Mujibuddin Bin Zainuddin v 1. ) A. Ghani Bin MD Tahir (BA-22NCvC-31-01/2022)

A. GHANI BIN MD. TAHIR (No. K/P: 551116-01-5863)

MOHAMAD HAFIDH BIN ABDUL GHANI (No. K/P: 850707-05-5007) − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The Plaintiff’s application before me is for summary judgment under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012. [2] The cause of action is about monetary claims that the Defendants must pay to the Plaintiff. Whether the money is owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff is the gist of the claims and the defences. 16/09/2022 23:26:53 BA-22NCvC-31-01/2022 Kand. 74 [3] There are 2 interlocutory applications before me filed by both parties, namely –

Enclosure 33 is an application by the Plaintiff for summary judgment under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012; and

Enclosure 35 is an application by the Defendants to add 4 names as the defendants in the claim that is against the Defendants under O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) Rules of Court 2012. [4] Before these 2 Enclosures filed, the Defendants had filed an application for striking out the Plaintiff’s writ and statement of claims under O. 18 r. 19(1) Rules of Court 2012 and on 23-6-2022, this Court had dismissed the application and no appeal is filed. [5] There is another case No.: BA-22NCvC-490-12/2021 filed by the First Defendant (A. Ghani bin Md Tahir) against Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd and that case is before Y.A. Dato’ Khadijah Idris. The full trial dates already fixed by that Court. [6] On 19-8-2022, I allowed the application for summary judgment with costs in the sum of RM7,000.00 (subject to allocator fee) and I dismissed the application to add new defendants with costs in the sum of RM2,000.00 (subject to allocator fee). [7] The Defendants appeal and herewith is my reasons for my decisions. Fact of the case [8] The Plaintiff is the director of the company named Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd, whilst the First Defendant is the Managing Director of Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd from 3-12-2011 until 31-8-2021. The Second Defendant is the son of the First Defendant and the Second Defendant is the Director of Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd. [9] The Plaintiff is also the shareholder in Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd and the Plaintiff hold 25% shares. The First Defendant hold 55% shares and the Second Defendant hold 20% shares in Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd. [10] When Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd declared its dividends of RM18,000,000.00, the Plaintiff is entitled to RM4,500,000.00 based on the Plaintiff’ shares. [11] Unfortunately the Plaintiff did not receive the RM4,500,000.00. The reasons pleaded by the Plaintiff are that the Defendant had fraudulently and had deceit by transferring the amount of RM4,500,000.00 into the First Defendant’s account. [12] The Plaintiff also pleaded that First Defendant had fraudulently asking the Plaintiff to sign a document purportedly for payment of the RM4,500,000.00 but what happens next is that the Plaintiff had never received the sum of RM4,500,000.00. [13] Therefore the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants is for the sum of RM4,500,000.00, interest and costs. The defence and counter claim [14] The Defendants are represented by the same solicitor and the learned solicitor filed the defence separately. For the First Defendant, there is a counter claim against the Plaintiff. [15] The defence and counter claim of the First Defendant is reproduced in its original language as follows:

Plaintif merupakan pengarah di Syarikat bermula dari 09.04.2018 sehingga hari ini dan memegang saham sebanyak 25% bermula dari 14.05.2018.

Defendan Pertama merupakan pengarah di Syarikat bermula dari 08.12.2010 sehingga Defendan Pertama dipecat pada 21.12.2021 dengan pegangan saham sebanyak 55% bermula dari 14.02.2017 sehingga 24.08.2020.

Defendan Kedua merupakan pengarah di Syarikat bermula dari 22.03.2012 sehingga 01.09.2021 dengan pegangan saham sebanyak 20% bermula dari 14.05.2018 sehingga 24.08.2020.

Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa berdasarkan kepada carian syarikat yang dilakukan setakat bulan Disember 2021 struktur pengarah dan pemegang saham setakat pemfailan pembelaan ini adalah seperti berikut:

Ahmad Nazmi Bin Mohd Nooh (NO. K/P: 581106-07- 5595) merupakan seorang pengarah bermula dari 03.08.2020 dengan pegangan saham sebanyak 30% bermula dari 24.08.2020.

