By Lian Cheng and Marlynda Meraw
KUCHING, Feb 19: The High Court in Kuching today orders both plaintiff and defence counsels to research whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide on the suit brought about by former Sarawak Governor Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud’s sons against his wife.
Judicial Commissioner Alexander Siew came to the decision in today’s hearing in this case, which Taib’s sons, Dato Sri Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Abdul Taib and Dato Sri Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib have brought against Taib’s wife, Toh Puan Datuk Patinggi Raghad Kurdi Taib and RHB Investment Bank Berhad (RHB) to allow an injunction to place over the disposal of CMS shares.
Siew ordered legal counsels of both sides to research whether the case’s “jurisdiction point lies with the Syariah Court or the Civil Court; whether this jurisdiction point can be raised in the two striking out applications when this point was not stated as one of the grounds relied on for the applications and (when) this point was not pleaded in the defences by the defendants”.
The concern arose following Raghad’s defence counsel, Alvin Yong’s argument that both Sulaiman and Abu Bekir had no locus standi to sue the first defendant as they are not the administrators and, therefore, had no right to bring any action on behalf of the estate of their late mother, Datuk Patinggi Puan Sri Laila Taib.
Apart from that, he argued that the plaintiff counsel’s failure to enjoin all other beneficiaries, including Sulaiman’s and Abu Bekir’s sisters and Taib, has caused the action to be fundamentally flawed and bad in law.
Thirdly, he said under the Islamic faraid principles, Taib is the legal and beneficial owner of all jointly acquired property. As Raghad is a Muslimah, he questioned whether the presiding High Court has jurisdiction over the matters pertaining to the assets of Muslims.
Defence counsel for RHB Bank Berhad Tan Kee Heng raised the same argument, stressing that Taib, being the administrator of his late wife’s estate, is the sole party empowered to bring any action on behalf of the estate and to sue or be sued for it.
According to Tan, it is not necessary to make RHB the second defendant because Taib, who is the administrator of the late Laila’s estate, did not commit any wrong-doings relating to the transfer of shares to Raghad.
On the plaintiff counsels’ assertion that action needed to be filed against RHB to ensure that the injunction is binding, Tan rebutted, stressing the binding nature of an injunction.
“(An) injunction is not only binding all parties, but it also binds any person who has notice of it regardless of whether there is a leave of action,” said Tan.
To establish a solid foundation for the trial, Siew fixed March 14 to hear the findings of both sides with regard to the suit’s point of jurisdiction.
In this high-profile case, Taib’s sons Sulaiman and Abu Bekir, represented by counsels Alvin Chong and Jonathan Tay, had in 2023 filed a suit against Raghad.
Following the turn of events, Taib’s sons, through their counsels today, submitted that the transfer of their late mother’s estate to Raghad be declared null and void, and her 50 million CMS shares be returned to Laila’s estate.
They also demanded an injunction to be placed against Raghad, her trustees, servants and agents, as well as those of RHB, for the sale, disposal, transferring and mortgaging of the 50 million CMS shares that she is currently holding. — DayakDaily
