in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

the change of shareholding in the 2 nd respondent. As we have stated earlier,
the 2 nd respondent being a public listed company, the shareholding in the 2 nd
respondent is bound to change. For that reason, we are of the view that the
reasons given by the petitioner were rather flimsy. The whole idea of the
petitioner was to take over the 1 st respondent from the 2 nd respondent and
run the supermarket by itself. We believe the second reason given by the
petitioner was the appointment of the 3 rd respondent. We noted that from
the minutes of the management committee meeting that the Chairman of the
Board of Directors was the Deputy Managing Director of the 1 st respondent
before the appointment of the 3 rd respondent as the Managing Director in
accordance with the JV Agreement. It would not be wrong for us to say that
the Chairman (Dato’ Lo) was not happy with the appointment of the 3 rd
respondent as the Managing Director. The evidence shows that before the
appointment of the 3 rd respondent, the Chairman was the Deputy Managing
Director of the 1 st respondent and was running the supermarket. With the
appointment of the 3 rd respondent, his appointment as Chief Executive
expired.
Taking the above as a whole we are of the view that the learned judge
was in error when he came to the conclusion that the contention of the
63