Back
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
KONG HOI CHIENG – Appellant
Versus
KONG YU YONG & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual obligations under mou (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants' objections to the claim (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's discretion in default judgment (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. no duplicity in plaintiff's claims (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. limitation periods for claims (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. validity of plaintiff's claims despite limitation (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. presence of necessary parties (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. misjoinder or non-joinder not fatal (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
[1] The Plaintiff is the father of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant signed a memorandum of understanding dated 14 Mei 2005 (MOU) on the restructuring of the Konkasaki group of companies. It was agreed inter alia that the 1st Defendant would resign as a director from all the companies in the Konkasaki group of companies except for Pembangunan Daspel Sdn Bhd (now known as AKL Construction Sdn Bhd) and Sabalight Sdn Bhd; that the Plaintiff would resign as a director of AKL Construction Sdn Bhd (AKL) and Sabalight Sdn Bhd (Sabalight) and transferred all his shares in the 2 companies to the 1st Defendant or his nominees for a nominal sum of RM1; and that the 1st Defendant and AKL would transfer 14 units of light ind
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
