A plaintiff must establish a valid cause of action and provide credible evidence to support fraud allegations against defendants; failure to do so leads to dismissal of claims.

[1] This is my JUDGMENT in respect of the plaintiffs' claim essentially anchored on fraud against the 2nd, 5th, 7th and 8th defendants. The plaintiffs have obtained default judgment against some defendants which prima facie appears to be in breach of the Rules of High Court 1980 which ought to be set aside upon the application of the interested parties (see Bujang Hj Ulis v. Nancy Abdullah , ; The 1st defendant is represented by solicitors who are not seeking costs as they are representing the 1st defendant who is a nominal party.

[2] It must be noted in this case:

(i) the main witness, PW1 for the plaintiff is the 5th plaintiff who does not appear to have any valid cause of action against the defendants, which the defendants vehemently complain of;

(ii) the 5th plaintiffs claims that he represents all the plaintiffs without producing any documentary evidence to show the reasons and capacity - this is also an issue which the defendants vehemently object to;

(iii) the statement of claim will demonstrate that the other plaintiffs must give evidence to satisfy the threshold requirement of the law;

(iv) the plaintiffs who did not give evidence in this case are as follows: 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs, and this in my view will be fatal to the plaintiffs' case in an action for fraud taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and allegation of fraud canvassed by the 5th plaintiff who has no real interest in the subject matter of the suit.

[3] In addition it must be noted:

(i) the main allegation of the plaintiffs is against the 2nd defendant who in essence has taken shares of the 1st to 4th plaintiffs;

(ii) the 2nd defendant's evidence is clear that he has no dealings with the plaintiffs and he dealt with one Dato Karim who is in essence said to be the beneficial owner of the 1st defendant at the material time through some of the plaintiffs who was acting as his nominees;

(iii) evidence will also show that Dato Karim is related to the 5th defendant and some of the plaintiffs and is the person instrumental for 1st defendant to obtain valuable concession from the state government to give commercial value to the business of the 1st defendant;

(iv) the evidence of Dato Karim in this action is crucial to the plaintiffs as the 2nd defendant's main contention is that he had no dealings with the plaintiffs per se and other plaintiffs as said earlier did not give evidence.

[4] The parties have relied on the following cases:

Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v. Tinjar Co , ; Mohamad Safuan Bin Wasidin & Anor v. Mohd Ridhuan Bin Ahmad (an infant) ; P.R Panickar v. Chwee May Kwong & Anor [1958] 24 MLJ 137 ; Mohamed Bin Kasdi v. Public Prosecutor [1969] 1 MLJ 136 ; MGG Pillai v. Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & other appeals ; P.J. T. V Demon (M) Sdn Bhd v. Roxy (M) Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 137; Tai Lee Finance Co Sdn Bhd v. Official Assignee & Ors [1983] 1 MLJ 82; Goh Soo Ann v. Sandvik Malaysia Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 MLJ 122; Bonsai Hermant Govindprasad and another v. Central Bank of India [2003] SGCA 3[2003] 2 SLR 33; Pet Far Eastern (M) Sdn Bhd v. Toy Young Huat & Ors ; Woodland Development Sdn Bhd v. Chartered Bank 1 MLJ 85 ; Public Prosecutor v. Mohamed AH [1962] 28 MLJ 258; Lee Wai Fay & Anor v. Lee Seng Bin [2005J 4 MLJ 701.

Brief Facts

[5] The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are set out in enclosure 66 and read as follows:

"(a) The case herein revolves around the shares of a company known as Citasama Sdn Bhd (Citrasama).

(b) The plaintiffs were at the onset of the disputes herein 60% shareholders in Citrasama. At that time, Citrasama had an issued and paid up capital of 100,000 shares.

(c) Citrasama was a joint venture partner with Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad (PNS