wa-22ncc-489-07-2023 — KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD v 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNAN BIN RAFIQUE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) DATUK WIRA ISMITZ MATTHEW 2. ) MUHAMMAD TAQIUDDIN HALIM

Catchwords

CONTRACT LAW: Option agreements – Put and Call Option – Exercise of put option – Notice requirements – Compliance with mandatory contractual terms – Whether ten-business-day notice requirement in Clause 2.2 is mandatory or directory – Whether put option validly exercised when notice served only three days before expiry – Whether non-compliance with notice requirement renders put option notice null and void – Whether agreement automatically terminated pursuant to Clause 2.5 when put option not validly exercised during option period – Whether plaintiff can still exercise put option after option period expired – Effect of failure to comply with condition precedent to exercise of contractual right CIVIL PROCEDURE: Order 14A applications – Determination of questions of law and construction of documents – Summary determination without full trial – Whether questions suitable for determination under Order 14A – Whether material facts relating to questions are in dispute – Whether questions turn on construction and application of clear contractual provisions to undisputed documentary facts – Whether determination will finally determine entire cause or matter – Whether allegations of inducement, conspiracy and misrepresentation preclude Order 14A determination of discrete contractual compliance issue – Whether consideration of waiver by conduct requires viva voce evidence – Whether Order 14A application at advanced stage of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – Whether inconsistency exists between resisting summary judgment and seeking Order 14A determination – Application of doctrine of approbation and reprobation CONTRACT LAW: Construction and interpretation of contracts – Mandatory versus directory requirements – Interpretation of word "shall" in contractual provisions – Condition precedent to exercise of contractual rights – Automatic termination clauses – Effect of clear and unambiguous contractual language – Whether substantial compliance sufficient or strict compliance required – Saving clauses for antecedent breaches – Whether saving clause preserves rights under invalid notices or terminated agreements

Judges (1)

Elaine Yap Chin Gaik Delivered

Counsel (9)

James Monteiro Firm Jeeva Partnership Firm Justin Voon Chooi & Wing Firm Shaikh David & Co Firm Henry Poh Jun Yang Counsel Defendant Jasmin Irisa binti Ahmad Mirza Counsel Plaintiff John Aloysius Skelchy Counsel Defendant Shaikh Abdul Saleem bin Shaikh Abdul Karim Counsel Plaintiff Victor Pang Chee Siong Counsel Defendant

Parties (5)

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD Plaintiff ZULRAFQ CAPITAL Sdn Bhd Defendant Datuk Wira Ismitz Matthew Aggrieved Party Muhammad Taqiuddin Halim Aggrieved Party Tan Sri Zulhasnan bin Rafique Defendant

Summary

In a related action to Suit 140 involving the same parties and substantially similar Option Agreements for KNM Group Berhad shares worth RM44.9 million, the defendants sought specific discovery of payment and transaction documents. The High Court dismissed the application on the same grounds as Suit 140, finding it was a fishing expedition that would improperly shift the burden of proof and was unnecessary.

What was the outcome of KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD v 1. ) ZULRAFQ CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) TAN SRI ZULHASNA...?

<p>In a related action to Suit 140 involving the same parties and substantially similar Option Agreements for KNM Group Berhad shares worth RM44.9 mil...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)

[1994] 2 CLJ 581

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