documentary evidence available to her.

In her written grounds, the learned Sessions Court Judge found that: - 15 16 17 18

Essentially, she believes that there are serious issues to be tried based on the contention that there was a dispute between the Defendants as to whether the 5th Defendant had complied with his duties to the 1st to 4th Defendants.

I find that this is clearly wrong. The Plaintiff has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that it had paid the sum of RM 200,000.00 to the 5th Respondent as a stakeholder. This sum should not have been released until all condition precedents appearing in the Sale and Purchase Agreement were complied with by the 1st to 4th Respondent. None of the said conditions were fulfilled and instead,, the said land was sold and transferred to TMT Industry Sdn Bhd. This led to the termination of the said Sale and Purchase Agreement by the Plaintiff.

I find that the 1st to 4th Respondent has not shown any defence to the claim and the said sums should be repaid to the Appellant in accordance with the terms of the said agreement. 19

The evidence before this Court also shows that the 5th Respondent did not retain the said sum of RM 200,000.00 as a stakeholder pending compliance with the terms of the said agreement. Instead, he had released the sums to the 4th Respondent without the consent of the Appellant and contrary to the terms of the said agreement. This he says is intended to ensure that the said agreement went ahead without any hiccup.

I reproduce paragraphs 27 and 28 of the 4th 5HVSRQGHQW¶VDIILGDYLW that confirms he had acted contrary to the terms of the said agreement and his duty to retain the said sum of money as a stakeholder.

The applicable law on duties of solicitors when receiving monies as a stakeholder can be seen in the decision of the Privy Council in T Damodaran v Choe Kuan Him [1979] 1 LNS 107, where Lord Diplock held: - ³The terms of the solicitor's undertaking are clear, unqualified and unequivocal. The event on the happening of which the money was to be paid took place on 16 April 1974, when the transfer of the lands was "duly registered in the name of the purchaser Messrs Syarikat Alor 20 Merah Sdn. Bhd." The failure to pay the balance of $182,200 is, on the face of it, a plain breach of the undertaking. There would seem to be no reason why in the instant proceedings, commenced on 30 July 1974, by originating summons against the solicitor to enforce the undertaking, the vendor should not recover judgment for the balance of $182,200 ZLWKLQWHUHVWIURP$SULO ´

I also refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Nasir Kenzin & Tan v Elegant Group Sdn Bhd [2009] 1 CLJ 47, where Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he then was) held: - ³>@ :LWK WKH OHWWHU RI XQGHUWDNLQJ GDWHG  'HFHPEHU  VR clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, and the appellant having breached the solicitor's undertaking, we agreed with the learned judge that no triable issue had been raised by the appellant. The non-refund of the RM1 million was a clear breach of the undertaking. That being so, with the facts and antecedents as they were, this panel had not hesitated to fully endorse the decision of the learned judge that this was a fit and proper case for summary judgement (United Mining and Finance Corporation Ltd v. Becher [1910] 2 KB 296; In re A Solicitor; Ex Parte Hales [1907] 2 KB 539; T. Damodaran v. Choe .XDQ+LP>  @/16 >  @0/- ´ 21

I also refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Semenda Sdn Bhd & anor v CD Anugerah Sdn Bhd & anor [2010] 8 CLJ 49 where Sulong Matjerai JCA stated: - ³>@ The importance of respecting an undertaking given by solicitors is being underlined by Suriyadi JCA in Nasir Kenzin & Tan v. Elegant Group Sdn Bhd [2009] 1 CLJ 47; [2009] 1 AMR 715 when his Lordship said at p. 729: "... the impugned undertaking is a promise or security given in the course of an arrangement for obtaining some concessions from the respondent, and binds the appellant in law. The seriousness of an undertaking cannot be underestimated especially one given by a member of the legal profession because a breach of the undertaking will whittle away public confidence and trust in the legal profession." [38] The probity, decency and credibility of the solicitors who failed to honour their letter of undertaking will be at stake. Letters of undertaking are widely used in the legal practice particularly in firms which handled substantial conveyancing work. In practice letters of undertaking are used in a number of transactions ranging from the release of funds to customers by banking and financial institutions before documents of unencumbered document of titles are properly registered with the appropriate Land Registries. Another situation where a letter of undertaking is being used is where documents of titles are released before full payment of the purchase price had not been made as in this instant case. Solicitors making the undertaking should not renege on their undertaking as 22 this is the very basis for their own honoured existence as conveyancing lawyers. This is a solemn and sacred duty of solicitors. Issuance of a letter of undertaking from one firm to another marks the epitome of conveyancing practice in any Torrens jurisdiction. [39] It is incumbent upon all solicitors to examine each given undertaking closely. The fact that the undertaking is made on behalf of their client should not and will not absolve them from the need to be responsible for their actions in ensuring that all is in order before such letters of undertaking are issued or accepted or even acted upon. This is because each and every word used must be properly construed as in the English Court of Appeal's case of Caldwell v. Sumpters (a firm) and Another [1972] 1 All ER 567. « « [45] In the High Court of Australia's case of Hawkins v. Gaden [1925] 37 CLR 183, Starke J summed up at p. 207 as follows: The legal effect of the undertaking remains for consideration. When a party undertakes, without any qualification, to satisfy requisitions or to obtain an authority to receive money, that must mean that he is the person to whom the other party is to look for performance of the promise. The defendants are, therefore personally liable upon the undertaking´ 23

