|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Sabah and Sarawak |
] [Hide Context] M A L AY S I A
I N T H E H I G H C O U R T I N S A B A H A N D S A R AW A K A T S AN D A K AN
S U I T N O . S 2 2 – 2 7 O F 2 0 1 0
( C O N V E R T E D I N TO W R I T F R O M O S S 2 4 - 5 7 O F 2 0 0 9 )
B E TW E E N
AND
GROUNDS OF DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1. [1] This action was commenced by way of Originating Summons but later converted into a Writ action by my order.
[2] The orders sought by the Plaintiff herein are as follows:-
[i] A declaration that the Consent Judgment dated 20/5/2008 was entered against the Plaintiff without the consent, knowledge,
instructions and/or authority of the Plaintiff and be set aside insofar as the Plaintiff is concerned; and
[ii] A declaration that the Plaintiff is not and never has been a partner of Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co, Sandakan of Level
20, Rooms B & D, Menara MPS, Jalan Leila, 90000
Sandakan and the Letter of Undertaking signed by Mr Dennis Tweening Rantau dated 17th day of September 1997 does not bind the Plaintiff.
[3] The parties herein have agreed and filed the Statement of Agreed Issues to be tried [marked as “AI”] and
a Statement of Agreed Facts [marked as “AF”].
[4] The Statement of Agreed Facts is as follows:-
[a] The Plaintiff and one Dennis Tweening Rantau were at all material times practicing under the name and style of Messrs Martin
Idang Rantau & Co. respectively at Lot No. 80, 2nd Floor, Block I, Phase 1B, Asia City, 88000 Kota Kinabalu and at Menara M.P.S., Rooms B and D, Jalan Leila, 90000 Sandakan.
[b] By a letter dated 12th August 1997, Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co., notified Timbalan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu, that the
name of their firm “Messrs Martin Idang Rantau Allion & Co” had been changed to “Messrs Martin Idang
Rantau & Co “ and the said letter was copies, among others, to the President of Sabah Law Association, Kota Kinabalu and to
all legal firms in Sabah.
[c] On 29th April 2009, the Plaintiff was served with two Bankruptcy Notices both dated 19th March 2009. The said Bankruptcy Notices were taken out against the Plaintiff by the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
[d] These Bankruptcy Notices were issued pursuant to the Consent Judgment dated 20th May 2008, which were entered against the Plaintiff, one Dennis Tweening Rantau and Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co.
[e] The Creditors’ Petition for the Bankruptcy Petition No. K29-
169-2009 was served on the Plaintiff on 11th August 2009 and the Creditor’s Petition for the Bankruptcy Petition No. K29-168-2009 was served on the Plaintiff on 18th August 2009.
[f] These Bankruptcy proceedings were commenced based on a
Consent Judgment entered by the parties in Suit No. S22-06-
2004 in the Sandakan High court on 20th May 2008. These bankruptcy proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of this suit.
[g] In 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants commenced an action against the Plaintiff, Mr Rantau, Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co in Suit S22-06-2004
wherein Mr Rantau was the 1st
Defendant, the Plaintiff was the 2nd Defendant and the firm was the 3rd Defendant in the matter.
[h] Suit No. S22-06 of 2004 was consolidated with another six (6) suits namely Suit No’s S-22-42 of 2003, Suit No. S22-43 of 2003,
Suit No. S22-44 of 2003, No. S22-50 of 2003, No. S22-05 of
2004, No. S22-08 of 2004 while another eight (8) suits namely No. S22-45 of 2003, No. S22-46 of 2003, No. S22-47 of 2003, No. S22-51
of 2003, No. S22-52 of 2003, No. S22-53 of 2003, No. S22-55 of 2003 and No. S22-16 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “all the
other suits”) were also consolidated. In all the said suits the Defendants named were the Plaintiff in this action Mr Martin Idang,
Mr Dennis Tweening Rantau and the firm, Messrs Martin Idang Rantau &Co.).
[i] This Suit, which was commenced in Sandakan was in relation to a land matter wherein Mr Rantau as solicitor purportedly gave an
Undertaking to the 1st and 2nd Defendants for and on behalf of the Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co, Sandakan.
[j] On record in Suit No. S22-06-2004 and in all the other suits, the Plaintiff, Mr Rantau and Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co.
were represented by Messrs Luping & Co. and Mr John Sikayun (as he then was) acted for all the Defendants.