(ii) Mohd Nazri Bin Mohd Zain (NO. K/P: 750412-08-6481) merupakan seorang pengarah bermula dari 01.09.2021 dengan pegangan saham sebanyak 15% bermula dari 17.03.2021.

(iii) Plaintif merupakan seorang pengarah bermula dari 09.04.2018 dengan pegangan saham sebanyak 25% bermula dari 14.05.2018.

Defendan Pertama hanya sebagai pemegang saham sebanyak 30% bermula 22.09.2021 selepas dibuang sebagai pengarah oleh pemegang-pemegang saham seperti yang dinyatakan di atas pada 21.12.2021.

Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa sehingga hari ini Plaintif masih gagal untuk membayar kepada Defendan Kedua balasan bagi saham sebanyak 25% yang diterima oleh Plaintif daripada Defendan Kedua yang mana Defendan Kedua akan memulakan tindakan berasingan terhadap Plaintif untuk menuntut pembayaran saham tersebut mengikut kadar harga saham semasa.

berdasarkan kepada struktur pegangan saham ketika itu dividen yang layak diterima oleh pemegang-pemegang saham yang berdaftar berdasarkan kepada jumlah dividen RM18,000,000.00 seperti yang telah direkodkan di laporan audit adalah seperti berikut:

Defendan Pertama sebanyak RM9,900,000.00.

(ii) Plaintif sebanyak RM4,500,000.00.

(iii) Defendan Kedua sebanyak RM3,600,000.00.

Defendan Pertama seterusnya menyatakan bahawa perbincangan telah dilakukan bersama semua pihak setelah resolusi kelulusan pembayaran dividen interim, yang mana Defendan Pertama ada membangkitkan keperluan untuk satu pendahuluan pemegang saham “shareholder advancement” dilakukan bagi modal pusingan syarikat bagi projek-projek yang sedang dilaksanakan dan yang akan diterima oleh Syarikat memandangkan pemegang-pemegang saham akan mendapat dividen interim yang banyak dari Syarikat.

Defendan Kedua bersetuju terhadap pendahuluan yang dicadangkan dan memberikan cadangan bahawa dividen yang diterimanya akan dimasukkan ke Syarikat sebagai “shareholder advancement”.

Plaintif pula telah memaklumkan bahawa wang dividen yang diterimanya akan dibayar kepada beberapa pihak ketiga yang mana pihak ketiga tersebut merangkumi pengarah dan pemegang saham baru yang dinyatakan termasuk beberapa pihak ketiga yang lain.

hasil daripada perbincangan tersebut dan dalam mengambil kira bahawa Defendan Pertama adalah pemegang saham majoriti di dalam Syarikat dan juga pengarah urusan ketika itu, Defendan Kedua dan Plaintif telah bersetuju seperti berikut:

Defendan Kedua bersetuju bahawa jumlah wang dividen berjumlah RM3,600,000.00 di bayar secara terus kepada Defendan Pertama bagi tujuan “shareholder advancement” yang mana Defendan Pertama juga akan memberikan “shareholder advancement” sebanyak RM6,400,000.00 kepada Syarikat yang menjadikan jumlah keseluruhan sebanyak RM10,000,000.00. Defendan Pertama akan membayar kembali wang Defendan Kedua setelah Syarikat membayar kembali “shareholder advancement” berjumlah RM10,000,000.00 kepada Defendan Pertama.

(ii) Plaintif bersetuju untuk dividen berjumlah RM4,500,000.00 dibayar terus kepada Defendan Pertama untuk Defendan Pertama membuat pembayaran kepada pihak-pihak ketiga seperti yang dipersetujui dan diarahkan Plaintif bagi memudahkan urusan pembayaran kepada pihak ketiga dan kerana Plaintif tidak mahu rekod transaksi terhadap akaun individu atas alasan-alasan yang diketahui oleh Plaintif.

(iii) bagi memberikan kesan dan kuasa kepada Defendan Pertama untuk melaksanakan perkara seperti mana yang dinyatakan, Defendan Kedua dan Plaintif telah menandatangani dokumen bertarikh 15.04.2020 di hadapan setiausaha syarikat sebagai pengesahan penerimaan keseluruhan wang dividen interim yang layak diterima.

