KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Where contractual terms are clear and material dates undisputed, the court will construe the contract: Clause 2.2's ten business day notice is mandatory (condition precedent); Plaintiff's notice of 2.5.2023 failed this condition and thus the Put Option was not validly exercised during the Put Option Period, causing automatic termination under Clause 2.5; these issues were suitable for determination under Order 14A and disposed the Plaintiff’s claim.

Citation
WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action) / Defendant (counterclaim): Kenanga Investors Berhad; Defendant (original Action) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd; Defendant (original Action) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Tan Sri Zulhasnan bin Rafique; Defendant (counterclaim): Muhammad Taqiuddin Halim; Defendant (counterclaim): Datuk Wira Ismitz Matthew
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 July 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCC-489-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Division / Order 14 a Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Defendants' Order 14A application allowed; Plaintiff's action struck out and/or dismissed
Legal Topics
Put and Call Option, Contract Construction, Order 14 a ROC, Specific Performance, Waiver, Automatic Termination
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Put and Call Option Contract Construction Order 14 a ROC Specific Performance Waiver +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenanga Investors Berhad

Plaintiff (original Action) / Defendant (counterclaim)

Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd

Defendant (original Action) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Tan Sri Zulhasnan bin Rafique

Defendant (original Action) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Muhammad Taqiuddin Halim

Defendant (counterclaim)

Datuk Wira Ismitz Matthew

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Division / Order 14 a Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Put Option Notice complied with Clause 2.2
  2. 2 Whether the Put Option Notice dated 2.5.2023 was delivered beyond the Put Option Period
  3. 3 Whether Clause 2.2 is mandatory or directory

Ratio Decidendi

Where contractual terms are clear and material dates undisputed, the court will construe the contract: Clause 2.2's ten business day notice is mandatory (condition precedent); Plaintiff's notice of 2.5.2023 failed this condition and thus the Put Option was not validly exercised during the Put Option Period, causing automatic termination under Clause 2.5; these issues were suitable for determination under Order 14A and disposed the Plaintiff’s claim.

Court Disposition

Defendants' Order 14A application allowed; Plaintiff's action struck out and/or dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' Order 14A application (Enclosure 202) is allowed
  • All answers to the posed questions are as set out in paragraph 149 of the judgment (Plaintiff did not validly deliver Put Option Notice; notice was beyond Put Option Period; notice is null, void and invalid; Plaintiff cannot still exercise the Put Option; Agreements terminated automatically pursuant to Clause 2.5;...