[k] A Consent Judgment was subsequently entered on 20th May
2008 against the Plaintiff, Mr Rantau and the firm in Suit No. S-
22-06 of 2004 and in all the other suits.
[l] The said Consent Judgment was served on Messrs Luping & Co.
[5] The Statement of Agreed Issues to be Tried is as follows:-
[a] Whether the Plaintiff had and has represented himself or held himself out as a partner of Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co.
of Sandakan by virtue of the letter dated 12th August 1997 that was addressed to the Timbalan Pendaftar Kota Kinabalu and copied to those persons/bodies stated therein?
[b] If the answer to Issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether Mr. Dennis Rantau being a partner of the firm, Messrs Martin
Idang Rantau & Co of Sandakan had power to bind the said firm and the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 7 of the Partnership Act
1961 by appointing Messrs Luping & Co/Datuk John Sikayun to act for Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co. and for the Plaintiff?
[c] Whether there was any notice given pursuant to Section 10 of the Partnership Act 1961 by either Mr. Dennis Rantau or by the Plaintiff
that Messrs Martin Idang & Rantau would not be bound by the act of Mr Dennis Rantau and/or that the purported firms based in
Kota Kinabalu, in Sandakan though the same name were and are distinct entities?
[d] Whether Mr. John Sikayun was deemed to have that ostensible and implied authority and also deemed to have obtained
instruction from all the Defendants (including the Plaintiff in this case) named in the Suit No. S22-06 of 2004 as he had
appeared on their behalf in Court proceedings held at the
Sandakan High Court?
[e] Whether the Consent Judgment dated 20th May 2008 was entered against the Plaintiff without the consent, knowledge, instructions and/or authority of the Plaintiff?
[f] Whether the Plaintiff is and was ever the partner of Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co., Sandakan of Level 20, Rooms B &
D, Menara MPS, Jalan Leila, 90000, Sandakan?
[g] Whether the Letter of Undertaking signed by Mr Dennis Tweening Rantau dated 17th September 1997 was binding on the Plaintiff?
[6] At the trial of this action, the Plaintiff called 5 witnesses in support of his case and the Defendants chose
not to call any witness.
CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREED ISSUES
2. [1] Whether the Plaintiff had and has represented himself or held himself out as a partner of Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co. of Sandakan by virtue of the letter dated 12th August 1997 that was addressed to the Timbalan Pendaftar Kota Kinabalu and copied to those persons/bodies stated therein?
_ [a] Section 16 of the Partnership Act 1961 states as follows:-
“16. Persons liable by ‘holding out’
Every one who by words spoken or written or by conduct represents himself, or who knowingly suffers himself, to be represented,
as a partner in a particular firm is liable as a partner to any one who has on the faith of such representation given credit to the
firm, or whether the representation has or has not been made or communicated to the person so giving credit by or with knowledge
or the apparent partner making the representation or suffering it to be made …”
[b] I am in total agreement with the Defendants’ contention that holding out or representations need not take any particular form.
It could be expressed, implied, oral, in writing, by conduct or a combination of all these. If such representation is made
to another person and that person acted on such representation to his detriment, the person who made the representation
cannot then be heard to say that the representation was not true.
[c] In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the Plaintiff, even if the said letter dated 12th August 1997 amounted to a representation or holding [which is denied], there was simply no representation or holding out
to the Defendants as they never received the said letter dated 12th August, 1997. It is pertinent to note that the Defendants chose not to call any witnesses thus I do not see any evidence at all from
the Defendants that they relied on the representation or holding out by the Plaintiff [if indeed there
was any representation or holding out] that he was a partner of
Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co. of Sandakan.
[ d] T he s a i d l e tt e r was n ot ad d r e s s e d to th e D e f en d an ts a nd t he r e fo re i t c a nn o t b e s
ai d t h a t t he P l ai n t i ff ha d h e l d h i m s e l f ou t as a p ar tn er of P W 4 Mr. R an ta u an d hi s S an d ak a n fi rm t o th e De fe nd a nt s . A n d i n a n y e v en t, P W 4
M r. R an ta u t es t i fi e d t ha t M r. J e ya n Ma ri m ut tu an d M r. Fra n c i s Ch a i we re a wa re of t h e
a rra n g e m e n t b e t wee n P W 4 M r. R an ta u a nd th e P l a i n t i ff a n d s uc h c o n te n ti o n was n o t re bu t te d b y t h e D ef e n d an ts
a t al l .