Plaintif sebagai seorang yang waras, professional dan juga pengarah serta pemegang saham Syarikat telah menandatangani dokumen bertarikh 15.04.2020 dengan rela hati sebagai satu bukti dan pengakuan bahawa secara prinsipal Plaintif telah menerima wang dividen tersebut dan agar tiada isu berbangkit memandangkan Plaintif telah mengarahkan Defendan Pertama untuk membuat bayaran kepada pihak-pihak ketiga bagi pihak Plaintif.

Defendan Pertama seterusnya menyatakan bahawa Defendan Pertama telah membuat pembayaran kepada pihak-pihak ketiga berdasarkan apa yang dipersetujui dan di arahkan oleh Plaintif kepada Ahmad Nazmi Bin Mohd Nooh (No. K/P: 581106-07-5595); Mohd Nazri Bin Mohd Zain (No. K/P: 750412-08-6481); Eternal Setup Sdn. Bhd.; DG Siti Nurul Bariah Binti Masiri@Masri RM280,000.00 yang percayai mempunyai hubungan kekeluargaan dengan Mohd Nazri Bin Mohd Zain.

Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa saman ini difailkan oleh Plaintif dengan niat jahat dan tanpa suci hati. Plaintif dari tarikh menandatangani dokumen bertarikh 15.04.2020 sehingga pemfailan saman ini tidak pernah mempertikaikan pembayaran dividen tersebut terhadap Defendan-defendan mahupun Syarikat.

saman dan tuntutan ini hanya difailkan oleh Plaintif setelah Defendan Pertama memfailkan satu saman dan tuntutan terhadap Syarikat bagi pembayaran balik “shareholder advancement” oleh Defendan Pertama sebanyak RM10,000,000.00 yang difailkan pada 08.12.2021 di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam (Guaman No. BA-22NCVC- 490-12/2021) dan setelah Syarikat memasukkan pembelaannya bagi kes tersebut.

Plaintif yang merupakan salah seorang pengarah di Syarikat telah enggan, gagal dan/atau ingkar untuk membayar kembali “shareholder advancement” yang dituntut Defendan Pertama dan sebaliknya telah memfailkan saman dan tuntuan ini hanya setelah pihak Syarikat memasukkan pembelaannya bagi kes Guaman No. BA-22NCVC-490-12/2021 untuk menyokong pembelaan yang difailkan oleh pihak Syarikat yang juga merupakan satu tindakan yang diada-adakan ‘afterthought’ oleh Plaintif.

Defendan Pertama seterusnya menyatakan bahawa Defendan Kedua telah menghubungi Plaintif secara ‘Whatsapp’ setelah menerima saman dan tuntutan Plaintif yang mana Plaintif sendiri telah mengakui bahawa Plaintif tidak mempunyai pengetahuan penuh dan hanya mengikut arahan Syarikat (yang kini dianggotai oleh pengarah-pengarah baru yang telah menerima pembayaran hasil daripada dividen Plaintif) untuk memfailkan saman dan tuntutan ini.

Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa saman dan tuntutan Plaintif ini tidak mempunyai satu kausa tindakan yang kukuh serta jelas, adalah remeh serta menyusahkan serta merupakan salah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah.

pada hakikatnya Plaintif telah pun menandatangani dokumen bertarikh 15.04.2020 mengakui penerimaan dividen dan tidak dalam mana-mana keadaan Defendan Pertama menerima sebarang wang dividen milik Plaintif seperti yang telah diakui oleh Plaintif sendiri di dalam tuntutannya.

Plaintif seharusnya mengambil tindakan terhadap Syarikat dan juga pihak-pihak ketiga yang berkaitan sekiranya Plaintif inginkan wang Plaintif kembali, kerana isu berbangkit terhadap tuntutan saman Plaintif ini adalah tidak berkaitan dengan Defendan Pertama mahupun wang dividen kerana wang dividen yang menjadi asas tuntutatan Plaintif telah diakui terima oleh Plaintif melalui dokumen bertarikh 15.04.2020.

