Muhammad Arshad Bin Dhakyudheen v Teraju Bakti Trading (PA-22NCC-73-09/2025)

TERAJU BAKTI TRADING (NO. SYARIKAT: 202003041606 [PG0491209-X])

ALIS MART (NO. SYARIKAT: 201103246488 [PC0003181-D])

ALI AKBAR BIN SULAIMAN (NO. K/P: 550921-71-5067)

Enclosure 14 is the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment against the First, Second and Third Defendants pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.

The principles governing an application for summary judgment are well settled. The burden lies on the Plaintiff to establish a clear and unanswerable case. Once this is done, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendants to demonstrate that there exist bona fide triable issues or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial.

It is trite that the Court does not conduct a mini trial in an Order 14 application. The question is whether the Defendants have raised issues which merit ventilation at a full trial. The Federal Court in Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400; [1992]1 MLRA 190; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 14 reiterated that summary judgment is only appropriate in plain and straightforward cases, and should not be used for matters that require extensive evidence analysis.

At the outset, an issue was raised regarding a typographical error in the spelling of the Second Defendant's name in the agreements and the Notice of Application. This was addressed by way of an oral amendment by the Plaintiff, which was allowed. This issue does not, in and of itself, constitute a triable issue.

The Defendants resisted the application on the basis that multiple triable issues arise from the Plaintiff's claim.

First, the Defendants denied the execution and existence of the alleged agreements, namely the Perjanjian Pelaburan Bersama 1,2 and 3.

In particular, the Defendants contended that the Third Defendant was not present in Malaysia on the alleged date of execution, and was in Singapore at the material time. This is said to raise a serious dispute as to whether the agreements were in fact executed.

The Defendants further pointed to various alleged discrepancies in the agreements, including inconsistencies in witness signatures, formatting differences, and the repeated misspelling of the Second Defendant's name. These matters, it was argued, cast doubt on the authenticity and origin of the documents.

Second, the Defendants disputed the Plaintiff's assertion that a sum of RM2,608,700.00 was paid to him. The Defendants contended that there is no satisfactory documentary proof of such payment.

Although the Defendants acknowledged that certain payments were made to the Plaintiff, they disputed the nature and legal character of those payments, and denied that such payments were made pursuant to the alleged agreements.

Third, the Defendants challenged the quantum claimed by the Plaintiff, including the basis upon which the alleged profits and outstanding sums were calculated.

Fourth, the Defendants contended that the agreements are unstamped and therefore inadmissible unless duly stamped in accordance with the Stamp Act 1949.

Finally, the Defendants raised the issue of illegality, contending that the alleged arrangements may in substance constitute an unlawful investment or moneylending scheme, potentially offending regulatory requirements.

The Defendants placed reliance on case law authorities and one of and these being Nagamas Venture Sdn Bhd v Silverland Capital Sdn Bhd [2022] MLRHU 2254; [2022] 1 CLJU 2538; [2022] MLJU 2720, the High Court refused to grant summary judgment on the basis "that the Defendant has raised numerous bona fide defences which need more elaborate discussion, submission, and evidence by the parties" and "that the Plaintiffs action is not a straightforward case that allows this Court to enter the summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff at this stage".

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the Defendants' defence consists of bare denials and speculative assertions.

The Plaintiff relied heavily on the alleged conduct of the Defendants, in particular:

the receipt of the investment sum; and

the payment of profits over a period of time.

The Plaintiff submitted that such conduct is consistent only with the existence of the agreements and undermines the Defendants' denial.

In relation to the absence of the Third Defendant from Malaysia, the Plaintiff contended that this does not, without more, negate the existence of the agreements.

On the issue of stamp duty, the Plaintiff argued that nonstamping does not render the agreements void, but merely affects admissibility until stamping is regularised.

The Plaintiff further contended that the allegation of illegality is speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Having considered the affidavits and submissions of the parties, this Court is not satisfied that this is a plain and obvious case suitable for summary judgment.

In the present case, the Defendants have mounted a direct challenge to the existence and authenticity of the agreements relied upon by the Plaintiff.

The Defendants' contention that the Third Defendant was not present in Malaysia at the material time, if established, would have a material bearing on the issue of execution. This is not a matter that can be resolved on affidavit evidence alone and would require viva voce evidence and cross-examination.

Further, the alleged discrepancies in the agreements, including issues relating to signatures and formatting raise questions of authenticity which are inherently unsuitable for determination in summary proceedings.

In addition, there exists a dispute as to whether the Plaintiff in fact paid the sum alleged, as well as the legal character of the payments said to have been made by the Defendants. These are matters of fact which require proper evidential scrutiny.

The issue of quantum is also not straightforward. The basis upon which the sums claimed were calculated, and the apparent discrepancies in the amounts pleaded and claimed, are matters which warrant examination at trial.

The Defendants have also raised the issue of illegality, including whether the alleged arrangement contravenes applicable regulatory requirements. While this Court makes no finding on the merits of that contention at this stage, it cannot be said that the point is entirely without substance. Questions of illegality, where properly raised, are generally unsuitable for summary disposal.

As for the issue of non-stamping, while it is correct that stamping is curable, the present position, where the documents remain unstamped, forms part of the overall matrix of disputes relating to the admissibility and reliability of the Plaintiff's documentary evidence.

Viewed cumulatively, the matters raised by the Defendants cannot be dismissed as mere bare denials. They raise serious questions of fact and law which require a full trial for proper determination.

This Court is mindful that an application under Order 14 ought only to be invoked in clear cases. At the same time, where a claimant is able to demonstrate an unanswerable case, summary judgment ought to be entered in its favour. The present case, involving disputed execution, contested payments, issues of authenticity, and allegations of illegality, does not fall within that category.

In the premises, this Court finds that the Defendants have successfully raised bona fide triable issues.

Accordingly, Enclosure 14 is dismissed.

Costs of this application shall be in the cause. 26 June 2026

Plaintiff En. Saifudin bin Ariff (Tetuan Saifudin Ariff)

Defendants Farah Hamizah binti Hasan Gani (Tetuan Farah Hamizah & Co)