[e] I find that the said letter dated 12th August 1997 is merely a notice to all the law firms, Central land Office in Kota Kinabalu, the Sabah Law Association, the Courts and
the State Attorney General of Sabah that there was a change of the firm’s name and that the Plaintiff did not represented or held
out that he was the partner of Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co. of Sandakan.
[f] I further noted that P W4 M r. R an ta u ga v e e v i d e nc e t ha t i n t he c o u rs e of p re pa ri n g th e re l ev a nt Le tt er o f Un de rt ak i n g
a nd s u bs e q u e nt s i gn i n g t he r e of , h e h a d i n fo r m ed M r. J e yan M a ri m u tt u o f M e s s rs J .
M ar ri m u t tu & P a rt n e rs , wh o was t he D ef en d a n ts ’ t he n s ol i c i t or an d o n e M r. Fra nc i
s C ha i wh o was th e 1 s t D e fe n d an t ’ s rep re s en t at i v e t ha t th e U nd er ta k i ng di d n ot c on c e rn t he K ot a Ki n a ba l u l e g al
f i rm a nd /o r th e P l ai n ti f f, M ar ti n I da n g an d th a t i t was i s s ue d i n P W 4 M r. Ra n ta u ’s p er so n al c a pa c i t y (R ef er t o P ag e 6
g av e e v i de nc e t ha t he h ad i nf o r m e d th e m o f hi s s t at u s i n h i s f i rm . I n ot ed th a t th e D ef en d
an ts d i d n ot s e e i t f i t t o c a l l e i th e r Mr . J e ya n M a ri m ut tu or M r. F r an c i s Ch a i t o
re bu t t hi s c on te n ti o n of PW 4 n or ha v e t he y e xp l ai n ed wh y t he s e t wo wi t ne s s es were n o t a
v a i la b l e t o re b u t t hi s c o nt en t i on o f P W 4. In t he l i gh t o f s uc h om i ss i on or f
ai l u re , I s ee no r ea s on wh y I s h o ul d a c c e pt t hi s c o nt en t i on o f PW 4.
[ g] Hi s L o rds h i p S CJ E d ga r J o s e p h J (as he wa s t he n ) i n t he c a s e of C he ng H an g G u a n & O r s v
P e rum a ha n Fa rl i m (P e na n g ) S dn B hd & O rs ( 1 9 93 ) 3 M LJ 3 52 o p i n e d t ha t t he d oc t ri n e of
h ol d i ng o u t is s ai d t o b e b a s ed o n e s to pp e l . I n th e c a s e of T o we r C ab i n et Co . ,
L td v I ng ra m (1 94 9 ) 1 A l l ER 1 03 3 (P a g e 8 1 P BO A [ V ol . 3 ]), t he Co u rt h el d a s fo l l o ws :-
“B e fo re t he c o mp a ny c an s u c c ee d i n m ak i n g M r. I ng ra m l i a bl e un d er t hi s s e c ti o n , th e y h
a v e t o s a t i sf y t he c ou rt th at M r. In gr am , by wo rds s p ok e n o r wri t te n o r by c o nd uc t ,
re p res e n te d h i ms e l f as a p a rt n er. Th e r e is no e v i de nc e o f t ha t. A l t ern a ti v e l y , th
ey m us t p rov e t h at h e k n ow i ng l y s u ff er ed h i m s el f t o be re p res e n te d a s a p art n er. T
h e o nl y ev i d en c e o f M r. I ng ra m ’s h av i n g k no w i n g l y s uf f ere d h i ms e l f to b e s o re
pr es e nt e d i s t h at th e o rd er w a s g i v en by M r. C hri s t ma s o n n o te p ap er wh i c h c on ta i n ed M r.
I ng ra m ’s na m e. T ha t wo u l d am o un t t o a
re pr es e nt a ti o n by M r. C hri s t m as t h at M r. I ng ra m wa s s t i l l a p ar tn er i n t he f i rm , bu t o n th e e v i de nc e an d t he m a s te r ’s fi n di n g t ha t re pr es e nt a ti o n w as m ad e by M r. C hr i s tm as w it h ou t Mr . I n gra m ’s k no w l e d ge a nd w i th ou t hi s a ut ho ri t y . Th at b e i ng t h e fi n d i n g o f fa c t , wh i c h i s n ot c ha l l e ng e d , i t i s i m po s s i b l e t o s a y t ha t M r. I n gra m k no w i n g ly s u f fe re d h i ms e l f t o be s o re pr es e nt e d. ”
[h] In the light of the above, I therefore hold that the Plaintiff had not held himself out as a partner of Messrs Martin Idang Rantau
& Co. by virtue of the letter dated 12th August, 1997.