Defendan Pertama akan membuat satu permohonan untuk memasukkan Syarikat dan pihak-pihak ketiga sebagai pihak-pihak di dalam saman dan tuntutan ini dalam menuntut pihak-pihak ketiga untuk membuat pembayaran kembali keseluruhan wang yang diterima daripada Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif atau Syarikat. The counter claim by the First Defendant [16] In the counter claim, the First Defendant claims against the Plaintiff as follows: Defendan Pertama seterusnya menyatakan bahawa berdasarkan kepada perenggan 15 pembelaan, keseluruhan jumlah wang yang telah dibayar kepada pihak-pihak ketiga bagi pihak Plaintif adalah sebanyak RM5,494,121.50 yang merupakan pembayaran lebih dari jumlah dividen yang layak diterima Plaintif iaitu sebanyak RM4,500,000.00. Oleh yang demikian terdapat pembayaran lebihan yang berjumlah RM994,121.50 yang telah dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada pihak-pihak ketiga bagi pihak Plaintif yang disedari Defendan Pertama apabila membuat pembelaannya. Dalam premis ini, Defendan Pertama menuntut balas terhadap Plaintif seperti berikut:

Plaintif membayar kembali wang lebihan yang keseluruhan berjumlah RM994,121.50 kepada Defendan Pertama atau melalui peguam bela dan peguam caranya.

faedah atas jumlah RM994,121.50 pada kadar 5% setahun dikira dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga penyelesaian sepenuhnya.

kos tindakan ini dan yang bersangkutan dengannya atas dasar anak guam dan peguam cara.

Lain-lain relief dan/atau perintah dan/atau relief yang difikirkan adil dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah ini. [17] As for the Second Defendant’s defence, I would not repeat the same defence as pleaded by the First Defendant The laws [18] In Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Bhd v. Ketheeswaran M Kanagaratnam [2022] 6 CLJ 513 the Court of Appeal held that – “It is trite that where all the issues are clear and the matter in substance can be decided once and for all without having to go through a full-blown trial, the matter ought to be resolved and decided in an O. 14 application. The court should only exercise the power under the said provision in very clear cases. In Citibank NA v. Ooi Boon Leong & Ors [1980] 1 LNS 168; [1981] 1 MLJ 282 His Lordship Raja Azlan Shah, CJ, (as His Highness was then) had stated as follows: That brings us to the important question whether the Assistant Registrar was entitled to deal with the case under the RSC Order 14 procedure. We have often said in this court many a time that where all the issues are clear and the matter of substance can be decided once and for all without going to trial there is no reason why the Assistant Registrar or the Judge in Chambers, or, for that matter this Court, shall not deal with the whole matter under RSC Order 14 procedure. Therefore, when issues raised in an application are clear cut, on pure question of law, the court should exercise its duty under O. 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 and decide on the question of law even if the issue of law raised is a difficult one. In Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v. Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 CLJ 246; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 182 (SC), Hashim Yeop Sani SCJ said this: What is involved in the present appeal is the other principle considered in European Asian Bank by Goff LJ (as he then was) that is, what happens when a legal issue is raised by the defence in an O. 14 application. In this regard several principles are involved: Firstly, the Court hearing an O. 14 application should work within the framework of O. 14 and not to embark in an exercise under O. 33 r. 2 which empowers the Court to determine any question or issue arising in a cause or matter whether of fact or law or partly of fact or partly of law before trial of the cause or matter. Order 33 r. 2 is entirely for a different purpose. Secondly, where the issue raised is solely a question of law pure and simple without reference to any facts or where the facts are clear and undisputed the Court should exercise its duty under O. 14 as in any other cases and decide on the question of law. This is so even if the issue of law raised is a difficult one. If the Court after considering the argument is satisfied that it is really unarguable then the Court should grant summary judgment. Justice VC George in the case of Amanah Merchant Bank Bhd v. Sumikin Bussan Kaisha Ltd [1992] 4 CLJ 2241; [1992] 2 CLJ (Rep) 59 held that an O. 14 application should not be granted when any serious conflict of the facts or any real difficulty on a matter of law arises. But however difficult the point of law is, once it is understood and the court is satisfied that it is really unarguable, it would give final judgment.”. [19] There are tremendous grounds of judgments written by my brothers and sisters on the principles governing an O. 14 applications and often quoted as follows:

