KUCHING, Oct 6: The Sulaiman vs Raghad case has taken a surprise turn when Dato Sri Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Abdul Taib’s lawyer attempted to submit new affidavits (Enclosure 71, 71), which are the statements from two forensic handwriting experts, to challenge the authenticity of the signature of Head of State Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud on documents (TPR-6) related to the transfer of CMS’ shares to his wife Toh Puan Datuk Patinggi Raghad Kurdi Taib.
In this high profile case, Taib’s sons Sulaiman and Dato Sri Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib, represented by counsels Alvin Chong and Jonathan Tay, had in early September filed a court injunction to halt the transfer of shares to Raghad.
In response, Raghad’s lead counsel Shankar Ram Asnani and second defendant RHB Investment Bank Berhad represented by Lesley Ling, filed an application to strike out the lawsuit (Enclosure 32, 33)
During the court proceedings before Judicial Commissioner Alexander Siew How Wai today, Shankar objected to the introduction of the two new affidavits (Enclosure 71 and 73).
“It is a gross injustice to allow the Plaintiffs (Sulaiman and Abu Bekir) to resile or renege from the said Agreement by use of the Plaintiffs’ new affidavits Enclosure 71 and 73 when such were filed without leave and without giving any prior notice to the 1st Defendant (Raghad) who is unable to procure their own expert rebuttal evidence,” he said.
Additionally, Shankar noted that during the hearing on September 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs’ advocate had failed to inform the court about their intention to seek opinions from two handwriting document examiners and to submit further affidavits from these experts. He argued that this was an ambush and a breach of fairness.
“Because we had agreed, the parties agreed that the striking out applications be heard with the undertaking given on the injunction application. It is very unfair to allow the Plaintiffs to change course by all these new events,” he added.
Shankar further argued that in their strike out application, the gist of Enclosure 32 is that the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the action and also where they did not enjoin all the beneficiaries and even the administrator who is Taib.
Ling deemed that the submissions of two affidavits as an afterthought. He argued that if the Plaintiffs wanted forensic examiners to examine Taib’s signature on the documents (TPR-6), they should have disclosed this during the Sept 4 mention instead of claiming that affidavits had been exhausted and requested that directions for submissions be given.
“We submit that such conduct of the Plaintiffs is clearly afterthought and contrary to the rule of fair play in civil litigation and ought not be condoned by this Honourable Court,” he added.
Regarding the Plaintiffs’ insistence that the two new affidavits were relevant and should be admitted, Ling argued that it was untrue. He asserted that RHB Investment Bank Berhad’s striking-out application or the said agreement focused solely on the issue of whether the Plaintiffs had the legal standing and reasonable cause of action to initiate the action.
The proceedings revealed a dispute between the parties regarding the admissibility and relevance of the new affidavits, as well as whether the defendants were altering the grounds for their striking-out applications.
Siew subsequently ordered that Enclosures 32, 33, and 79 (application for leave to file re-re-amended writ and re-re-amended state of claim) be heard together, and affidavits in opposition to Enclosures 79 and 94 (application to seek leave of time for Enclosures 71 and 73) must be filed and served by Oct 20, 2023.
Additionally, a court e-review was scheduled for Nov 6, 2023, to monitor the exchange of affidavits for Enclosures 79 and 94. — DayakDaily
