Kota Kinabalu: A businessman and his wife filed a leave for judicial review at the High Court here against the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) for taking no further action on their complaint against their former business partner.
The applicants Henry Chia Chi Tshung, a sand-mining subcontractor from here, and his wife Chan Yee Ling named CCM and Noor Surayya @ Intan Osman (Investigating officer of the CCM investigation division) as the first and second respondents.
The applicants filed the matter over SSM’s decision regarding their complaint against their former business partner, who is a Sabah Umno Assemblyman, over their removal as company director cum shareholder, without their knowledge or consent.
In their statement, the applicants claimed that the complaints were lodged in March 2019, over their removal as company director cum shareholder, without their knowledge or consent.
The applicants became business partners of the assemblyman on June 15, 2018, for the purchase of 51 per cent shares in the assemblyman’s company for RM3.5 million.
The applicants said they came to know the assemblyman through the latter’s brother who introduced them to the assemblyman in July 2017, to undertake two parcels of sand dredging works.
The Assemblyman also invited them to undertake the dredging of a river.
The applicants became the assemblyman’s business partners after he offered to sell 51 per cent shares of his company to them for RM3.5 million; the deal was formalised through the signing of the Letter of Undertaking (LoU) on June 15, 2018.
They claimed that the Assemblyman also promised to execute the Share Sale Agreement (SSA) within one month from the date of the requirement of the SSM.
Following the signing of the LoU, the Assemblyman started to ask for advance payments which the applicants obliged, although he kept delaying the execution of the SSA with excuses. But, to pacify them, the Assemblyman made the first applicant a director of the company, while the second applicant was given 10 per cent shares of the company.
The accounts of the company show that between April 2017 and December 2018, the Assemblyman had taken RM2.4 million from the applicants.
Then following the change of government, after the 14th general elections in May 2018, the Assemblyman started to persuade them to withdraw from the company, claiming that it was in their best interest.
Feeling something was amiss, on March 6, 2019, the second applicant went to the first applicant’s office here and conducted a search on their company and to her shock, she discovered that both she and the first applicant had been removed from the company as directors, while her 10 per cent shares of the company too had been transferred to another person also without her knowledge and consent.
The applicants stated that on the advice of a senior officer at the first respondent’s office they lodged an official complaint with the first respondent on March 8, 2019 calling for an investigation into the matter.
They also lodged a police report, separately, in regard to their removal from the company.
On June 13 this year, the applicants received letters from the respondents stating that there was not enough evidence to support their claim for prosecution under the Companies Act 2016.
The applicants claimed that there is no justification and lawful excuse for the respondents to issue the letters dated June 13, 2022.
The applicants are seeking an order of certiorari to quash the respondents’ decision; an order of mandamus against the respondent to initiate and proceed with prosecution of their complaint in respect of Warisan Teguh Gemilang Bistri Sdn Bhd.
The applicants also sought a declaration that the first respondent’s decision under a letter dated June 13, 2022 issued to the second applicant is unconstitutional, unlawful, ultra vires, null, and void.
The applicants also seeking an order of mandamus against the respondents to proceed with the investigation and full examination of the second applicant’s complaint in respect of Warisan Teguh Gemilang Bistri Sdn Bhd.
They also seek damages and costs.
The application which was filed via e-filing by counsel Marcel Jude on Sept 8, has been set for mention on Oct 11.