Failure to secure the required cleaning services contract under the Joint Venture Agreement justified the return of funds in summary judgment without triable issues raised by defendants.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosures 44 And 80)

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

[1] There are two applications filed by the parties before me:

(a) Enclosure 44: The plaintiff's application under O 14 Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012") for summary judgment against the defendants with interest and costs.

(b) Enclosure 80: The plaintiff's application under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) RC 2012 to strike out First Defendant (D1) amended counterclaim dated 12 August 2021 together with D1's counterclaim against the plaintiff, and costs.

[2] On 4 August 2022, both applications were heard before me, and after perusing the cause papers and hearing the submissions of counsels, I made the following decisions:

(a) Enclosure 44 (O 14 RC 2012): Order in Terms of prayers (1), (2), and (3) with the date of judgment amended to 4 August 2022 and prayer (4) with costs of RM4,000.00 awarded against each defendant, payable within 14 days from the date of this order. The judgment sums of RM750,000.00 is entered against D1 and D2, respectively; and

(b) Enclosure 80 (O 18 r 19 RC 2012): Order in Terms of prayers (1) and (2) with costs of RM4,000.00 awarded against D1.

Dissatisfied, the defendants filed three separate appeals against the above decisions, as follows:

(a) Enclosure 44:

(i) Appeal filed by D2 (enclosure 117); and

(ii) Appeal filed by D1 (enclosure 121).

(b) Enclosure 80:

(i) Appeal filed by D1 (enclosure 122).

I have separated my findings into two parts, ie, Part (A) encl 44 and Part (B) encl 80, and I will only be preparing a single judgment since it involves the same facts to avoid unnecessary repetition.

[3] The relevant cause papers and written submissions, which I have segregated according to the applications, are:

(i) Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim dated 17 September 2020 (enclosure 1 & 2); and

(ii) First Defendant (D1) statement of defence and amended Statement of defence and counterclaim (enclosures 8, 18, 40)

(iii) Second Defendant (D2) statement of defence and amended Statement of defence (enclosure 11,19)

(A) Enclosure 44: Order 14 Rc 2012 Summary Judgment

(i) Notice of application dated 24 August 2021 (enclosure 44);

(ii) Affidavit in support affirmed by Abdul Rahim Talib on 23 August 2021 (enclosure 45);

(iii) D1's affidavit in reply affirmed by Shamsubahrain Ismail on 28 September 2021 (enclosure 53);

(iv) D2's affidavit in reply affirmed by Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah on 27 September 2021 (enclosure 51);

(v) Plaintiff's affidavit in reply affirmed by Abdul Rahim Talib on 15 October 2021 (enclosure 54 (against D1) and 55 (against D2);

(vi) D1's affidavit in reply (2) affirmed by Shamsubahrain Ismail on 27 October 2021 (enclosure 59);

(vii) D2's affidavit in reply (2) affirmed by Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah on 3 November 2021 (enclosure 61);

(viii) Plaintiff's affidavit in reply affirmed by Abdul Rahim Talib on 30 November 2021 (enclosure 62 (against D1) and 63 (against D2);

(ix) D1's affidavit in reply (3) affirmed by Shamsubahrain Ismail on 13 December 2021 (enclosure 68); and

(x) D2's affidavit in reply (3) affirmed by Muhammad Zahir Sanjay Bin Abdullah on 9 December 2021 (enclosure 64);

Submissions of the respective parties.

(B) Enclosure 80: Order 18 Rule 19(A), (B), (C) And (D) RC 2012

(i) Notice of application dated 6 April 2022 (enclosure 80);

(ii) Notice of Intention to use affidavit (enclosure 82);

(iii) Affidavit in support affirmed by Abdul Rahim Talib affirmed on 8 April 2022 (enclosure 83);

(iv) D1's affidavit in reply affirmed by Shamsubahrain Ismail on 25 April 2022 (enclosure 84); and

(v) The plaintiff's affidavit in reply affirmed by Abdul Rahim Talib on 13 May 2022 (enclosure 87)

Submissions of the respective parties.

Brief Facts

[4] The brief facts gathered from the cause papers and submissions are:

(a) The plaintiff and D1 are companies duly incorporated in Malaysia, while D2 was at the time, an advocate and solicitor practising under the name of Messrs Muhammad Zahir and represents himself in the present proceeding (notice - enclosure 93).

(b