BRAND FORCE SDN BHD v AHMAD ZAKI SDN BHD
wa-22ncvc-322-06-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 7 January 2026 • WA-22NCvC-322-06/2023 • 4 min read
Catchwords
Conclusion [46] No doubt there is evidence of unpaid amount of RM589,698.36 for goods delivered and services rendered by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant has successfully proven on a balance of probabilities that the said contractual obligation is void due to fraud and collusion on the part of the Plaintiff. [47] This Court finds that the Plaintiff made fraudulent misrepresentations concerning its identity. The evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s knowledge that IXI was a vendor expressly barred by the Defendant, the operations of the Plaintiff were in substance conducted by, or under the effective control of, IXI. This material concealment and misrepresentation of the Plaintiff’s true operational identity vitiated the contractual relationship between the parties. [48] This Court does not consider it just or equitable for the Plaintiff - having been found to have perpetrated fraud against the Defendant by concealing its connection with the banned vendor, IXI, and by misrepresenting its true identity - to be permitted to profit from its own wrongdoing, in accordance with the well-established principle that fraud unravels all. [49] The Plaintiff cannot, in law or in equity, be allowed to derive advantage from a fraudulent scheme of its own making. See the principles elucidated in Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702. At the same time, this Court is mindful that its determination must strike a fair balance between the parties and uphold the integrity of the judicial process. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim is accordingly dismissed. [50] However, notwithstanding this Court’s finding that the Plaintiff had defrauded the Defendant, in particular as to its identity, this Court is not persuaded that justice or equity would be served by permitting the Defendant to retain the benefit and enjoyment of the goods and services already provided, while simultaneously recovering the monies paid in respect thereof. To allow such recovery would result in an unjust enrichment of the Defendant. Accordingly, this Court declines to grant the reliefs sought by the Defendant insofar as they relate to the reimbursement of payments made for goods and services which were in fact rendered and enjoyed. Thus, the Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed. [51] With regards to cost, the submissions of both counsels are considered. This Court agrees that the Plaintiff who had initiated these proceedings is not entitled to any award or costs as it is found to have conducted in a fraudulent manner with regards to the subject matter although the Defendant has not succeeded in its counterclaim. There is no order as to costs.
Practice Areas
Conclusion 46 No doubt there is evidence of unpaid amount of RM589,698.36 for goods delivered and services rendered by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant has successfully proven on a balance of probabilities that the said contractual obligation is void due to fraud and collusion on the part of the Plaintiff. 47 This Court finds that the Plaintiff made fraudulent misrepresentations concerning its identity. The evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s knowledge that IXI was a vendor expressly barred by the Defendant, the operations of the Plaintiff were in substance conducted by, or under the effective control of, IXI. This material concealment and misrepresentation of the Plaintiff’s true operational identity vitiated the contractual relationship between the parties. 48 This Court does not consider it just or equitable for the Plaintiff 49 The Plaintiff cannot, in law or in equity, be allowed to derive advantage from a fraudulent scheme of its own making. See the principles elucidated in Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley 1956 1 QB 702. At the same time, this Court is mindful that its determination must strike a fair balance between the parties and uphold the integrity of the judicial process. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim is accordingly dismissed. 50 However, notwithstanding this Court’s finding that the Plaintiff had defrauded the Defendant, in particular as to its identity, this Court is not persuaded that justice or equity would be served by permitting the Defendant to retain the benefit and enjoyment of the goods and services already provided, while simultaneously recovering the monies paid in respect thereof. To allow such recovery would result in an unjust enrichment of the Defendant. Accordingly, this Court declines to grant the reliefs sought by the Defendant insofar as they relate to the reimbursement of payments made for goods and services which were in fact rendered and enjoyed. Thus, the Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed. 51 With regards to cost, the submissions of both counsels are considered. This Court agrees that the Plaintiff who had initiated these proceedings is not entitled to any award or costs as it is found to have conducted in a fraudulent manner with regards to the subject matter although the Defendant has not succeeded in its counterclaim. There is no order as to costs.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
BRAND FORCE SDN BHD v AHMAD ZAKI SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 7, 2026 (citation: wa-22ncvc-322-06-2023). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.
What was the outcome of BRAND FORCE SDN BHD v AHMAD ZAKI SDN BHD?
BRAND FORCE SDN BHD v AHMAD ZAKI SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated January 7, 2026. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.