Kuala lumpur: The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on an application by six individuals, including former Undang Luak Sungai Ujong Datuk Mubarak Thahak, to stay the committal proceedings against them pending the disposal of their appeal. A three-man bench comprising Justices Datuk Alwi Abdul Wahab, Datuk Dr Shahnaz Sulaiman, and Datuk Amarjeet Singh set September 14 for case management to determine the date for the decision. The court has also extended the ad interim stay of the committal proceedings granted to the individuals until a decision is reached on their stay application.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, a different three-man bench of the Court of Appeal had granted the ad interim stay on July 29 pending the hearing on the stay application. The bench heard arguments from counsel Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud, representing the applicants, and lawyer Steven Thiru, representing the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (DKU) and its secretary, Raja Norazli Raja Nordin.
The six individuals, comprising four Undangs and two chieftains, have appealed against a Seremban High Court decision granting the DKU and Raja Norazli leave to commence committal proceedings against them for allegedly breaching an injunction order. Their appeal is scheduled for case management on October 19. The six applicants include Mubarak, Undang Luak of Jelebu Datuk Maarof Mat Rashad, Undang Luak of Johol Datuk Muhammed Abdullah, Undang Luak of Rembau Datuk Abdul Rahim Yasin, Tunku Besar Tampin Tunku Syed Razman Tunku Syed Idrus Al-Qadri, and Shahbandar Sungai Ujong Datuk Seri Badarudin Abdul Khalid.
In his submissions, Awang Armadajaya argued that if the stay is not granted, the applicants' appeal could become ineffective. He highlighted critical legal issues for the Court of Appeal to consider, including determining whether the High Court or the Special Court had jurisdiction over the injunction and committal proceedings. He stated that if the Court of Appeal rules that only the Special Court had jurisdiction, the case must be brought before the Special Court, rendering all High Court proceedings invalid.
Steven Thiru urged the court to dismiss the stay application and allow the committal proceedings in the High Court to continue without delay. He emphasized that established legal principles require contempt proceedings, once commenced, to be prioritized over other proceedings, and suggested that the applicants seek an urgent hearing for their appeal. He argued that the applicants had shown disrespect to the court and interfered with the administration of justice, and should not be granted relief under Section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act.
The legal dispute began on May 5 when Mubarak and five others filed an originating summons at the High Court to obtain a copy of the minutes from a special DKU meeting held on April 17. The minutes included a decision to remove Mubarak as Undang Luak of Sungai Ujong. On June 5, the High Court granted an ad interim injunction to maintain the existing composition of the DKU and Raja Norazli's position as secretary, pending jurisdiction and justiciability issues. However, Raja Norazli claimed that media reports indicated that the plaintiffs, particularly Maarof, were involved in appointing the Yang Dipertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan under Article 11 of the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution 1959, despite the injunction order. This led the DKU and Raja Norazli to seek leave from the High Court to commence committal proceedings for contempt of court against the six individuals.