Back
2022 MarsdenLR 945
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MUHAMAD RIDHWAAN MOHAMED RAFIK – Appellant
Versus
REGATTA MARITIME SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-218-03/2021]
The burden of proof lies with the party asserting existence of facts in civil cases; failure to provide credible evidence results in dismissal of claims.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 – Sections 101 and 102 – Burden of proof – In a civil case, the party who asserts the existence of facts must prove those facts exist, failing which they cannot succeed in their claims. The burden lies on the Plaintiff throughout the trial to prove the allegations made against the Defendants. (Paras 11-12)
(B) Contract Law – Oral Contracts – To succeed in a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement, the Plaintiff must demonstrate the agreement with credible evidence, corroborated by documentation or contemporaneous evidence supporting its existence. (Paras 23-24)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff claimed a breach of an oral contract regarding salary and profit-sharing by the First Defendant, alleging unjust enrichment and wrongful termination as a director. (Paras 1, 6)
Findings of Court: The Court found the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged contract and consequently dismissed all claims against the Defendants. (Paras 76)
Issues: The main issues addressed by the Court were whether an oral contract existed, whether the Plaintiff was unjustly enriched, and whether the Plaintiff had been wrongfully terminated. (Paras 1, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof rests solely on the Plaintiff throughout the trial, and without credible evidence or corroboration, the claims must fail. (Paras 76)
Result: Plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs of RM10,000. (Para 77)
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff claims that he was promised by the Defendants agreed that he will hold shares in the 1st Defendant and will be appointed as a director of the 1st Defendant on the consideration that he will be paid the sum of RM30,000.00 per month and that he will be paid an annual profit of RM500,000.00 yearly from the profits of the 1st Defendant.
[2] The Plaintiff also claims that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had also personally promised to ensure that the said sums are paid to him by the 1st Defendant.
[3] As a result, the Plaintiff agreed to be a director of the 1st Defendant and that he held 255,000 shares in the said company. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are also directors of the company and own 120,000 and 125,000 shares each in the said company.
[4] I note that the Plaintiff in para 11 of his Statement of Claim states that as the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are collectively the largest shareholders in the 1st Defendant, they are the "authorized directors" of the company and are the persons who manage and control the said entity.
[5] I further note that the Plaintiff's alleges that he had assisted in the setting up of the company and had assisted in the opening of the multi-currency accounts held by the 1st Defendant in various accounts with various Banks as seen in paras 14 of the Statement of Claim.
[6] The crux of the Plaintiff's claim appears in paras 15 to 18 of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim which is summarized as follows:
6.1. Breach of contract - failure to pay the sum of RM30,000.00 monthly and the profit of RM500,000.00 yearly from 16 June 2016 to 2 November 2018.
6.2. The termination of the Plaintiff as a director of the 1st Defendant on 2 November 2018. This was allegedly forced upon the Plaintiff and was allegedly fraudulently put to the said instrument of resignation.
6.3. The Defendants had allegedly unjustly enriched themselves by:
(i) Failure to pay the sums claimed in para 6.1 above.
(ii) The alleged unlawful business is undertaken by the Defendants which had taken a toll on the Plaintiff's reputation. As a result, the Plaintiff alleges that he could not open accounts with financial institutions and could not obtain loans for his businesses.
(iii) The alleged unlawful termination of the Plaintiff as a director of the 1st Defendant.
(iv) The alleged failure by the Defendants to enable the Plaintiff to obtain any benefit from the business of the 1st Defendant and the termination of the 1st Defendant's businesses.
6.4. As a result, the Plaintiff claims for the monetary claims that appear in paras 18 (b), 19 (f), (g), and (h) of the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory reliefs that appear in paras 19 (a) to (e) of the Statement of Claim and other reliefs appearing in para 1 9.
B. Trial
[7] The Plaintiff's claim is fixed for trial on 1 August 2022 and the following witnesses were called by the parties:
7.1. Plaintiff - Muhamad Ridhwaan bin Mohamed Rafik
7.2. Defendant - (i) Abijith Nejumudeen and (ii) Sijin Nazar
C. Decision Of This Court
[8] Having considered the evidence presented by the parties and their written submissions, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his claim against the Defendants. My reasoning is explained in the following paragraphs.
D. Detailed Reasons For Dismissing The Plaintiff's Claim.
[9] The burden of the proof lies on the Plaintiff to prove the following:
9.1. That there was an agreement between the parties that the Plaintiff will be paid RM30,000.00 monthly salary and RM500,000.00 yearly profit for the business of the 1st Defendant.
9.2. That the 1st Defendant had undertaken illegal or unlawful business and that the multicurrency accounts opened by the Plaintiff for the 1st Defendant were wrongfully or unlawfully utilized by the Defendants.
9.3. That the Plaintiff was forced to resign from the company or was wrongly removed from the said company.
9.4. That the Plaintiff was unjustly enriched by the Defendants conduct.
9.5. That the
