[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] The appellant before us (the defendant in the court below) has appealed against the decision of Ian Chin J finding him guilty of fraud. The finding relates to a transaction relating to land about which we will say a few words in a moment. But we must say at once that our task at summarising the facts has been made light by both learned counsel who have argued before us and also the succinct approach by the learned judge in his judgment.

[3] Here are the facts. The dispute in this case is in respect of 327 lots of lands which were originally intended for 327 natives in Kg Togop Darat, Ranau, Sabah. For convenience we will refer to them as ‘the subject properties’. What happened was this. The natives in question executed a power of attorney in favour of one Saimon bin Agas (‘PW2 ’) and Barain bin Madoli (‘PW3 ’). That power, by its terms, enabled PW2 and PW3 to sub-delegate their powers to a third party. On 13 July 1999 PW2 and PW3 executed a substituted power of attorney in the defendant’s favour. It was irrevocable by its terms. The evidence led at trial shows that nothing happened between 13 July 1999 and March 2000. The natives no doubt agitated by the inaction brought pressure to bear on PW2 and PW3. These two persons found themselves in a quandary. They had taken a power from the natives to do something with the lands. They could not do anything about it. Indeed they were in no position to do anything about it. So they had entrusted the matter to the defendant. And he had done nothing about it. In their desperation they tried to make the best that they could of a bad situation. So, they took steps to revoke the power of attorney given to the defendant despite its irrevocability. They had to give notice to the defendant. They did this by placing an advertisement in Borneo Mail of 26 May 2000. Then on 25 August 2000 PW2 and PW3 purported to enter into an agreement with the respondent (the plaintiff in the court below) to sell the subject property to him. The purchase price was RM981,000. The plaintiff made part payment. But then he had an impediment to the completion of the transaction. He was faced with an irrevocable deed of power of attorney given by PW2 and PW3 to the defendant. There had been a purported revocation [*586] but it was useless because it was done without the defendant’s consent. The plaintiff dealt with the impediment in this way.

[4] He and his joint venture partner, one Aloysius Tan, approached the defendant. The object was to buy out any right the defendant may have under the power of attorney given to him by PW2 and PW3. On 10 October 2000 Aloysius Tan and the plaintiff entered into a deed (‘the October deed’) with the defendant. It is a document of paramount importance in this case. Indeed the way in which this appeal has been argued for the defendant makes it clear that the whole case before us turn upon this document. The judge reproduced it in his judgment. We will do likewise. This is what it says:

[*587]

[*588]

[5] It has been submitted before us by learned counsel for the defendant that the proper interpretation of cll 5 and 6 of the October deed when taken together absolved his client of any responsibility after 31 December 2000. We will return to the merits of this argument in a moment after the recital of the facts has been completed. You will see at once from the October deed that the defendant was to deliver the titles to the 327 lots to the solicitor as stakeholder by 31 December 2000. That did not happen. But the defendant was paid the RM50,000 to which the deed refers. Nothing happened between 2000 and early 2004 but it is of moment that in August 2003 the plaintiff discovered that the titles of the subject properties has been collected by the defendant using a power of attorney purportedly given by the defendant to one Sakaran a clerk to the defendant’s solicitors. Not unnat