[2] If the answer to Issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether Mr. Dennis Rantau being a partner of the firm, Messrs
Martin Idang Rantau & Co of Sandakan had power to bind the said firm and the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 7 of the Partnership
Act 1961 by appointing Messrs Luping & Co/Datuk John Sikayun to act for Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co. and for the Plaintiff?
_
[a] I find that Se c t i on 7 as wi th S ec t i on s 8 , 9 a nd 10 o f th e P ar tn er s hi p s A c t 1 96 1 a re n o t a pp
l i c ab l e t o th e P l ai n ti f f a s t he s e s ec t i o n s d e al t wi th “ R el a ti o ns of P a rtn e rs t
o P er s on s D ea l i n g wi t h th e m ”. I t p res u p po s es th a t th er e was i nd e e d a pa rt ne rs h i p b
et we e n th e P l a i nt i ff a n d PW 4 i n t he f i rs t p l ac e , whi c h I h a v e he l d t ha t th e re i s no ne .
[ b] I n th e l i g ht o f th e a bo v e, I h o l d th at PW 4 D en ni s R an ta u , t h e re fo r e h as no p o wer
wh at s o ev e r t o bi n d th e P l ai n t i ff p u r su a nt t o S e c ti o n 7 o f t h e P art n ers h i p A c t 1 96 1 b
y a pp oi n ti n g Me s s rs L u pi n g & Co to a c t fo r a nd o n b eh a lf of t he Pl a i n ti f f.
[3] Whether there was any notice given pursuant to Section 10 of the Partnership Act 1961 by either Mr. Dennis Rantau or by the Plaintiff
that Messrs Martin Idang & Rantau would not be bound by the act of Mr Dennis Rantau and/or that the purported firms based in
Kota Kinabalu, in Sandakan though the same name were and
are distinct entities?
[a] Again I find that section 10 Partnership Act 1961, presumed that the Plaintiff and PW4 Dennis Rantau are partners and if so, which
I found that they are not, then both t h e P l ai n t i ff o r P W 4
M r. Ra nt a u wi l l n ee d t o g i v e n ot i c e of t he re l e v an t re s tr ic t i o ns o f th e i r fi
r m s o r p a rtn e rs hi p . S i nc e t he y a r e n ot p a rtn e rs , s ec t i on 10 t h ere f ore d o es no t a pp l y.
[4] Whether Mr. John Sikayun was deemed to have that ostensible and implied authority and also deemed to have obtained
instruction from all the Defendants (including the Plaintiff in this case) named in the Suit No. S22-06 of 2004 as he had appeared
on their behalf in Court proceedings held at the Sandakan High Court?
[a] The Defendants contended that Mr Dennis Rantau and the
Plaintiff have held themselves to be partners pursuant to section
16 of the Partnership Act 1961 and that Mr Dennis Rantau had therefore made representation to Datuk John Sikayun to appear all the
Defendants in Suit No. S22-06 of 2004. In the light of my finding in Issue No. 1 above, this contention of the Defendants cannot
stand. As such I find that Mr Dennis Rantau has no power or authority to bind the Plaintiff, to engage Datuk John Sikayun to represent
the Plaintiff and thereof to enter the Consent Judgment.
[b] The cases of Lau Ming Hing Richard v Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad [1994] 2 MLJ 323, Leow Seng Huat v Low Mui Yein [1996] 5
MLJ 381 and Lee Teng Siong v Lee Geok Thye Holdings Sdn Bhd [2004] 5 MLJ 13 can be distinguished by the fact that in all these 3
cases, there is no dispute that the counsels concerned were in fact appointed by the parties concerned and what was being disputed
or challenged was the authority of the counsels concerned to compromise or to enter into a consent order. In the present case
what is being challenged here is that the Plaintiff did not even appoint Datuk John SIkayun to act for him, let alone authorizing
him to compromise or enter into consent orders on his behalf.
