A three-member bench chaired by Justice Azizul Azmi Adnan said the funds were held in trust for Zahid Abdul Aziz, 63, and that the children had breached their fiduciary duties.
“There is no merit in the defendants’ appeal. (Zahid’s) claim is fully upheld through all levels of appeal,” said Azizul, who sat with Justices Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin and Evrol Mariette Peters.
In dismissing the final appeal from Nurul Izzati Zahid, 36, Khairi Zahid, 34, Azri Zahid, 30, and Zafri Zahid, 23, the bench ordered the siblings to pay RM20,000 in costs to their father.
Lawyer Hazman Harun appeared for the siblings, while counsel Zubir Embong appeared for Zahid.
Zahid, who filed the suit, said the funds were derived solely from his savings and intended as investments under his control, with the defendants acting as trustees.
However, the children said it was outright gifts since the accounts were in their names, citing a previous statement by their father that the accounts were for their “future welfare”.
In December 2023, the sessions court allowed Zahid’s suit, and the High Court upheld the trial judge’s findings last year.
The accounts were opened between 2013 and 2015 with Zahid allocating RM200,000 each to the accounts of Nurul Izzati, Khairi and Azri, as well as another RM50,000 in Zafri’s accounts.
In the High Court judgment, it was stated that Zahid’s relationship with the children deteriorated after a contentious divorce between him and his wife.
The father said the children committed a breach of trust by taking unauthorised control of the accounts by reporting the passbooks as lost, obtaining replacements, and altering account details to exclude him.
The sessions court ruled in his favour, finding that the funds were held in trust, no gift was proven, and the defendants’ actions constituted a breach of trust.
The High Court also said the father had established an express trust by proving the three certainties: intention (retained control), subject matter (specific, traceable funds), and object (identifiable trustees).
Justice Jamhirah Ali said the phrase “future welfare” should be interpreted as relating to inheritance planning, not an immediate gift.