National Company for Foreign Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 CLJ 220 which established the parameters and function of the court as follows: We think it appropriate to remind ourselves once again that in every application under O. 14 the first considerations are

whether the case comes within the Order and (b) whether the plaintiff has satisfied the preliminary requirements for proceeding under O. 14. For the purposes of an application under O. 14 the preliminary requirements are –

the defendant must have entered an appearance;

(ii) the statement of claim must have been served on the defendant; and

(iii) the affidavit in support of the application must comply with the requirements of r. 2 of O. 14. ... if the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these considerations, the summons may be dismissed. If however, these considerations are satisfied, the plaintiff will have established a prima facie case and he becomes entitled to judgment. This burden then shifts to the defendant to satisfy the Court why judgment should not be given against him [see O. 14 r. 3 and 4(1)].

under O. 14 r. 3(1), the court may give judgment unless the defendant is able to satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried (first limb) or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial (second limb). The onus is on the defendant and is generally discharged on affidavit evidence as required by O. 14 r. 4(1). The application can also be resisted by relying on the plaintiff's own documents (Noh Hyoung Seok v. Perwira Affin Bank Bhd [2004] 2 CLJ 64; [2004] 2 MLJ 203). The court is also entitled to look at the defence if one is filed.

In determining whether an issue is triable the following passage in Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 CLJ Rep 14; [1992] 1 CLJ 627; [1992] 1 MLJ 400: ... the duty of a Judge does not end as soon as a fact is asserted by one party, and denied or disputed by the other on affidavit. Where such assertion, denial or dispute is equivocal, or lacking in precision or is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent or is inherently improbable in itself, then the Judge has a duty to reject such assertion or denial, thereby rendering the issue as not triable.... apart from identifying the issues of fact or law, the Court must go one step further and determine whether they are triable. This principle is sometimes expressed by the statement that a complete defence need not be shown. The defence set up need only show that there is a triable issue.

in Voo Min En & Ors v. Leong Chung Fatt [1982] 1 LNS 47; [1982] 2 MLJ 241 as follows: ... it is not enough for the respondent in answer to the appellants' application to sign final judgment, to raise an issue, or any issue. He must, however, raise such issue as would require a trial in order to determine it. In other words, the issue raised must be an arguable issue. But where the issue raised is irrelevant and ineffective, or... "when the point is understood and the court is satisfied that it is really unarguable", the appellants should be entitled to what they prayed for in the summons-in-chambers… .”.

Once the burden has shifted, the Defendant must be able to show by affidavits whether he has raised a triable issue [refer to the case of South East Asia Insurance Berhad v Kerajaan Malaysia [1998] 1 AMR 657].

Whether an issue is or is not triable must necessary depends on the facts or the law arising from each case as disclosed in evidence before the Court [refer to the case of Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400].

Where all the issues are clear and the matter in substance can be decided once and for all without going to trial the matter ought to be decided under Order 14 application [refer to the case of Citibank NA v Ooi Boon Leong & 2 Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 282].

