1. Claim against company secretaries for fraud and conspiracy in share issuance and transfer — Plaintiff participated in meetings and signed documents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 1577
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SEREMBAN
MOHAMAD HALDAR ABDUL AZIZ, J
MOHD FAIZAL BARAKATH ABDUL HAMID – Appellant
Versus
1 SECURITY SERVICES SDN BHD & YANG LAIN (LAMP 11) – Respondent
[Guaman Sivil No: NA-22NCvC-68-10/2025]
A claim against a company secretary must plead specific facts of fraud, and a plaintiff's 16-year delay in filing a claim is barred by laches under s 32 of the Limitation Act 1953.
Headnote:(A) **Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d)** - Striking out pleadings - Court found no reasonable cause of action against fourth and fifth defendants as the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts of fraud or conspiracy to defraud - The fourth and fifth defendants, as company secretaries, owed fiduciary duties only to the board of directors, not to the plaintiff as a director/shareholder - All share issuance and transfers were conducted lawfully with the plaintiff's knowledge and consent. (Paras 13-30)
(B) **Limitation Act 1953 - Section 32** - Doctrine of laches and acquiescence - The plaintiff's claim, filed after 16 years, was barred by laches as the plaintiff, being a director of the company, had full knowledge of the company's affairs and unreasonably delayed in bringing the action - The court applied equitable jurisdiction to refuse relief due to the delay. (Paras 31-35)
(C) **Striking out - Frivolous, vexatious or abuse of process** - The claim against the fourth and fifth defendants was scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious as no relief was sought against them, no letter of demand was issued, and the claim would prejudice or delay a fair trial, constituting an abuse of process. (Paras 36-39) **
Facts of the case:
** The plaintiff, a former director and shareholder of the first defendant company, claimed that the second defendant issued additional shares reducing the plaintiff's equity and that all defendants conspired to remove the plaintiff and extinguish the plaintiff's shares. The fourth and fifth defendants were the company secretaries since the company's incorporation. The plaintiff alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud against them. The fourth and fifth defendants applied to strike out the claim under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. The court granted the application, striking out the writ and statement of claim against them, leading to this appeal by the plaintiff. **
Findings of Court:
** The court found the plaintiff failed to establish any reasonable cause of action against the fourth and fifth defendants. The share issuance and transfers were lawful, conducted with the plaintiff's knowledge and consent as evidenced by the plaintiff's attendance at meetings and signing relevant documents. The plaintiff's claim was also time-barred by laches under s 32 of the Limitation Act 1953, as the plaintiff, a director until 2017, delayed 16 years before bringing the claim. The claim was further held to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The court allowed the striking-out application with costs of RM8,000.00. **
Issues:** The main issues were whether there was a reasonable cause of action against the fourth and fifth defendants for fraud and conspiracy to defraud, whether the claim was barred by the Limitation Act 1953 and the doctrine of laches, and whether the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. **
Ratio Decidendi:** The court ruled that a company secretary's fiduciary duties are owed to the board of directors, not individual shareholders or directors, and a claim based on fraud must plead specific facts to establish a cause of action. Further, equitable relief under s 32 of the Limitation Act may be refused where a plaintiff, with full knowledge of the facts, unreasonably delays in bringing a claim, causing prejudice to the defendants. **
Result:** Appeal dismissed; striking-out application granted with costs of RM8,000.00 to the fourth and fifth defendants, subject to allocatur fees.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- company law
- tort
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff alleged fraud and conspiracy by company secretaries; defendants argued no fiduciary duty, no involvement, and claim time-barred. (Para 3 , 12 )
3. Court allowed striking out of claim against company secretaries with costs. (Para 4 , 40 )
4. Is there a reasonable cause of action for fraud and conspiracy against company secretaries?
No, because plaintiff failed to plead specific facts of fraud, secretaries owe no fiduciary duty to shareholders, and plaintiff participated in share issuance and transfer. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
5. Is a claim for share dilution barred by limitation or laches?
Yes, a 16-year delay amounts to laches under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1953, as plaintiff had knowledge as a director and acquiesced. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
6. Can a claim be struck out as frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process?
Yes, where no relief is claimed against the defendants, no letter of demand was sent, and the claim would prejudice a fair trial. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
Notis Permohonan Defendan Ke-4 Dan Defendan Ke-5 (Lampiran - 11)
[1] Di dalam Lampiran - 11, Defendan Ke-4 dan Defendan Ke-5 memohon kepada Mahkamah di bawah A 18 k 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk mendapatkan perintah-perintah seperti berikut:
(a) Bahawa pengindorsan Writ Terpinda bertarikh 15 Oktober 2025 dan Penyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 3 Oktober 2025 yang difailkan terhadap Defendan Ke-4 dan Defendan Ke-5 dalam tindakan ini dibatalkan;
(b) Bahawa kesemua prosiding selanjutnya, termasuk pemfailan Pembelaan ditangguhkan sehingga pelupusan permohonan ini;
(c) Kos permohonan; dan
(d) Apa-apa perintah yang difikirkan adil dan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.
