Summary judgment can be granted when defendants fail to establish a bona fide defense or triable issue, holding them liable under guarantees for the obligations of the principal debtor.

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff applied for a summary judgment to be entered against the Defendant. This Court after hearing counsels for the litigants and reading the notice of application, affidavits and the submissions filed, finds that judgment should be entered against the Defendants as they have failed to prove any defence to the Plaintiff's claim or any reason why the claim should be determined after a trial. This is one of many cases concerning the investment scheme agreed to between the Plaintiff and many investors. The Defendant is one of many investors that had invested monies into the inbestment scheme.

B. Applicable Law

[2] The applicable law in this area is trite. This Court is duty bound to consider the affidavits and pleadings filed to ascertain whether the Defendant has shown a bona fide defence or any issue or question to be tried or that there ought to be any reason for the matter to be determined after trial. Summary Judgment should only be entered in a plain and obvious case. See Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v. Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd ; ; , Kiwi Brands (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Multiview Enterprises Sdn Bhd ; [1998] 6 MLJ 38 ; [1998] 2 CLJ (Supp) 194 ; [1998] 2 BLJ 194 ; [1998] 3 AMR 2791 and TAC Construction & Trading v. Bennes Engineering Bhd [1999] 1 MLRH 22; [1999] 2 CLJ 117; [1999] 2 AMR 1521.

[3] This Court is also duty bound to analyse the affidavits filed as seen in the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors ; ; :

Under an O 14 application, the duty of a judge does not end as soon as a fact asserted by one party, and denied or disputed by the other in an affidavit. Where such assertion, denial or dispute is equivocal or lacking in precision or is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent or is inherently improbable in itself, then the judge has a duty to reject such assertion or denial, thereby rendering the issue not triable.

[4] The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to show that they have a clear and undeniable claim against the Defendant. Once the Plaintiff shows to this Court that the facts justify the exercise of the said power under O 14, then the burden moves to the Defendants to show that there are either bona fide defences to the claim or that there are issues that require deliberation through viva voce evidence and could only be determined at trial. Please refer to Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying & Anor ; ; .

[5] This Court may grant leave to defend the claim if the Defendants have shown a triable issue, but if there is doubt whether the said defence is bona fide, then this Court may exercise its powers to grant leave with a condition that the sums claimed by the Plaintiffs are securitized by the Defendants. Please refer to Foong Weng Tat v. Vu Siew Chin ; , Builder Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Hang Nee Enterprise Sdn Bhd .

[6] This Court may also enter judgment for part of the claim if it finds that the Defendant has no defence for part of the Plaintiff's claim and fix the remainder of the claim to be heard at trial.

C. Reasons For Entering Summary Judgment

Background Facts - Plaintiffs Facility To The 1st Defendant And Guarantees By The Defendants

[7] The Plaintiff and Ace Credit (M) Sdn Bhd had entered into an Investment Agreement dated 2 July 2021.

[8] Material terms of the said Investment Agreement are as follows:

Section 2.03 Returns of the Investment

A. In consideration of the Investor paying the Investment Sum, the Company hereby agrees to pay to the Investor t