Hearing of jeweller’s lawsuit against Rosmah postponed.
The High Court today dismissed with cost the application of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor for a stay application against Lebanese company Global Royalty Trading SAL.
Judicial Commissioner Wong Chee Lin made the order in chambers and fixed May 21 to set the dates for the court case.
Senior federal counsel Narkunavathy Suderason, who appeared for the Government, explained why the court order could not be met as the process to obtain access to the jewellery, which is kept in a vault in Bank Negara, takes time.
Rosmah’s lawyers contended that until they confirm the seizure of the 44 pieces, Rosmah cannot put forward her defence.
The plaintiff’s lawyer Datuk David Gurupatham argued that it was a civil case and Rosmah has not sought an indemnity against the government nor any orders for production of seizure list.
He said the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak was purely going on unconfirmed possibility it has been seized.
He said on the possibility of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (Amla) being applied, the point had been decided by the court when the court dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out the case, Amla will only apply if Rosmah can prove the 44 pieces of jewellery were seized.
The plaintiff’s lawyer also argued that all the witnesses were ready, the plaintiff had made arrangements to come to Malaysia and therefore had committed time, cost of travel and they were also planning to subpoena investigating officer Supt Foo Wei Min to give evidence.
Having heard the submissions, Wong dismissed Rosmah’s application with cost to the plaintiff and she has to pay costs on a full indemnity basis.
On the issue of the trial, the defendant told the court she required time to prepare.
Narkunavathy also agreed with the defendant that after a lapse of one year she will know for sure whether police have the 44 pieces of jewellery worth US$14.79mil (RM60mil) or not.
Gurupatham argued that this issue is not a concern for the plaintiff as the defendant had confirmed receiving the goods and if she cannot return it, she has to pay for it and the trial should go on.
Having heard submissions on this point, Wong decided to vacate the trial date on March 4 and 5 to May 21 to fix trial dates. – The Sun Daily