PUTRAJAYA – The Court of Appeal here today ordered businessman J.R. Deepak Jaikishan, his brother, and their company to pay RM40,000 in total costs as a result of their lawyers discharging themselves from representing them in the appeals over a lawsuit filed against Datuk Seri Najib Razak, his wife, and three others.
A three-member bench led by justice Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah awarded costs of RM10,000 to each respondent, considering that the change of lawyers was made at the eleventh hour and that it was the second time they sought to change lawyers.
Zabidin said in view of the fact that Deepak’s lawyers have been discharged and the appeals have to be postponed, costs of RM10,000 to each respondent are appropriate – namely to the former prime minister and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, former Lembaga Tabung Haji chairman Datuk Seri Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim, Najib’s brother Datuk Ahmad Johari Abdul Razak, and Najib’s former principal private secretary Tan Sri Shukry Mohd Salleh.
The other two judges presiding on the bench were justices Datuk Abu Bakar Jais and Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali.
Earlier, Zabidin allowed lawyer Magita Hari Mogan’s application for a discharge from acting for Deepak, his brother J. Rajesh, and their company Radiant Splendour Sdn Bhd in the four appeals.
She told the court that the discharge order was filed on November 26, citing failure to obtain any instructions from her clients.
Earlier, Najib and Rosmah’s lawyer Datuk David Matthews, as well as lawyer Dhinesh Bhaskaran representing Ahmad Johari, lawyer Porres Royan appearing for Azeez, and lawyer Farah Shuhadah Razali for Shukry, sought RM10,000 in costs after Magita informed the court of the filing of the discharge order.
Zabidin then directed for the case to be sent for case management before the appellate court’s deputy registrar today, who subsequently fixed December 14 for another case management.
The appellants – Deepak, Rajesh, and Radiant Splendour – were appealing against the high court’s decision on January 14 last year, which struck out their lawsuit against the respondents.
In the suit, the appellants sought general, exemplary, and aggravated damages, alleging a conspiracy that led to the two brothers and their company suffering losses.
They also claimed that all the respondents had committed tort of conspiracy, fraud, malfeasance, and abuse of process. – Bernama, November 29, 2021
