The Plaintiff sufficiently pled facts to establish locus standi and potential trust in the case against the Defendants, warranting a full trial.

JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] Both the Defendants applied to strike out the Plaintiff's claim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules 2012 ("the Rules").

The Brief Facts

[2] The Plaintiff initiated this proceeding by way of Originating Summons but subsequently by a Court order the Originating Summons was converted to a Writ.

[3] The Plaintiff through one of its Director claims beneficial ownership of 2 units of apartment in the project called Anjali Apartment developed by Angsana Setia Sdn Bhd the developer of the project.

[4] The 1st unit was bought on 11 August 2014 and registered under the name of the Defendants in trust for the Plaintiff. Subsequently this 1st unit was sold and the proceeds was utilized to purchase the 2nd unit. The 2nd unit was purchased on 12 July 2018 in the name of the Defendants also to be held on trust for the Plaintiff.

[5] The Plaintiff contends the Defendants did not pay a single cent for the purchase of both the units. On 4 November 2019 the Plaintiff asked for the return of the 2nd unit but found out that the Defendants had attempted to sell the 2nd unit without the knowledge of the Plaintiff.

[6] The Defendants on the other hand contend that the 1st unit of the apartment was given as a gift to the 1st Defendant by the developer Angsana SetiaSdn Bhd and therefore the Plaintiff had no interest in the 1st unit.

[7] The 2nd unit was given by Angsana Setia Sdn Bhd as a replacement for the 1st unit which was earlier sold off. The Plaintiff is only a shareholder of Angsana Setia Sdn Bhd and made no payments for the 2 units of apartment.

The Grounds For Striking Out

[8] The main ground to strike out is that the Plaintiff has no locus to bring this action and the Plaintiff had failed to plead any facts showing that the apartments were held in trust by the Defendants for the Plaintiff.

Locus

[9] The Defendant relied on the case of Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang & Anor, which expounds that the special interest in a proceeding can only be established if there is a nexus between the party initiating the proceedings and the party against whom the action is instituted.

[10] The Defendants further contend that to bring a cause of action the facts must show that the person is entitled to get a remedy against the other person. This facts must be apparent from the pleadings themselves.

[11] The Defendants contend that all dealings with regards to the 2 units of the apartment was with Angsana Setia Sdn Bhd and not the Plaintiff. Therefore, if at all the relevant party is Angsana Setia Sdn Bhd.

[12] The Court notes that in the pleadings the Plaintiff had stated the fact that it had made payment for the 1st unit and subsequently a letter by Angsana Sdn Bhd confirms this fact.

[13] Further the Plaintiff has stated as a fact that the 2nd unit was purchased with the proceeds of the sale of the 1st unit. The burden lies upon the Plaintiff to prove this fact and that can only be done if the case go for trial.

[14] The Court is satisfied that sufficient facts have been pleaded by the Plaintiff to show a nexus between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to show that the Plaintiff has a locus to bring this action.

[15] In short the Defendants' contention that the Plaintiff have no locus is misconceived.

No Particulars Of Trust

[16] The Defendants relied on the case of Kaliammah Muthu v. Valee Karuppen to allege that the Plaintiff had led no facts to indicate any intention for the creation of trust between the parties.

[17] In the Court's view it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to plead that the Defendant held the 2 units in trust for the Plaintiff. Whether a trust exists or not is for the Court to decide after being appraised of the evidence after a full trial.

[18] In short the facts as pleaded by the Plaintiff are sufficient to raise a reasonable cause of action of whether the apartments were held in trust by the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiff.

[19] Further the Court's earlier decision that the Originating Summons filed by the Plain