The court declined to strike out the claims for unjust enrichment, affirming sufficient grounds for the plaintiffs' standing, and distinguished previous rulings against other defendants.

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon JC:

Introduction

[1] The 2nd defendant ("Ghulam") in Suit No 22NCvC-662-12/2015 ("Suit 662") filed an application vide encl 116 ("Enc 116") to strike out the plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim in Suit 662. Enc 116 is made under O 18 r 19(1)(b) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC").

[2] Vide Enc 116, Ghulam also applied to strike out the plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim in Suit No 22NCvC-665-12/2015 ("Suit 665"). Ghulam is the 1st defendant in Suit 665.

[3] In turn, the plaintiffs in Suit 662 filed an application vide encl 126 ("Enc 126") for leave to amend their Statement of Claim. Enc 126 is made under O 20 r 5 of the ROC.

[4] The plaintiffs in Suit 665 likewise filed an application vide encl 128 ("Enc 128") for leave to amend their Statement of Claim. Enc 128 is made under O 20 r 5 of the ROC.

[5] The plaintiffs in Suit 662 and Suit 665 are collectively referred to as the "plaintiffs". The Statements of Claim in Suit 662 and Suit 665 are collectively referred to as the "SOCs".

[6] I heard all 3 enclosures (Enc 116, Enc 126 and Enc 128) together. I allowed both Enc 126 and Enc 128 for the SOCs to be amended as proposed. I dismissed Enc 116 and did not allow the striking out by Ghulam.

[7] Ghulam filed an appeal against my decision in Enc 116 (dismissal of the striking out application). He did not file any appeal in respect of my decisions in Enc 126 and Enc 128 (amendment of the SOCs). These are the grounds of my decision in relation to Enc 116.

Background

[8] The plaintiffs' claim arises from an alleged investment scheme in an educational institution known as Sayfol International School located at No 261 Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur ("School"). The plaintiffs aver that Ghulam and his wife, Hajjah Sarah ("Wife"), have deceived them of their alleged investments.

[9] Wife was the 1st defendant in Suit 662. She is also the sole defendant in Suit No 22NCvC-55-02/2015 ("Suit 55") The plaintiffs seek recovery of their alleged investments.

[10] In the SOCs, the plaintiffs pleaded the following:

(a) Wife was, at all material times, registered as the sole-proprietor of the School;

(b) Ghulam was, at all material times, the founder and undisclosed co-owner of the School. And the principal decision maker regarding the financial and operational matters relating to the school;

(c) The plaintiffs were induced by Ghulam and Wife to advance monies towards, amongst others, the development and expansion of the school and its proposed expansion plans;

(d) In return, the plaintiffs would be given a stake in the school or would be guaranteed a 5% monthly return on their investments;

(e) The monies advanced would be repaid by Ghulam and Wife upon demand made by the plaintiffs;

(f) Ghulam and Wife have failed to repay the monies advanced by the plaintiffs upon demand being so made;

(g) The 3rd defendant in Suit 662 ("Periasamy") was, at all material times, employed as the Bursar and the Chief Financial Officer of the School. He was also the 2nd defendant in Suit 665;

(h) The 4th defendant in Suit 662 ("Cecilia") was, at all material times, employed as the Registration Officer and later Registrar of the School. She is also the 3rd defendant in Suit 665;

(i) The 5th defendant in Suit 662 ("Kamaljit") was, at all material times, employed as a Secretary in the School. She was also the 4th defendant in Suit 665;

(j) These other 3 defendants facilitated and received the payments of the monies advanced by the plaintiffs;

(k) At all material times, the plaintiffs did not know that Ghulam and Wife had made such separate similar arrangements with each of them.

The 3 Suits

[11] Suit 662 was filed on 9 December 2015 by the two plaintiffs named therein against Ghulam, Wife and the other 3 defendants. The plaintiffs prayed for the following:

(a) The appointment of a Receiver and Manager to manage all the educational institutions under the Sayfol Group;

(b) The corporatization of the School and upon successful corporatization, the issuance of shares in t