[ c ] Fr om t he fa ct s of th i s c a s e, I fi n d th at t he Co n s en t
J u dg m en t was a g ree d u p on an d c on s en t ed to , b y P W 4
D en n i s R a nt au s o l el y. T h e P l ai n ti f f wa s c om p l et el y u na wa re th at P W 4 D en ni s R an t a
u ha d s i g n ed a L et t er o f U nd er ta k i ng , th a t s e v e ral s ui t s n am i n g th e P l ai n ti f f as o ne
of t he De fe n da nt s we re t ak e n o ut , t ha t PW 4 D en ni s
R an ta u h ad a p p o i nt ed a n d i ns t ru c t e d Me s s rs Lu pi n g & C o t o a ct fo r al l t he 3 De f en da n ts i
n S u i t S 22 -0 6-2 0 04 , t ha t PW 4 D en ni s R a n ta u h a d i n fo rm e d C o un s el PW 5 D at uk J o hn S i k a
yun th at th e P l a i n ti f f h ad a g r ee d t o a Co n s en t J u dg m en t t o be e nt e red a g a i ns t
a l l 3 De fe nd a nt s . Fu rt he rm or e n o c on s e nt o rde r o r j u d gm en t ha s e v e r b ee n s e rv ed o n t
he P l ai n t i ff p e rs o n a l l y, th o ug h s e r v ed o n M es s rs L up i ng & Co .
[ d] I f i nd th at s i nc e t he Pl a i n ti f f ha d n ev e r ret a i ne d M es s rs L up i n g & Co t
o ac t f or h i m , PW 5 Da tu k J oh n S i k a yu n wa s t he re fo re i n no p os i t i on t o ag re e t o an yt hi n g o
r m a tt er s t ha t re l at e d to or a ff e c t ed th e P l ai n ti f f i n a n y wa y o r m an n er. It wou l d g r
o s s l y un j u s t f or th e P l a i nt i f f t o h av e a g ree d t o pa y fo r t h e de bt s o f PW 4 M r. Ra n ta
u a m o u nt i ng t o R M 4 07 , 00 7. 5 0 pl u s i n te re s t an d c o s ts i n S ui t No . S 2 2 - 06 -2 00 4 a l o
ne an d t h e who l e o f t h e t ot al d eb t am o un te d to R M 3, 04 2 ,7 96 . 89 a ft er ta k i n g i nt o
c o ns i d er at i on a l l t h e s ui t s i n v o l v ed .
[ e] Fu rt he r ev i d en c e t ha t t he P l a i nt i ff n e v er r e ta i ne d M es s rs L up i ng & Co . c a
m e f r o m PW 5 Da tu k J o h n S i k a yu n wh o i n h i s wi t n e s s s t at em e nt PW 5 -W S , i n a ns w er t o Q
6 s t at ed t ha t he wa s e n g ag ed b y PW 4 Mr. R an t au , th e i n s tru c ti o n s to d e fe n d c a m e s ol e l
y fro m PW 4 Mr . Ra n ta u a nd h e wa s u nd e r t he b e l i e f a nd i m pr es s i o n th at P W 4 M r. R an ta u h ad d i s
c us s e d th e s u i t wi t h th e P l ai n ti f f a nd o f hi s a pp o in t m e n t as th e i r s o l i c i to rs i n
th e c o nd u c t of th e m at te r. H o we v er, t hi s wa s c l e ar l y n o t t he c a s e as
t es t i fi e d b y th e P l ai n ti f f an d P W 4 Mr . R a n t au . I n th e l i gh t o f th e ab o v e I f i n d th at t ha t
PW 5 Da tu k J o h n Si ka yu n ha d n o i m pl i e d a ut ho ri t y to a c t f o r a n d o n b eh al f of th e P l
ai n t i ff .
[ f] Fu rth e r I f i n d t ha t th e r e a s on s g i v en b y P W 4 M r. R an ta u a s t o wh y h e d i d
n o t i nf o rm t he P l a i nt i ff , p l au s i bl e . I n hi s an s we r to Q 1 0 5 NO P , PW 4 M r. Ra n ta u
s t at ed t ha t t he re a s on s wh y he d i d no t i nf o rm th e P l ai n ti f f a bo u t t he Le t te r of Un d ert a
k i n g , S u i ts a nd Co n s en t J u dg m en t i s b e c a us e h e was n ev e r a p a rtn er of th e P l ai
n t i ff a nd th at h e h ad no a u th ori t y t o b i nd Pl a i nt i f f or h i s l e ga l f i rm b a s e d i n K o ta
Ki n a ba l u.
