MUJIBUDDIN BIN ZAINUDDIN 1. ) A. GHANI BIN MD TAHIR 2. ) MOHAMAD HAFIDH BIN ABDUL GHANI

MUJIBUDDIN BIN ZAINUDDIN 1. ) A. GHANI BIN MD TAHIR 2. ) MOHAMAD HAFIDH BIN ABDUL GHANI

Summary judgment was granted because plaintiff established entitlement to the RM4,500,000 dividend by documentary evidence and defendants failed to produce affidavit evidence raising any bona fide triable issue or valid documents showing plaintiff authorised payment to third parties; therefore the claim could be decided without a full trial.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-31-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mujibuddin bin Zainuddin; First Defendant: A. Ghani bin Md. Tahir; Second Defendant: Mohamad Hafidh bin Abdul Ghani
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-31-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications (reasons Delivered)
Outcome
Summary judgment allowed in favour of the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Dividend Distribution, Shareholder Advancement, Joinder of Parties, Counterclaim, Order 14 Rules of Court 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity Contract Debt Recovery Fraud Summary Judgment Dividend Distribution +4 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mujibuddin bin Zainuddin

Plaintiff

A. Ghani bin Md. Tahir

First Defendant

Mohamad Hafidh bin Abdul Ghani

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications (reasons Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to RM4,500,000 as declared dividend
  2. 2 Whether defendants raised any bona fide triable issue to defeat an Order 14 summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether there is evidence plaintiff consented to payment of his dividend to third parties

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was granted because plaintiff established entitlement to the RM4,500,000 dividend by documentary evidence and defendants failed to produce affidavit evidence raising any bona fide triable issue or valid documents showing plaintiff authorised payment to third parties; therefore the claim could be decided without a full trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment allowed in favour of the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff for RM4,500,000.00 (dividend claimed)
  • Application for summary judgment allowed with costs to Plaintiff in the sum of RM7,000.00 (subject to allocator fee)