The burden of proof in civil cases rests with the claimant, requiring a higher probability to substantiate claims over the existence of agreements.

Zulqarnain Hassan SCJ:

GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENTBACKGROUND

[1]The plaintiff files an appeal against the judgement of the Court in dismissing the claim and partly allowing the counterclaim after full trial.

[2]The dispute in this case centres around the finding of two different factual versions presented by both, the plaintiff and the defendants. To put it simply, the duty of this Court is to enquire which version to be more probable.

PRAYERS BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANTS

[3]The plaintiff pleads the following prayers as stated in the statement of claim:

“30. Wherefore, Plaintiff claims from the First and Second Defendants are as follows:

30.1 Declaration that the Plaintiff owned 20% of shares in the First Defendant’s company;

30.2 First Defendant shall transfer 20% of its shares to the Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days from the date of judgement;

30.3 Declaration that the Second Defendant as a director and majority shareholder of the First Defendant entered into an agreement dated 04.11.2013 as an authorized person by the First Defendant and the agreement binds the First Defendant; And/or alternatively;

30.4 The First Defendant and the Second Defendant shall jointly pay to the Plaintiff a sum of RM200,000.00 being the current shareholding price of 20% which has not been transferred to the Plaintiff;

30.5 Interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement;

30.6 Cost between client and solicitor;

30.7 Cost for this claim; and

30.8 Orders or other reliefs which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper.”

[4]Meanwhile, in the counterclaim, the defendants pray the following orders:

“30. Wherefore, the Defendants’ claim as against the plaintiff:

(a)The sum of RM410,548-00;

(b)Interest calculated at the rate of 5% on the said sum of RM410,548-00 commencing on 1.11.2020 till the date of full judgment and thereafter from the date of judgment to the date of full settlement thereof;

(c)That all documents belonging to D1 taken by the Plaintiff be returned to D1 within 14 days of this Judgment;

(d)Damages for fraud to be assessed by this Honourable Court;

(e)Costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants;

(f)Any other reliefs which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper.”

FACTS AS CLAIMED

[5]The plaintiff [PW1] and D2 [DW1] are Yemeni citizens.

[6]In 2013, D2 ventured into the trading of perfumes and Oud from the Arab country into Malaysia.

[7]For the above purpose, on 16/04/2013, D1 was officially incorporated. The plaintiff was made the director. The shareholders were D2 dan one Muhammad Muntazar bin Ariff Johar [DW2] with 50% shares respectively.

[8]D2 established a shop located at Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur to carry out the perfume business while the plaintiff and another Yemeni, Abdulaziz Ali Hadi Hassan [PW4] were the employees.

[9]Another Yemeni, Dr Abdullah Musid Ahmad Al Hajjaji [DW3] is the Chairman of the Yemeni Community in Malaysia. DW3 was playing the role as the intermediary to mediate the disputes between both parties.

PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

[10]The plaintiff has presented to this Court that there was a Partnership Agreement dated 04/11/2013 entered between D2, the plaintiff and PW4. It was witnesses by PW2 wh