Ramly Ali JC:

Introduction

This is an application by the plaintiff (Zaidin Abd Ghani @ Zaidin Stothard) in encl. 11 seeking for various interlocutory reliefs in the form of injunctions against the defendants by way of summons in chambers (inter partes) dated 8 November 2000. Through encl. 11, the plaintiff is seeking the following prayers:

(1) injunksi interim yang melarang dan mencegah Defendan Pertama, Kedua dan Ketiga, pekerja dan/atau ejen sesiapa sahaja daripada melanjutkan tindakan untuk berurusniaga dan/atau menjual saham-saham Syarikat Defendan Kelima kepada Defendan Keempat atau pihak yang lain sehingga tindakan-tindakan yang difailkan di Mahkamah iaitu Guaman S4-22-600-1999, Saman Pemula S4-24-1021-99 dan S3-24-1799-1999 ("Tindakan-tindakan Mahkamah") di dengar dan diputuskan dan/ataupun sehingga perintah injunksi interlokutori diperolehi (Prayer (a));

(ii)injunksi interim yang melarang dan mencegah Defendan Kelima (Incofirm) daripada menambah atau mengurangkan modal berbayarnya ("paid up capital") sehingga Tindakan-tindakan Mahkamah didengar dan diputuskan dan/atau sehingga Perintah Injunksi Interlokutori. (Prayer (b));

(iii) injunksi interim yang melarang dan mencegah kesemua pemegang-pemegang saham daripada menambah atau mengurangkan modal berbayar Defendan Kelima (Prayer (c)).

(iv) secara alternatifnya, memerintahkan ("to compel") Defendan Pertama dan lain-lain pemegang-pemegang saham untuk mengembalikan "status quo"saham-saham Defendan Kelima seperti sebelum bermulanya Tindakan-tindakan Mahkamah (Prayer (d)).

Background Of The Case

By a concession agreement dated 17 April 1997, a company known as Incofirm Sdn Bhd entered into an agreement with the States Government of Sabah ("the original concession agreement") whereby Incofirm Sdn Bhd would undertake to, inter alia, construct an underground duct system within Sabah ("the Sabah Duct System Project").

By a supplementary agreement dated 3 August 1998, the rights under the original concession agreement were novated to the 5th defendant ("the supplementary concession agreement"). The terms of the original concession agreement were incorporated into the supplementary concession agreement.

By a sale and purchase agreement dated 26 January 1999, the plaintiff and one Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahman ("Rahim") entered into an agreement for the purchase of 100 issued and paid up shares in the 5th defendant ("the Incofirm shares") from the 1st and 2nd defendants ("the S&P agreement"). The said S&P agreement was at all material times subject to two conditions precedent, namely:

(a) the appointment of Lucent Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd. ("Lucent") as a turnkey contractor ("1st condition precedent")

and

(b) the establishment of a joint venture between the 5th defendant and TNEC ("the 2nd condition precedent").

Clause 4(a) of the S&P agreement requires that the 1st and 2nd conditions precedent to be fulfilled within six months from the date of the agreement, that is on or before 26 July 1999 or such extended period as the Purchasers may grant the vendors in writing. It is further provided that if the 1st and 2nd conditions precedent are not fulfilled, then the S&P agreement shall be deemed terminated and the 1st and 2nd defendants shall forthwith refund the deposit paid by the plaintiff and Rahim free of interest.

On 7 June 1999 the 1st and 2nd defendants terminated the S&P agreement because the 2nd condition precedent could not be fulfilled. On 9 July 2000 the issued and paid up share capital of the 5th defendant was increased by 99,9000 shares.

As a result of dispute in respect of the termination of the S&P Agreement the following suits were filed:

(i) On 15 July 1999, the plaintiff and Rahim filed an Originating Summons in Kuala Lumpur High Court, suit No: S4-24-1021-1999 ("the 1st suit') against the 1st and 2nd defendant for, inter alia:

(a) a declaration that the S&P agreement was still valid and subsisting and

(b) specific performance of the S&P agreement:

(ii) On 26 Aug