Therefore, having received the said sums pursuant to the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, it is incumbent on the 5th Respondent to comply with the said condition and not release the said RM 200,000.00 to the 4th Defendant. Failure to comply with the said undertaking renders the 5th Defendant liable to the Appellant for the sum of RM 200,000.00.

The 5th Respondent did point out the failure of the Plaintiff / Appellant RUWKH3ODLQWLII¶VVROLFLWRUWRORGJHD caveat on the said land to prevent the transfer of the said property to a third party. I find that the failure of the Plaintiff / Appellant or the said solicitor to lodge the caveat does not absolve the 5th Respondent or any of the Respondents from the failure to ensure that the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement are complied with. The 5th Respondent in particular should have not released the deposit sum that was held by him as a stakeholder irrespective of the lack of any caveat lodged by the Appellant. This is not a valid defence that warrants a trial.

After considering the affidavits, documents filed thereto, pleadings and submissions filed in this appeal as well as the record of appeal before me, I find that the learned Sessions Court Judge did fail to take the above facts into consideration and had acted wrongly by considering factors that 24 are irrelevant to the claim at hand. The dispute between the Defendants does not create a triable issue as to the claim filed by the Plaintiff. The dispute between the Defendants are issues that should be resolved separately between the Defendants and should not stop the Plaintiff from obtaining a summary judgment in this case.

Given the above, I am under a duty to exercise my appellate powers to correct the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge. I believe that the decision is wrong and that no reasonably diligent Sessions Court Judge, having been appraised all relevant facts and applicable law, would have come to. D. Orders of this Court.

However, I am mindful not to grant all the remedies prayed for by the Appellant in the Notice of Application. I will only grant prayer (a) and prayer (e) as it appears in the Notice of Application for Order 14 filed by the Appellant. 25

I exercise my powers under Order 14 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 to enter judgment on part of the claim that is proven by the Appellant against the Respondents. I also refer to the decision of Zakaria Yatim J in Fabrique Ebel v Syarikat Perniagaan Tukang Jam City Port [1988] 1

I believe the $SSHOODQW¶V claim for general damages, exemplary damages, or a punitive claim should not be entertained in an Order 14 application. I am also of the opinion that the claim for general damages, liquidated damages or exemplary damages or punitive damages are issues that should be resolved by way of a trial before the Sessions Court.

I will only enter judgment against all of the Respondents jointly and severally for the sum of RM 200,000.00, interest at 5% per annum on the judgments sum from the date of filing of this action to the date of realisation of the same and costs of these proceedings of RM 10,000.00 to be paid by the 1st to 4th Respondents to the Plaintiff and RM 10,000.00 costs to be paid by the 5th Respondent to the Plaintiff, subject to the usual allocator. 26

Given the above, the appeal is allowed in part, and I make the following orders; ³.. (a) Perenggan (a) dan (e) di Notis Pemohonan Perayu untuk penghakiman terus bertarikh 24.11.2020 dalam Saman No. WA-B52NCVC-349-10/2020 adalah dibenarkan;

Perenggan (b), (c),(d), (f), (g) dan (h) di Notis Permohonan Perayu untuk Penghakiman Terus bertarikh 24.11.2020 dalam Saman No. WA-B52NCVC-349-10/2020 adalah untuk dibicarakan;

Kos di sini dan di bawah sebanyak RM 10,000.00 dibayar oleh Responden Pertama hingga Responden ke-4 kepada Perayu tertakluk kepada fi alokatur; dan

Kos di sini dan di bawah sebanyak RM 10,000.00 dibayar oleh Responden ke-5 kepada Perayu tertakluk kepada fi alokatur«´ Dated 2nd December 2021 'DWR¶,QGHUD0RKG$ULHI(PUDQELQ$ULILQ Judicial Commissioner High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur NCvC 8 Er 27 Mr Ang Cheong Chek (Counsel for The Appellant) Messrs. B K Soong & Ng (Kuala Lumpur) Advocates and Solicitors Mr. Mohammad Toriq B Abd Manaf (Counsel for 1st till 4th Respondent) Messrs. Toriq Seth & Partners (Bandar Baru Bangi) Advocates and Solicitor En Wahizan bin Abd Wahid (5th Respondent)