Thu11232017

LAST_UPDATEThu, 23 Nov 2017 9am

YAPEIM, Six Others Succeed In Striking Out Pemangkin Lawsuit

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 10 – The Malaysian Islamic Economic Development Foundation (Yapeim) and six others succeeded in their application to strike out a lawsuit filed by Pemangkin (Orphans/Poor Children Development Foundation) for alleged misconduct and attempting to close down the foundation.

High Court Judicial Commissioner Datin Faizah Jamaludin made the decision after allowing the application of the seven defendants on the grounds that the issue was not debatable, trivial and inconvenient.

As such, the court revoked the writ of summons and statement of claim filed by Pemangkin against the seven defendants who were the second to eighth defendants, without costs.

However, the lawsuit against Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom as the first defendant, stayed as he did not file an application to strike out the summons.

The court fixed Dec 6 for further case management of the suit against Jamil Khir.

The two Pemangkin founders, Datuk Mohd Yusoff A.Bakar, 65 and Ahmad Fazil Hashim, 61, and Pemangkin as the first to third plaintiffs filed the suit on March 1, 2017 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registrar's Office via Messrs Azlina Darus & Co.

The plaintiffs who were represented by lawyers Megat Abdul Munir Megar Abdullah Rafaie and Shahir Tahir named Jamil Khir, 56; Datuk Shahlan Ismail, 59; Mohd Yusof Abd Rahman, 62; Mokhtar Abdul Razak, 59; Datuk Abibullah Samsudin, 58; Sharina Ramli, Normala Embi, 54; and Yapeim as the first to eighth defendants.

In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs applied for a declaration that Pemangkin is a stand-alone entity and not a subsidiary of any company, foundation or other organisation, including Yapeim.

They also demanded for a declaration that the orders and action by Jamil Khir and the seven other defendants to close down Pemangkin was unlawful and illegal and that the appointment of the fifth defendant as chief executive officer of the third plaintiff was null and void.

-- BERNAMA