The application by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Khairuddin Abu Hassan for a review of the Federal Court's decision on a misfeasance in public office suit they filed against former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak has now been fixed for Aug 6.
The lawyer for Mahathir and Khairuddin, Mohd Haniff Khatri Abdulla, said today the matter was fixed for case management today, following the application for a review of the decision Mahathir and Khairuddin filed on April 26.
"Najib's lawyer, Caleb Goh from M/s Hafarizam Wan Aisha and Mubarak, asked for an extension of time to file an affidavit in reply to the review application," Haniff said.
Following that, Federal Court registrar Wan Fatimah Zahra Wan Yusuf fixed Aug 6 for the review hearing.
On Feb 27, a three-member Federal Court bench led by Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif dismissed Mahathir's and Khairuddin's application for leave to appeal after the High Court ruled that Najib is not a public officer.
On Aug 30 last year, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court to strike out the suit filed by Mahathir, Khairuddin (photo) and former Umno member Anina Saadudin, saying it agreed with the High Court.
“We agree with the learned judge’s (of the High Court) decision. There is no merit in the appeal. We affirm the decision of the High Court,” said Justice Idrus Harun, who led a three-member bench that included Justice Vernon Ong and Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli.
On April 28 last, the High Court judge in Kuala Lumpur, Justice Abu Bakar Jais, ruled that Najib was not a public officer.
The judge allowed the application to strike out the suit and ordered Mahathir, along with Khairuddin and Anina, to pay RM30,000 in costs.
The trio had filed the RM2.642 billion suit in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on March 23 last year, naming Najib as the sole defendant.
Justice Abu Bakar pointed to Section 3 of the Interpretations Act, which he said needed to be proven to show Najib was a public officer and that he was in a position in public office.
The section defines public office as an office in any of the public services and public officer as “a person lawfully holding, acting in or exercising the functions of a public service”.
Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution, the judge said, defined what public services are.
Justice Abu Bakar said Article 132(1) stated that public services comprise the armed forces, the judicial and legal service, the general public service of the federation, the police force, the education service, the joint public services and public services of each state.
"This provision shows Najib is not a member of any of the services listed under this provision of the Federal Constitution," the High Court judge ruled in dismissing the application from Mahathir, Khairuddin and Anina. -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.