[ g] I n t h e c i r c um s ta n c es , I fi nd th a t PW 5 D atuk J oh n S i k a yu n h a d no au th o ri t y wh a ts
o ev e r wh et h er o s te ns i b l e o r o th er wi s e to r e p res e n t t he P l a i nt i ff , m o re s o t o c om m it t he
Pl a i n ti f f t o p a y m ore th a n R M 3 m i l l i o n t o th e v a ri o us p art i e s . H e t ru s t e d PW 4 M r Ra n t a
u, a fe l l o w c o u n s el an d q ui t e rea s o na b l y as s u m e d th a t PW 4 Mr Ra n ta u ha d b ri ef e d
a n d o b ta i ne d al l n ec e s s a r y a ut ho r i z a ti o n f ro m th e P l ai n t i ff t o en t e r i nt o t h e c o n
s en t j u d g m e n t fo r al l th e c a s es c on c e rne d .
[5] Whether the Consent Judgment dated 20th May 2008 was entered against the Plaintiff without the consent, knowledge, instructions and/or authority of the Plaintiff?
_
In the light of my findings in the above Agreed Issues, I find that the Consent Judgment dated 20th May, 2008 was entered against the Plaintiff without his consent, knowledge, instructions and/or authority.
[6] Whether the Plaintiff is and was ever the partner of Messrs Martin Idang Rantau & Co., Sandakan of Level 20, Rooms B &
D, Menara MPS, Jalan Leila, 90000, Sandakan?
_
In the light of my various findings in the above Agreed Issues, I find that the Plaintiff is and was not ever the partner of Messrs
Martin Idang Rantau & Co., Sandakan of Level 20, Rooms B & D, Menara MPS, Jalan Leila, 90000, Sandakan.
[7] Whether the Letter of Undertaking signed by Mr Dennis Tweening Rantau dated 17th September 1997 was binding on the Plaintiff?
_
I find that the said Letter of Undertaking signed by Mr Dennis Tweening Rantau dated 17th September 1997 was not binding on the Plaintiff for the following reasons.
[a] At t h e e nd of th e s ai d Le tt e r of Un de rt ak i n g , i t was s i g ne d b y PW 4 Mr . R a nt au f o r
a nd o n b eh al f o f M es s rs M ar ti n I da n g R a nt au Al l i o n & C o , S a nd a k an . T h i s re f ers
t o t h e S a nd a k an l e ga l fi r m a n d n o t t h at o f K o ta K i na b al u . I f i nd th at th e u nd er ta k i ng
s i gn ed b y P W 4 M r. Ra n ta u d at ed t h e 17 t h o f S ep te m be r 1 9 97 was i nt en d ed t o bi n d o nl y th e S a nd ak a n l e ga l f i rm a n d no o n e el s e .
[ b] I no t ed t ha t th e P l ai n ti f f, PW 4 Mr . R an t a u a nd PW 3
S en a to r Da t uk M ai j o l Ma h a p al l d en i ed b e i n g p art n ers o f o ne a no th er . PW 4 M r. Ra n ta u
f ur th er pr o d uc e d d oc u m en ts to s ho w t ha t h e i s in d ee d t he s ol e p r o pr i et o r o f th e S
a nd ak a n l e ga l f i rm .
[ c ] In Ch ua K a S eng v. Bo on Ch a i S omp o lp o n g [1 99 3 ] 1
S LR 48 2, th e C o u rt o f A pp e al i n S i ng a po re ru l e d th a t i n t he ab s e nc e of a wr i t te n p a rtn
e r s hi p ag r e em e nt , o n e h as t o re l y o n t h e P a rtn e rs hi p A c t 18 90 t o d e te rm i ne wh et h er a p ar tn
er s hi p e xi s ts or n ot .
[ d] P a rt ne rs h i p i s t he rel a t i o n , wh i c h s u bs i s t s b e t wee n p ers o n s c a rr yi n g on b u s
i n e s s i n c o m m o n wi t h a v i e w t o p rof i t. T h ere ca nn o t b e a pa rt ne rs h i p u nd e r S ec
t i on 3
P ar tn er s hi p A c t 1 96 1 i f th er e i s n o “v i e w t o p ro fi t ”. I fi n d t ha t t h e P l a in t i ff i s no t d o i ng bu s i n es s i n c om m on wi t h PW 4 M r. Ra nt au i n Sa
n da k a n a n d I f i nd th a t t he P l ai n ti f f d oe s n ot s h a re wi t h P W 4 Mr . R an ta u i n t he p rof i ts o f th
e S an d ak a n le g al f i rm . No r d o e s t h e P l a i n ti f f e xer c i s e a n y
d eg re e o f m an a ge m e n t o r c on tr ol o v er t he S an d ak a n l e ga l f i rm o r v ic e v ers a .
