Gold traders lose suit against Genneva
Plaintiffs failed to prove breach of contract, says court
I find that the plaintiffs failed to particularise acts that contributed to breach of contract. Justice Mohd Zaki Abdul Wahab
KUALA LUMPUR: Some 1,065 gold traders who sued gold investment company Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd for RM146mil, lost in their claim of breach of contract.
Gold traders Murshid Meam Ghouse Musa Meam and 1,064 others had claimed for gold products and monies which they said were contractually owed to them by Genneva Malaysia.
Yesterday, High Court judge Justice Mohd Zaki Abdul Wahab dismissed the traders’ lawsuit on grounds that they had failed to particularise their claim.
“I find that the plaintiffs failed to particularise acts that contributed to breach of contract,” he said.
He said 39 witnesses had been called to testify in the trial.
“Of the figure, 37 are plaintiffs but none could give evidence for the other plaintiffs. I find their evidence failed to prove their case,” he said.
Genneva Malaysia, which was represented by lawyer Hargopal Singh, did not call any witnesses on grounds that it had no case to answer.
In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs said they entered into three types of agreements with Genneva Malaysia in 2012 for gold trading.
They said Genneva Malaysia did not provide the gold products purchased by them and also did not pay the sale price to them, causing them to suffer over RM146mil in total losses.
In the suit filed on June 30, 2014 the plaintiffs sought, among others, for the physical gold to be returned to them and to be paid damages, costs and interests over their losses.
The gold traders had also named Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) as the co-defendant for ancillary orders to release the gold and monies which were being held as property on trust by the central bank following a raid and seizure at the company in 2012.
However, on Nov 21, 2014, they withdrew their claim against BNM.
BNM counsel Riduan Baba said the gold traders agreed to withdraw their suit subject to any court order in respect of the seized items.