The Royal Sabah Turf Club VS Datuk Golkan Hasbollah & Ors

CHIN TET FONG (on behalf of The Royal Sabah Turf Club save for the first to 12th Defendants, by way of a derivative action) vs DATUK GOLKAN HASBOLLAH & ORS

 

In this case, the plaintiff, a member of the Royal Sabah Turf Club (RSTC), brought a derivative action against the club’s Management Committee members for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The court found the defendants liable and ordered them to pay RM1.76 million jointly or severally. The plaintiff also sought to prevent an Emergency General Meeting (EGM) requisitioned by another member, Jerain Bin Alin, where a resolution was passed unanimously to delay enforcement of the court’s judgment pending an appeal.

The plaintiff subsequently filed for contempt of court against the defendants and Jerain Bin Alin, alleging that their actions in convening the EGM and passing the resolution constituted interference with the administration of justice. The plaintiff argued that only the court had jurisdiction over the enforcement of its judgments and that the resolution passed at the EGM was an attempt to circumvent this authority.

However, the court ruled against the plaintiff’s application for contempt of court. It found that the judgment against the defendants was monetary in nature and did not include specific injunctive orders requiring immediate compliance. The court emphasized that refusal to enforce a monetary judgment pending appeal, as decided by a majority vote at an EGM, did not inherently interfere with the administration of justice. The defendants’ actions, including Jerain Bin Alin’s requisitioning of the EGM and the defendants’ participation in it, were deemed legal under the club’s constitution and did not breach any court orders.

Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for contempt of court, stating that exercising legal rights under the club’s constitution, absent specific court orders to the contrary, could not constitute contempt. The defendants were not found to have interfered with the administration of justice as alleged by the plaintiff.