The statutory limitation acts as a shield and cannot be overridden by equitable principles, leading to the dismissal of a time-barred claim.

Table of Content
1. breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. (Para 1)
2. plaintiff abandons fraud claims. (Para 2)
3. agreed procedures for witness testimony. (Para 3)
4. cited case law relevant to the case. (Para 4)
5. defendants' main defenses against plaintiff's claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
6. court's conclusion on the limitation defense. (Para 9)

"(a) A declaration that the defendants are indebted to the plaintiffs to the sum of RM6,730,800.00 being monies due and payable under the said agreement;

(b) An order for the specific performance of the said agreement between the plaintiffs and the 1^st and/or 2^nd defendant dated 1 July 1996 and/or alternatively that the defendants pay the plaintiffs the sum of RM6,730,800.00.

(c) General damages in lieu of or in addition to specific performance for breach of contract; breach of trust and/or fiduciary duties and/or conversion;

(d) General damages in lieu of or in addition to specific performance for fraud, conspiracy and collusion;

(e) Further and/or alternatively for payment and/or return of RM6,730,800.00 in restitution and/or for money had and received for the plaintiff's use; and

(f) Interest on the said RM6,730,800.00 at 8% p.a. from the 16 August 1996 until final settlement or on such sum and at such rate and for such period as the court deems just etc".

[2] It must be noted that the plaintiffs in the opening statement as well as in the submission have abandoned the claim for fraud, conspiracy and collusion.

[3] At the commencement of the hearing, parties have agreed that the case can be heard by way of: (a) witness statement for examination-in-chief; (b) preliminary cross-examination witness statement, with full liberty to further cross-examine orally (for purposes of cross-examination); (c) preliminary re-examination statement with full liberty to further re-examination if there is further oral examination. The court is extremely grateful to the parties for agreeing to such a mode as the preliminary cross-examination witness statement will save much of the court's time to deal with peripheral matters and for all practical purposes, preliminary cross-examination witness statement will stand as interrogatories and answers thereto only, as the right of oral cross-examination to the litigant is preserved during the whole trial.

[4] The parties have relied on the following cases: Siti Juliana Suen Abdullah & Ors v. Sungei Wang Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors, [2005] 6 MLJ 693 ; Fung Beng Tat v. Marid Construction Co ; [1996] 2 MLJ 413 ; [1997] 2 CLJ 1 ; [1996] 2 AMR 2081 ; Anthony Ting Chio Pang v. Wong Bing Seng & Anor; Hartecon JV Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Hartela Contractors Ltd; [1996] 2 MLJ 57; 04; [1996] 2 AMR 1457; Yew Wan Leong v. Lai Kok Chye; [1990] 2 MLJ 152; [1990] 1 CLJ 330 (Rep); Recaliva Design Steel (M) Sdn Bhd v. Vista Access Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2008] 6 MLJ 604; [2008] 10 CLJ 491; Chan Yock Cher v. Chan Teong Peng; [2005] 1 MLJ 101; [2004] 4 CLJ 533; Koh Siew Keng (President) and Anor v. Koh Heng Jin; [2008] 3 MLJ 822; [2008] 3 CLJ 450; Takako Sakao (f) v. Ng Pek Yuen (f) & Anor (No 3); [2010] 2 MLJ 141; [2010] 1 CLJ 429; Sanmaru Overseas Marketing Sdn Bhd & Anor v. PT Indofood Interna Corp & Ors; [2009] 1 MLJ 502; [2009] 3 CLJ 10; Fernrite Sdn Bhd v. Perbadanan Nasional Berhad; [2011] 6 CLJ 1; Lee Lee Cheng v. Seow Peng Kwang ; Sa'adi Ibrahim & Anor v. Liew Han Sin & Anor; [2006] 6 CLJ 111 ; Nathan Arumugam v. Chin Jin Tse ; Development & Commercial Bank Bhd v. Liew Weng Hang & Ors; [1992] 2 MLJ 764; [2007] 6 CLJ 260; Credit Corp (M) Bhd v. Fong Tak Sin, [1991] 1 MLJ 409; Jusoh v. Ng Ah Sooi & Anor; [1963] 29 MLJ 92.

[5] The facts of this case are well articulated in the defendants' witness statement marked as WSDW1. In addition the defendants' main line of defence to the plaintiffs' claim is two-fold, namely: (i) the claim is time barred and (ii) the defendants have complied with the terms of the contract and paid the money as directed by the plaintiffs and in fact they have paid in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document