JUDGMENT

Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak):

(1) On 26 January 2011, leave was granted to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal given on 29 October 2009. Six questions were posed for our consideration. We heard the appeal on 14 June 2011. We reserved our decision to consider the points raised by the parties. We now give our judgment.

(2) For convenience, in this judgment the appellant is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents collectively as the defendants. Where necessary the defendants will respectively be referred to as either the first defendant or the second defendant.

(3) In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal by majority upheld the judgment of the High Court given on 22 June 2009 dismissing the action of the plaintiff.

(4) For the reasons given below, we dismiss this appeal with costs. We uphold the decision of the learned High Court Judge as affirmed by the majority in the Court of Appeal that the defendants were justified in terminating the contract.

Brief Background Facts

(5) The courts below have thoroughly dealt with the facts in this case. (See: (2009) 9 CLJ 317 HC and (2011) 4 CLJ 16 CA). Hence, we need only to highlight the r