[ e] In th e S i n ga p ore a n c a s e L e k B o ng Hw a v L e k B oo n C h ye ( 19 99 ) 1 SL R 5 23 , J us t i c e La i K e w Ch ai am o ng s t o th er th i n gs s ai d t ha t c en tr al t o th
e q u e s ti o n wh et h er p art i e s h a v e a gr ee d t o b e p a rtn e rs wa s th ei r i n te n ti o n t o c a rr y on b
u s i ne s s i n c o m m o n wi t h a vi e w t o p r of i t. T ha t i n te nt i o n wa s th e f ou nd a ti o n or be
d ro c k u po n wh i c h th e re l at i o ns h i p of a p ar tn er s hi p wa s cr ea te d a nd b u il t . T h e S i ng
a p o re an p a rtn er s hi p l a w i s s i m i l ar to t h at o f M al a ys i a’ s .
[ f] A s c l e arl y s ta te d a t P a ge 1 3 un d er G en e r al No te o n t he P art n ers h i p Ac t 1 96 1, “t he re c an b e n o p a rtn e rs hi p i f t he re i s no bu s i n es s c a rri e d o n wi t h a v i ew to p r of i t ” an d a p ers o n c an n ot b e a p a r tn er i f h e h as n o b e n ef i c i al ri gh t t o s ha re p ro fi t s .
[ g] I n th e Fe d e r a l C o u rt c as e o f Ch o oi S iew Che o n g v Lu c k y H e i gh ts D e ve l op m en t S d n B h d (1 9 9 5) 1 M L J a t P ag e 5 2 1, t he F ed e ral Co u rt he l d :-
“T h e t e rm “p a rtn e rs hi p ” i s de f i ne d i n S. 3( 1) o f t he Ac t as th e r el a ti o n s hi p w hi c
h s ub s i s ts b et we e n p er s o n s c ar r yi ng o n a b u s i n es s wi th a v i e w to p ro fi t . In d e c id i n g wh
et h e r a pa rt ne rs h i p e xi s ts , th e C o urt m us t ha v e reg a rd t o th e
re l ev a n t ru l e s i n S . 4 o f th e A c t an d i nt e nt i on o f t he p a rti e s .”
[ h] Ap p l yi ng th e a bo v e pri n c i p l e to ou r p re s en t c a s e, I f i nd th a t t he P l ai n ti f f an d PW
4 M r Ra nt a u n ev e r i n te n de d t o be pa rtn e rs
[ i ] Fi na l l y, I re fe r to t he d i c t a of T an S ri Ri c h ar d M a l a nj u m i n F u Y e n D e ve l op me n t S dn B hd ( sui ng a s a fir m) v S he ll e y Y a p L e on g & Co (s u ed as a f i rm ) (2 00 1 ) 3 A M R
3 73 6 h i s L or ds h i p s ai d : -
“H av i n g p er us e d t he tra d i ng l i c e n c e e xh i b i te d a s “A ” i n E nc l 6 1 ag re e d wi th l
e ar ne d c o un s e l f or th e res p o nd en t th a t t he wo rd “N e w” was o bv i o us l y wr i t te n o n i t. An
d th e re was o n l y o n e n am e as th e pr o p ri e to r. No th i n g t o i nd i c a te t ha t i t h a d a n y c o n ne c ti o
n wi t h t he pr ev i o us t ra di n g l i c e nc e i s s ue d u n de r th e s am e n a m e . A c c or di n gl
y I wa s i nc l i n e d t o ac c e p t t h at o n th e t rad i n g l i c en c e a l on e i t was o bv i o us th a t th e re
was no pa rt ne r s h i p i n e xi s te nc e wh en th e a c ti o n wa s c om m e n c ed .
N o d o ub t th e a pp el l a nt c o u l d a d du c e o th e r e v i de nc e to s h o w e xi s t e nc e o f a p
a rtn e rs hi p . B ut fr om th e s e v er al a ff i da v i ts f i l ed th e y c o nt ai n e d no th i n g m
o re th a n as se rt i on s o f th e d ep o ne nt s . S ure l y t he r e s h ou l d be a t l ea s t
s o m e e v i de n c e of p art n ers h i p i n th e fo rm o f a c c ou nt s , b an k s t a te m e n ts or i n
c om e t ax re tu rn s if i nd e ed th er e wa s on e . E v en i f i t was n ot i n o pe r a ti o n at t he m a te
ri al ti m e th e re s h ou l d h av e b e e n re c o r ds t o s h o w th a t th e r e was a c o nt i nu a ti o n
o f th e p ar t n ers h i p s i n c e
1 97 9 o n war d s . I was a wa r e of t h e e xp l a na ti o n g i v en f or th e a b s en c e of s u c h do c um e nt s .
