The Kuala Lumpur Syariah High Court has accepted Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib's preliminary objection to his former wife's move to get bank officers to testify today as witnesses in her matrimonial claims against Bekir.
Lawyers representing Shahnaz Abdul Majid (right)had summoned the bank officers to verify certain documents from the bank and not testify or be cross-examined by the other side.
They made the move in an application under Section 93 of the Syariah Federal Territory Procedures Act, that allows them to summon anybody for documentation purposes with the other party not being given the right to cross-examine.
Bekir's lawyers Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar and Saadiah Din objected to the application on the grounds they were only informed of the development today and that they needed to cross-examine the witnesses called.
Syariah High Court judge Mohamad Abdullah allowed the objection in the interest of justice for both parties.
Lawyers representing Shahnaz Abdul Majid (right)had summoned the bank officers to verify certain documents from the bank and not testify or be cross-examined by the other side.They made the move in an application under Section 93 of the Syariah Federal Territory Procedures Act, that allows them to summon anybody for documentation purposes with the other party not being given the right to cross-examine.
Bekir's lawyers Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar and Saadiah Din objected to the application on the grounds they were only informed of the development today and that they needed to cross-examine the witnesses called.
Syariah High Court judge Mohamad Abdullah allowed the objection in the interest of justice for both parties.
'Allow other side to cross-examine'
Justice Mohamad also ordered Shahnaz's lawyers to apply to call the bank officers as proper witnesses so the other side could cross-examine them.
Shahnaz's lawyers Rafie Mohd Shafie and Akbardin Abdul Kader protested and asked the court to review its ruling, since Section 93 gives them the grounds to do so.
Rafie (left) argued that before the judge could step down (from presiding) over their objection, he could review his own decision, and that at this stage the plaintiff had the discretion on how it could conduct its case.
Zainul Rijal said if Shahnaz's lawyers were not satisfied with the ruling, they could always seek a review.
However, Justice Mohamad maintained his decision and granted a short adjournment for Shahnaz's lawyers to decide on their next course of action.
Shahnaz is seeking RM400 in million matrimonial assets and gift from Bekir following their divorce.
She had already testified that her husband, who is the son of Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud, had RM700 million in his foreign accounts and many millions more in local banks.
Shahnaz had previously testified that her former husband had spent in excess of RM750,000 on a single charge card in the first six months of this year.
However, the documents she tendered to the court were only marked for identification and not as evidence, on grounds that she was not the maker of the documents.
Shahnaz's lawyers Rafie Mohd Shafie and Akbardin Abdul Kader protested and asked the court to review its ruling, since Section 93 gives them the grounds to do so.
Rafie (left) argued that before the judge could step down (from presiding) over their objection, he could review his own decision, and that at this stage the plaintiff had the discretion on how it could conduct its case.Zainul Rijal said if Shahnaz's lawyers were not satisfied with the ruling, they could always seek a review.
However, Justice Mohamad maintained his decision and granted a short adjournment for Shahnaz's lawyers to decide on their next course of action.
Shahnaz is seeking RM400 in million matrimonial assets and gift from Bekir following their divorce.
She had already testified that her husband, who is the son of Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud, had RM700 million in his foreign accounts and many millions more in local banks.
Shahnaz had previously testified that her former husband had spent in excess of RM750,000 on a single charge card in the first six months of this year.
However, the documents she tendered to the court were only marked for identification and not as evidence, on grounds that she was not the maker of the documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.