RM218mil suit against Umno struck out
(The Star) KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has struck out a suit by an election merchandise supplier against Umno over RM218mil worth of unpaid election materials during the 2004 general election.
High Court (Commercial) Judicial Commissioner K. Anantham ruled that the plaintiff, Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd, had been unable to prove privity of contract between them and the party.
“I am conscious that this court should only strike out a claim when it is satisfied that the claim is obviously unsustainable.
“In my judgment, the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous and vexatious,” he said in his 10-page written judgment yesterday.
He had earlier gave his oral judgment in chambers.
In its writ of summons filed last year, the company claimed that it was involved in supplying election merchandise, transportation and publications, and had supplied Umno with the items and services for the 11th general election in 2004.
It claimed that it had sent invoices for a sum of RM218,013,475 but the defendant had failed to pay up.
It had originally named former Umno treasurer Datuk Seri Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi as the defendant, but later replaced it with former Umno administration and finance secretary Datuk Ishak Abdul Rahman.
Anantham also ruled that it was evident that the plaintiff’s statement of claim did not include material facts necessary to establish a viable legal right enforceable against the defendant, in contract.
He added that the plaintiff was also unable to highlight the terms of any oral contract, and had instead relied on estoppel (a rule of evidence whereby a person is barred from denying the truth of a fact that has already been settled).
“In my judgment, this is a feeble attempt by the plaintiff to overcome a statement of claim which is woefully inadequate on particulars for a claim for the price of goods and services.
“I see no purpose in allowing this monstrous claim for RM218mil to hang over the head of the defendant,” he ruled, adding that the plaintiff plea did not meet all the requirements to satisfy a claim based on Section 71 of the Contract Act.
However, he agreed with the plaintiff’s submission that they were not bound by the principle res judicata, as they were not party to four previous suits which had been litigated and settled upon. Standing for the plaintiff was lawyer Ahmad Termizi Abdullah, while lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun stood as counsel for Umno.
Speaking to reporters after the judgment, Ahmad Termizi said they would appeal the decision.
