Umno Gagal Bayar Hutang?
Dari Malaysiakini
Oleh Hafiz Yatim
Election campaign material supplier Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd who is suing Umno over a RM218 million breach of contract was today allowed to change its statement of claim to name a new defendant.
Following this, the company replaced Umno’s former treasurer Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi with former Umno administration and finance secretary Ishak Abdul Rahman as the new defendant.
The company was also ordered by Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Anandham Kasinater to pay costs of RM5,000 within 14 days to Abdul Azim for wrongly naming him as a defendant. The present Umno treasurer is Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah.
Anandham, who heard the matter in chambers, also fixed next Thursday, Sept 10, to decide on Umno’s application to strike out the suit.
Elegant Advisor had filed the suit against Umno in June 2008 claiming RM218,013,475 as compensation from Umno for supplying election campaign materials for the 2004 general election.
The materials include posters, banners, buntings, flags, souvenirs, mineral waters and other transportation costs.
In July last year, Elegant Advisory obtained a judgment in default against Abdul Azim after his representatives were not present in court. However, Abdul Azim managed to set aside the order on Jan 21 this year.
At the same time, the court also ruled that the company should have named another Umno public office bearer and not the party’s treasurer as defendant. This was the cause for the company to amend its defendants’ list today.
Was there a contract?
Umno was represented by Mohd Hafarizam Harun while Ahmad Termizi Abdullah appeared for Elegant Advisory.
Hafarizam submitted that the matter could not be argued in the court as the issue in this case had been litigated and decided in an earlier suit filed by four sub-contractors against Umno.
There was also no privity of contract in this case, he added.
Ahmad Termizi however responded that based on the facts of the case, there was a valid contract between the parties in accordance with section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950.
He also said that there was no overlapping suit here as the earlier case involved different plaintiffs and different invoices of payment.
Oleh Hafiz Yatim
Election campaign material supplier Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd who is suing Umno over a RM218 million breach of contract was today allowed to change its statement of claim to name a new defendant.
Following this, the company replaced Umno’s former treasurer Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi with former Umno administration and finance secretary Ishak Abdul Rahman as the new defendant.
The company was also ordered by Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Anandham Kasinater to pay costs of RM5,000 within 14 days to Abdul Azim for wrongly naming him as a defendant. The present Umno treasurer is Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah.
Anandham, who heard the matter in chambers, also fixed next Thursday, Sept 10, to decide on Umno’s application to strike out the suit.
Elegant Advisor had filed the suit against Umno in June 2008 claiming RM218,013,475 as compensation from Umno for supplying election campaign materials for the 2004 general election.
The materials include posters, banners, buntings, flags, souvenirs, mineral waters and other transportation costs.
In July last year, Elegant Advisory obtained a judgment in default against Abdul Azim after his representatives were not present in court. However, Abdul Azim managed to set aside the order on Jan 21 this year.
At the same time, the court also ruled that the company should have named another Umno public office bearer and not the party’s treasurer as defendant. This was the cause for the company to amend its defendants’ list today.
Was there a contract?
Umno was represented by Mohd Hafarizam Harun while Ahmad Termizi Abdullah appeared for Elegant Advisory.
Hafarizam submitted that the matter could not be argued in the court as the issue in this case had been litigated and decided in an earlier suit filed by four sub-contractors against Umno.
There was also no privity of contract in this case, he added.
Ahmad Termizi however responded that based on the facts of the case, there was a valid contract between the parties in accordance with section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950.
He also said that there was no overlapping suit here as the earlier case involved different plaintiffs and different invoices of payment.
No comments
Post a Comment