A SUIT brought by 12 plaintiffs led by their lawyer Colin Pereira against Malaysian industrialist and philanthropist Datuk Vinod Sekhar for alleged investments made more than 20 years ago was deemed closed by the High Court today.
Pereira informed the court that the plaintiffs had no further evidence, paving the way for Vinod’s team, led by Senior Counsel Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam, to submit that there is no case to answer as the plaintiffs failed to discharge their legal burden to prove their claim against the defendants.
The development came after the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ application to stay proceedings pending an appeal against an earlier ruling that set aside the subpoena issued to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
The court ordered them to pay a further RM5,000 in costs to the defendants when dismissing their application for the stay.
According to Rajan, the plaintiffs filed the stay application on June 24 to stay the continuation of the trial as they had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court, which allowed Anwar’s application to set aside the subpoena issued to him.
In today's proceedings, Rajan argued that the stay application should be dismissed as the plaintiffs had failed to disclose any special circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings.
He further submitted that the High Court’s decision to set aside the subpoena was made during the course of the trial and was therefore a non-appealable matter.
He also maintained that the court's ruling in setting aside the subpoena was made in the course of the trial and therefore was non-appealable.
The court agreed with the defence counsel's submission that there were no special circumstances to warrant a stay of proceedings and dismissed the stay application with RM5,000 in costs.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's application, the court held that the plaintiffs, having no further evidence to adduce, are deemed to have closed their case.
After a brief stand-down, Rajan submitted a no-case-to-answer as the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the legal burden to prove their claim against the defendants.
“The plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden of proving their claim in accordance with section 101, Evidence Act 1950,” Rajan said.
The court then directed both parties to file their respective submissions and fixed Oct 2 for clarification and oral submissions. – June 26, 2026
