[1] The appellants in the present appeal were, at the material time, shareholders in the 6th respondent company (Tampin Theme Park). The 1st, 2nd and 4th appellants were the directors there. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the action at the High Court. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they was in at the High Court.

[2] In their statement of claim before the High Court, the plaintiffs sought for declaratory orders that the transactions for the transfer of shares in Tampin Theme Park by the plaintiffs in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were null and void; and the appointment of the 1st respondent (Ming Chai) as director of th