in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

CONCLUSION
As stated in the case of Dato’ Toh Kian Chuan v. Swee Construction
and Transport Company (Malaya) Sdn Bhd (supra):
1. For the petitioner to succeed in his application for the
said reliefs, he must show that it was the affairs of the
Company which were being conducted in an oppressive
manner, and that the respondent company had oppressed
the minority shareholders which in this case is the
petitioner.
2. On the whole, the circumstances and matters complained
of by the petitioner did not at all denote that there was
oppression within the meaning of s 181(1) of the Act.
There was nothing to show that the 2 nd and 3 rd
respondents’ action complained of was designed to injure
the petitioner in its rights as a member. The petitioner
had failed to prove that the directors representing the
respondents had acted in disregard of the petitioner’s
interest. There was nothing to suggest that the company
was not being conducted efficiently by the existing board
of directors in the interests of the members, neither was
there any violation of the conditions of fair play or any
abuse of power being committed by the directors of the
respondents which could amount to oppression.
Oppression must be in the form of dishonesty and in the
instant case, there was none.
Having gone through the evidence made available in the Record, we
are of the view that the acts of the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents as stated by the
learned trial judge were not sufficient to prove that the petitioner, being a
minority shareholder, had been oppressed. There is also no evidence to
show that the directors representing the 2 nd respondent in the 1 st respondent
87