[2] Notis Permohonan Defendan Ke-4 dan Defendan Ke-5 di bawah Lampiran - 12 ini adalah disokong oleh afidavit yang telah diikrarkan oleh Defendan Kelima, Tumi Khairina binti Khairuddin bertarikh 11 November 2025 seperti dalam Lampiran - 12.
[3] Di antara alasan-alasan yang disandarkan oleh Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima dalam notis permohonan di bawah Lampiran - 11 ini adalah seperti berikut:
(a) Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-defendan adalah atas kononnya Defendan Kedua telah mengeluarkan syer tambahan yang mengurangkan ekuiti Plaintif dalam Defendan Pertama dan kononnya Defendan Keempat dan Kelima bersubahat dengan Defendan Kedua untuk menyingkirkan Plaintif daripada Defendan Pertama dan menghapuskan saham Plaintif.
(b) Kausa tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Keempat dan Kelima adalah penipuan (fraud) dan konspirasi untuk penipuan (conspiracy to defraud), namun beliau gagal membuktikan asas atau fakta yang diperlukan untuk mewujudkan kausa tindakan terhadap Defendan Keempat dan Kelima.
(c) Plaintif juga telah gagal memplidkan fakta-fakta spesifik yang menunjukkan sebarang penglibatan Defendan Keempat dan Kelima secara langsung atau tidak langsung dalam penipuan atau konspirasi bagi tujuan menyingkirkan Plaintif.
(d) Selaku setiausaha syarikat Defendan Pertama, Defendan Keempat dan Kelima hanya mempunyai tanggungjawab fidusiari kepada Lembaga Pengarah Defendan Pertama, dan bukan kepada Plaintif selaku pengarah dan pemegang saham dan / atau bekas pengarah dan /atau pemegang saham.
(e) Semua tindakan pengeluaran saham tambahan dan pemindahan saham telah dijalankan mengikut prosedur yang sah di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965 / 2016, dengan kehadiran dan persetujuan Plaintif sendiri bagi mesyuarat dan dokumen berkaitan.
(f) Plaintif juga mengaku bahawa beliau merupakan pengarah dari 2009 hingga 2017 dan sepatutnya mempunyai pengetahuan penuh tentang hal ehwal syarikat, termasuk pengeluaran saham tambahan dan pemindahan saham pada tahun 2009.
(g) Selain itu, tuntutan Plaintif adalah di luar tempoh had masa kerana pengeluaran saham tambahan dan pemindahan saham berlaku pada tahun 2009, dan Plaintif hanya mengemukakan tuntutan selepas lebih 16 tahun.
(h) Plaintif juga tidak mengemukakan sebarang notis tuntutan kepada Defendan Keempat dan Kelima sebelum memulakan tindakan ini, dan tidak mengambil langkah untuk menyemak rekod syarikat yang disimpan oleh mereka selaku setiausaha syarikat.
(i) Kesemua alasan ini menunjukkan bahawa tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Keempat dan Kelima tiada asas yang munasabah dan adalah penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah, yang menyusahkan Defendan Keempat dan Kelima tanpa sebarang merit.
[4] Setelah Mahkamah ini mendengar, membaca, meneliti dan menilai afidavit-afidavit yang telah difailkan di dalam permohonan ini berserta hujahan-hujahan bertulis yang telah difailkan oleh kedua belah pihak iaitu Plaintif dan Defendan Keempat dan Kelima kepada Mahkamah, maka pada 22 April 2026, Mahkamah ini memutuskan untuk membenarkan Notis Permohonan Defendan Keempat dan Kelima (Lampiran - 11) dengan kos sebanyak RM8,000.00 kepada Defendan Keempat dan Kelima tertakluk kepada pembayaran fi alokatur.
[5] Plaintif merasa tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini yang bertarikh 22 April 2026 te
