JUDGMENT

This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiffs claim relating to the property in dispute known as Wisma PPP with a Grant No. 27024 Lot 522 Section 69, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan (said property) which was purchased by the plaintiff under the name of the 5th defendant and was held on trust by the 5th defendant which was originally the investment company of the plaintiff; and it was transferred by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant and his nominees who are the 2nd and 3rd defendants to be held on

trust for the plaintiff; and the said 5th defendant was to transfer back to the plaintiff upon the payment of a loan advanced by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for the purchase of the said property. And the plaintiffs claim against the 4th, 6th and 7th defendants in essence is that the 5th defendants shares had been wrongfully acquired by them and in consequence it has to be transferred back to the plaintiff and/or nominees.

This judgment in essence will deal with the agreed issues to be tried as agreed by the plaintiff and the 4th to 7th defendants. The judgment also deals with the 2nd and 3rd defendants counterclaim. The prayers in the statement of claim, inter alia, read as follows:

(i) A declaration that the share sale and purchase agreement dated 29-11-2005 is null and void.

(ii) A declaration that the share transfer certificate dated 12-11-2007 transferring shares of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in the 5th defendant to the 4th defendant is void for misrepresentation that the considerations for the transfer of shares are RM98,998.00, RM1 and RM1 each together with the non-payment of the correct stamp duty.

(iii) Following the cancellation of the share sale and purchase agreement dated 29-11-2005, the shares that are registered in the name of the 6th and 7th defendants are to be transferred to the names of the plaintiffs committee members whom shall be named within 7 days of the order of this court.

(iv) Whilst awaiting the trial and final determination of the plaintiffs claim herein, an order maintaining the status quo of the plaintiffs ownership and occupation of the said property be maintained.

(v) An order that the proceedings of the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Suit No. 1-52-38119-2008 be stayed until the determination of this case.

(vi) Whilst awaiting the trial and final determination of the plaintiffs claim, an injunction to restrict the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants or anyone related to the defendants from dealing, divesting, selling and or in any way obstructing/damaging the said property and a caveat to be entered onto the said property.

(vii) For the purposes of signing any transfer or documents pertaining to the transfer of shares in the 5th defendant to the plaintiffs representative, that the Assistant Registrar of the High Court be given the authority to do so in the event parties that ought to do so fail thereto within 7 days of the said order.

(viii) Costs in the cause.

(ix) Any other order that this Honourable Court deems necessary and just.

Evidential Issues

(1) It is crucial to note that the factual matrix relating to evidence and burden of proof in the instant case are not directly on point or similar to cases cited by the defendants for various reasons namely:

(i) In the instant case the 4th to 7th defendants in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence had admitted that the said property was purchased by the 5th defendant. In consequence the real issue for determination, inter alia, appears to be whether the 4th defendants purchase of the shares of the 5th defendant was a bona fide transaction.

(ii) On the issue of bona fide, inter alia, it must be noted that the plaintiff had, just one or two weeks before the trial of this action, filed an application to amend the Statement of Claim to include a complaint to the Bar Council Disciplinary Committee relating to non-permissible money lending transaction in which the 4th defendant, See Hong Chen (DW1), who was the m