Bu t I d o n o t t hi n k i t wo ul d m ak e a n y d i f fe re nc e i f th e s a m e a s s e rti o n s we re t o b e re p e
at ed b y th e s a m e de po n en ts i n a fu l l tri a l . I n th i s c as e th e t rad i n g l i c e nc e i nd i c at
e d n ot h i n g m o re th an i t was a n e w l i ce n c e. St e ps c ou l d h a v e b ee n t ak e n t o re c
ti f y t h e e rro r i n th e 1 99 5 t ra di n g l i c e nc e i f i n de e d t he re wa s p art n e rs h i p e v e n a t t
he m at er i al t i m e. T h at i s t h e f i rst l i m b o f O rd er
7 7 r 1 of t h e Ru l es . ”
[ j ] I f i nd t ha t the re i s e v i de nc e f ro m PW 2 P a ul i n e Ko n g N yuk M o i th at PW 4, M r Ra nt au
i s n o t a s i g na to ry of th e i n c om e t a x re tu r n o f th e S an d ak a n l e ga l f i rm a nd s h e a l s o s t
at ed th a t PW 4 Mr. Ra n ta u i s t he s o l e a ut h ori s e d s i g na to r y of t he a c c ou n ts he l
d u nd er t he S a nd ak a n f i rm s i n c e th e ac c o un t s we re o pe n e d a t th e Al l i a n c e B a nk M al
a ys i a Be rh a d , Sa n da k a n o n t h e 6t h De c em be r 1 9 96 ,
we l l b e fo re th e l e tt er o f u n de rt a k i n g wa s i s s u ed o n 1 7 t h
S ep t em b er 19 9 7. F urt h erm o re a ll d oc u m e n ts ad d uc e d s h o wed th a t P W 4 M r R an ta u i s t h e
s o l e p ro pr i et or o f th e S an d ak a n l e ga l f i rm .
C R E D I B I L I T Y O F T H E W I T N E S S E S
3. A s reg a rds t he te s ti m o ni e s o f t he P l ai n ti f f’ s wit n es s e s , n am e l y t h e P l a i n ti f f, Ma rt i n M ai r i n I da ng , P W 4, M r. R an ta u a nd P W 5, D at uk J o hn S i k a yu n P W 2, P a ul i n e K on g N yu k M oi an d PW 3 , YB S e n at or Da tu k M ai j o l B i n M ah a p, I f i nd t h a t th e i r t es t i m on i es ar e c red i b l e d e s pi t e b ei n g t es t ed i n c ros s - e xa m i n a ti o n .
RULING
4. In the light of the above I grant an order in terms of the Plaintiff’s originating Summons and further order that s i nc
e S u i t N o. S 2 2-
0 6-2 0 0 4 ha s b e en c on s o l i d a te d wi th S u i t s N o. S 22 -0 5 -
2 00 4 , S2 2 -06 - 2 0 0 4 , S2 2 -0 8 -2 00 4 , S2 2 -1 6- 2 0 04 , S 22 -4 5-
2 00 3 , S2 2 -46 - 2 0 0 3 , S2 2 -4 7 -2 00 3 , S2 2 -5 0- 2 0 03 , S 22 -5 1-
2 00 3 , S 2 2-5 2 -20 0 3, S 22 - 5 3- 2 0 03 , S2 2 -5 5 -2 0 0 3 , a l l t ho s e s u i ts s h a l l be s i m i l ar l
y af fe c te d . Costs against the Defendants, unless agreed to be taxed.
Dated this 28th day of March, 2011.
…………………………………. Y.A. Tuan Lee Heng Cheong Judicial Commissioner Sandakan, Sabah
For the Plaintiff : Datuk Douglas Primus Of Messrs Lee & Thong Kota Kinabalu
For the 1st Defendant : Encik Ahmad Abd Rahman Of Messrs Rahman & Juhar Kota Kinabalu
For the 2nd Defendant: Encik G.B.B. Nandy @ Gaanesh
Of Messrs Gaanesh & Co
Kota Kinabalu
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Grounds of Decision is subject to formal revision.
] [Hide Context]
CommonLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.commonlii.org/my/cases/MYSSHC/2011/157.html