1. INTRODUCTION

The Board of Directors of KEN wishes to announce that the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Ken TTDI Sdn Bhd (“Defendant”), had on 21 October 2020 been served with a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 6 October 2020 and an ex-parte Interim Injunction Order dated 16 October 2020 pursuant to Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-22NCvC-650-10/2020 filed by Common Ground TTDI Sdn Bhd (“Plaintiff”).

2. DETAILS OF THE HIGH COURT SUIT

On 15 September 2017, a tenancy agreement was entered into between the Defendant as the landlord and the Plaintiff as the tenant whereby the Plaintiff had let the demised premises at Menara KEN TTDI for a term of three (3) years commencing from 1 November 2017 until 31 October 2020 (“TA”). There were pending issues in relation to the TA and there had been several negotiations to settle the issues between both parties. However, before reaching any agreement to resolve the pending issues as well as agreement on the revised terms and conditions of the tenancy for a potential renewal term, the Defendant had, on 21 October 2020, been served a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim and an ex-parte Interim Injunction Order. The particulars of the Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and the ex-parte Interim Injunction Order are as detailed in paragraphs 3 and 4 below. The TA has also then expired on 31 October 2020.

The Defendant had then on 26 November 2020 filed a Third Party Notice against Common Ground Works Sdn Bhd [201601032932 (1203873-X)], Teo Juhn How and Erman Akinci to claim for the following:

a) outstanding rentals and monies due under the TA in the amount of RM1,189,477.55;

b) interest due on the outstanding amount under the TA of RM1,189,477.55 at a rate of 10% per annum on daily rests from the date the amount becomes due until full settlement;

c) damages for misrepresentation amounting to RM2,721,770.33 being the portion of fit-out costs paid by the Defendant for the demised premises;

d) double rental for unlawful holding over the demised premises from 1 November 2020 until the date of vacant possession of the demised premises;

e) further damages for misrepresentation and for inducement of breach of contract, to be assessed.

On 30 November 2020, the Defendant filed a Defence and Counterclaim dated 30 November 2020 against the Plaintiff. The Defendant had in their Defence and Counterclaim claimed among others as follows:

a) an order for the Plaintiff to immediately vacate the demised premises and to yield up the same to the Defendant in accordance with the terms of the TA;

b) outstanding rentals and monies due under the TA in the amount of RM1,189,477.55; 

c) double rental for unlawful holding over the demised premises from 1 November 2020 until the date of vacant possession of the demised premises; 

d) interest due on the outstanding amount under the TA of RM1,189,477.55 and double rental at a rate of 10% per annum on daily rests from the date the amount becomes due until full settlement;

e) interest due on the portion of fit-out costs paid by the Defendant at a rate of 5% per annum on daily rests from the date the amount becomes due until full settlement.

On 30 December 2020, the Defendant had filed an Application pursuant to Order 14A Rule 1 and/or Order 33 Rule 2 for the Court to determine two questions of law and/or interpretation of the TA, or preliminary issues, in order that the action may be disposed of without the need for a trial.

3. PARTICULARS OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM

The Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against the Defendant for, inter-alia, the following:

a) declaration that the renewal of the tenancy of the demised premises had been validly exercised and there is a concluded renewed tenancy of the demised premises for a further term of three (3) years beginning 1 November 2020 until 31 October 2023;

b) specific performance of the renewal of the tenancy of the demised premises for a further term of three (3) years from 1 November 2020 until 31 October 2023;

c) and or in the alternative, damages for inducement to breach contract with the Plaintiff’s customers;

d) an injunction to restrain the Defendant and/or its agents and/or its employees and/or its servants and/or its officers and/or its representatives from taking any steps and/or continue to take any action to repossess the demised premises or evict the Plaintiff and its customers from the demised premises and/or to harass and/or to obstruct the Plaintiff and/or its customers and/or employees from having full access to the demised premises; 

e) costs;

f) all other reliefs deemed fit and proper by the Court.

4. PARTICULARS OF THE EX-PARTE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER

The Plaintiff filed an Interim Injunction Application dated 12 October 2020 against the Defendant for an injunction to prevent the Defendant from, among other things, taking any form of action to repossess the demised premises in the interim period. The ex-parte Interim Injunction Order was granted by the High Court on 16 October 2020 ex-parte without hearing the Defendant and was extended by an ad-interim injunction on 30 October 2020 in the meantime until the inter-partes hearing, whilst the parties exchange affidavits and submissions. The Defendant is opposing this ex-parte interim injunction order and the inter-partes hearing of the Interim Injunction Application has been set on 9 March 2021.

5. FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT

As at the date of this announcement, there is no material financial and operational impact arising from the claims against the Defendant.

6. STEPS TO BE TAKEN

The Company has sought the necessary legal advice to defend itself in this legal matter.

The Company will make the necessary announcement on any material development of this matter.

This announcement is dated 4 January 2021.