The Court has a wide discretion not to allow the plaintiff to enter summary judgment if the Court for some other reason view there ought to be a trial of the whole or part of the claim. [refer to O 14 r 3(1) and refer to the case of Concentrate Engineering Pte Ltd v UMBC Bhd [1990] 3 MLJ 1] [20] In Doshi v. Yeoh Tiong Lay [1975] 1 MLJ 85, the Federal Court held– “The purpose of O 14 of the Rules of Supreme Court 1975 is to enable the Plaintiff to obtain summary judgment without trial if he can prove his case clearly, and if the defendant is unable to set up a bona fide defence or raise an issue against the claim which ought to be tried, final judgment should be allowed.”. [21] The above principle in Doshi (supra) was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Ho Lai Ying & Anor v. Cempaka Finance Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 232 where it stated as follows – “Thus, a plaintiff would be entitled to obtain summary judgment without a trial if he can prove his case clearly which to us would mean the plaintiff has to establish the existence of certain facts and must prove that those facts exist before the court can determine the issue against the claim which ought to be tried.”. [22] The test for an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 is such, that the Defendants must show on affidavit evidence that the defence has not only raised an issue, but also that the said issue is triable (see Woolley Development Sdn Bhd v. Mikien Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 MLJ 585; Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400). [23] The Court of Appeal in Pengiran Othman Shah bin Pengiran Mohd Yusoff & Anor v. Karambunai Resorts Sdn Bhd [formerly known as Lipkland (Sabah) Sdn Bhd] & Ors [1996]1 MLJ 309 held that − “Where the affidavit evidence discloses a dispute of facts, such facts must be analysed, and if they are found to be inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or inherently improbable in themselves, the court is entitled to reject those facts and proceed upon the undisputed contemporaneous documentary evidence.”. [24] As to defence to such application, the Court of Appeal in Chen Heng Ping@ Tian Seow Hock & 5 Ors v. Intradagang Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad [1995] 3 CLJ 690, Mahadev Shanker JCA held at p.693− “When an application is made for summary judgment under O. 14 supported by an affidavit which goes to show that there is no defence, the defendants must show cause why leave to defend must be given. This means that the defendants must provide answers on oath which constitute evidence that they have a defence which is fit to be tried. Denials in a defence do not constitute evidence. They are challenges to the other side to show proof... .”. [25] In South East Asia Insurance Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia [1998] 1 CLJ 1045, Shaik Daud Ismail JCA at p.1048 held− “It is well settled that if a defendant in an O. 14 application succeeds in raising even a single triable issue, it will not be a fit case and proper case to order summary judgment. It is only in plain and obvious cases where there are no issues to be tried should recourse be had to O. 14.”. Whether the Defendants had raised the triable issues [26] The first step is to identify the issues raised in the affidavit opposing the application for summary judgment and the defence and/or the counter claim that were filed. [27] The Defendants raised several issues. In my view the defences are not bona fide issues to be tried thereby the application for summary judgment must be granted. Findings, Evaluation and Decision [28] When the Plaintiff filed the suit against the Defendant, it is not important for this Court to search whether the Defendants were sued in any other Courts. [29] Be there as it may, from the assertion by the Defendants, there is another legal action taken against Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd. It doesn’t matter who filed first. The case before this Court is between the Plaintiff against the Defendant pertaining to Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd. [30] As pleaded by the Plaintiff, as a valid shareholder in Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd, he is entitled to receive the dividend. To reproduce the reply to defence and defence to counter claim, this Court found that the facts stated by the Plaintiff from the beginning are consistent, relevant and easy to understand, namely – Pada setiap masa yang material tersebut, pemegang-pemegang saham yang berkaitan dan layak untuk penerimaan wang dividen tersebut adalah Plaintif, Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua sahaja. Justeru Plaintif menyatakan bahawa pernyataan panjang lebar Defendan Pertama berkenaan struktur pegangan saham Syarikat selain dari tiga pemegang saham yang berkaitan dengan pembayaran dividen berjumlah RM18 juta tersebut adalah tidak relevan dan berlebih-lebihan dalam tindakan ini. Plaintif juga menyatakan bahawa dakwaan Defendan Pertama bahawa kononnya Defendan Pertama telah ‘dipecat’ dari jawatan pengarah juga adalah tidak relevan dalam tindakan ini kerana fakta sebenarnya adalah Defendan Pertama telahpun secara sukarela meletak jawatan sebagai ‘Pengarah Urusan’ dan bersetuju menggalas tanggungjawab sebagai ‘Pengarah Pemasaran’ sebelum majoriti pemegang saham Syarikat mengundi keluar Defendan Pertama sebagai pengarah mengikut peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada.”. [31] From the affidavits and the supporting document exhibited by the Plaintiff, it is clear that the dividend declared is in the sum of RM18 millions and the Plaintiff’s name is stated to receive the dividend in the sum of RM4.5 million. The Plaintiff only wants his dividend. [32] Where the RM4.5 gone? When the Defendants stated in their defence that the Plaintiff’s dividend already paid to the Plaintiff via the third party, this Court had “investigated” by searching and reading the documents exhibited in the affidavits. There are no legal and valid documents that the Plaintiff had approved and consented to allow his dividend to be paid and be credited to the third party. [33] The Plaintiff did not sue and name the third-party so-called Ahmad Nazmi Bin Mohd Nooh (No. K/P: 581106-07-5595); Mohd Nazri Bin Mohd Zain (No. K/P: 750412-08-6481); Eternal Setup Sdn. Bhd.; DG Siti Nurul Bariah Binti Masiri@Masri. The Defendants also did not sue Ahmad Nazmi Bin Mohd Nooh; Mohd Nazri Bin Mohd Zain; Eternal Setup Sdn. Bhd.; DG Siti Nurul Bariah Binti Masiri@Masri asking/claiming the amount of money “purportedly given by the Plaintiff”. [34] However, only after this Court dismissed the Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiff’s claims then the Defendants would like this Court to insert and to add the following names as parties and defendants jointly in the claims filed by the Plaintiff:

Ahmad Nazmi Bin Mohd Nooh (NO. K/P: 581106-07-5595).

