Bailiff attempting to execute writ of seizure on Tajuddin denied entry

 

Last year, the Court of Appeal ordered ex-Pasir Salak MP Tajuddin Abdul Rahman to pay ex-Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad costs of RM60,000 in relation to the former’s defamation suit.

PETALING JAYA: A bailiff was denied entry to the home of former Pasir Salak MP Tajuddin Abdul Rahman this morning to execute a writ of seizure and sale by former Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad.

This follows a Court of Appeal decision on Oct 19 last year ordering Tajuddin to pay Khalid costs of RM60,000 in relation to the former’s defamation suit against the latter, which had been dismissed by the High Court without ordering costs.

Lawyer Wong Guo Jin of law firm SN Nair & Partners, which is representing Khalid, told FMT that despite the formal demands made, Tajuddin had refused to pay the sum.

“Khalid (then) obtained a writ of seizure and sale from the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Apr 16, and attempted to execute the writ today via the high court’s bailiff at Tajuddin’s house in Bukit Damansara,” he said.

Wong said as bailiff Marzuki Mohamad’s attempt this morning was unsuccessful, Khalid would make another ex parte application with the court for another attempt.

Wong said he and Khalid’s lawyer, who accompanied the bailiff this morning, had arrived at Tajuddin’s house at 9.40am, but were greeted by someone named Firdaus Mufazal Faiz, who identified himself as Tajuddin’s officer.

Firdaus then denied them entry, giving the excuse that Tajuddin was not home and the house was owned by Tajuddin’s wife.

“Firdaus contacted the defendant’s lawyer to inform him that the plaintiff’s lawyer and I had arrived to execute the writ of sale and seizure.

“He then asked me to delay the execution, but I said I had no power to do so unless he gave me a court order stating that it had to be delayed,” said Wong.

The Court of Appeal’s order for Tajuddin to pay costs also includes RM60,000 to KiniTV Sdn Bhd.

Tajuddin’s defamation suit was filed in 2017 against Khalid, KiniTV and New Straits Times Press Bhd.

In the suit, he claimed Khalid had uttered defamatory statements laced with curse words at two media conferences held at the Parliament lobby in 2016.

Khalid’s first statement was published in the New Straits Times, headlined “Fury over deputy minister’s remark”, on Nov 22, and the second statement was published by KiniTV on Nov 24, 2016.

Tajuddin said the two statements meant he was not fit to be an MP and had acted against the teachings and culture of Islam.

After the High Court’s dismissal of the suit on Feb 22 last year, Khalid and KiniTV appealed over the issue of costs.

The Court of Appeal subsequently said the trial judge had erred by categorising the claim as a public interest case and for refusing to award costs on that basis.

“The public may be interested in the matter as MPs were trading barbs in the Parliament lobby. However, that does not make it a public interest case. It is a private litigation,” Justice S Nantha Balan had ruled.

He said costs should have been awarded since a lot of work had been put in. - FMT