(ii) Mohd Nazri Bin Mohd Zain (NO. K/P: 750412-08-6481).

(iii) Eternal Setup Sdn. Bhd. (No Syarikat: 200901014473 [857542-U]).

(iv) DG Siti Nurul Bariah Binti Masiri @ Masri. [35] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff had submitted that “Defendan juga gagal untuk memplidkan secara terperinci butiran dakwaan piha-pihak ketiga yang kononnya dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama disebabkan wujudnya arahan daripada Plaintif.”. This Court agrees. [36] The learned counsel for the Defendants had submitted that “Plaintif sebagai seorang yang waras, professional dan juga pengarah serta pemegang saham Syarikat telah menandatangani dokumen bertarikh 15.04.2020 dengan rela hati sebagai satu bukti dan pengakuan bahawa secara prinsipal Plaintif telah menerima wang dividen tersebut dan agar tiada isu berbangkit memandangkan Plaintif telah mengarahkan Defendan Pertama untuk membuat bayaran kepada pihak-pihak ketiga bagi pihak Plaintif.”. [37] Be that as it may, the Defendants in particular the First Defendant also seorang yang waras, professional dan juga pengarah urusan syarikat Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd had to explain the reason for declining to return the money to the Plaintiff. There is no doubt that Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd had paid the dividend to be distributed to the shareholders based on the amount of the shares held by the Plaintiff, the First Defendant and the Second Defendant. Once the money paid therefore, the right shareholder must get the dividend. The Defendants failed to establish that there is a bona fide defence. Denials in a defence do not constitute evidence. [38] This Court would like to cite the judgment of Y.A. Puan Noorin binti Badaruddin (as she then was) in Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd v. Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow [Suit No.: WA-22NCC-500-12/2017] where Y.A. had referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Azlin bin Khalid v. Mohamad Najib Ishak and other appeals [2017] MLJU 1522 which held that “it is an established principles applicable for summary judgment that if affidavits filed by a defendant raises one bona fide triable issue, then the suit between the parties should proceed to a full blown trial. The Court of Appeal held as follows: “[29] We do not intend to respond item by item to the grounds raised by learned counsel for the defendants. It is well established that among the principles applicable for summary judgment is that if the affidavits filed by a defendant raises one bona fide triable issue, the suit between the parties should proceed to a full-blown trial. At this stage, the defendants need to prove their defences. All that is required is to raise a triable issue.”. [39] But here in this case, the so called there is triable issue where the Court must determine it through a full trial by calling the witness/es to testify is not the correct application of the principles of summary judgment. There is no merit in the defence. [40] The other case filed by the First Defendant against the company (Pioneer Pegasus Sdn Bhd) in the year of 2021 that is before the legal action taken by the Plaintiff had nothing to do with the case before me. This Court must decide what are the best evidence produced by the Plaintiff in order to succeed in its summary judgment. [41] When the Court is able to give final judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, there is no necessity to entertain Enclosure 35 filed by the Defendants. Conclusion [42] In view of the foregoing, it is my judgment that having evaluated the evidence, I allowed the application for summary judgment with costs. [43] It is clear that the Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement under O. 14 Rules of Court 2012 to entitle it to a final judgment. The background facts and the documents has been considered carefully by me before a decision can be made. There are definitely no questions of facts and laws. Dated: 16 September 2022. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Judicial Commissioner High Court NCvC12 Shah Alam The Counsels: For the Plaintiff: Mohd Fairuz Tetuan Fairuz Ali & Co. Shah Alam For the Defendants: Mohd Firdaus bin Ahmed Khamal Tetuan Raja Faisal Iqbal & Meor Petaling Jaya