A five-member panel led by Judge Datuk Azizah Nawawi set the date after hearing submissions by Muhyiddin's lead counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, while deputy public prosecutors Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin and Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar appeared for the respondent.
"We need more time as the case involved serious issues. Therefore, we defer the decision to Aug 20," said Justice Azizah.
The other judges on the panel are Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli.
Muhyiddin, 77, filed the application last March 27, seeking the court to set aside the Court of Appeal's previous decision to reinstate the four charges against him which the High Court previously struck out.
In the notice of motion, Muhyiddin said the decision of the Court of Appeal was null as it was made without the jurisdiction as required under Section 50(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
Muhyiddin as Prime Minister and president of Bersatu at the time, was charged with using his position for bribes amounting to RM232.5 million from three companies namely Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, Nepturis Sdn Bhd and Mamfor Sdn Bhd and Datuk Azman Yusoff for the party concerned.
He is accused of committing the act at the Prime Minister's Office, Bangunan Perdana Putra, Federal Government Administration Center in Putrajaya between March 1, 2020 and Aug 20, 2021.
The Bersatu president also faces two charges of receiving money from illegal activities amounting to RM195 million from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd which was deposited into Bersatu's CIMB Bank account.
He was charged with committing the offence at CIMB Bank Menara KL Branch, Jalan Stesen Sentral between Feb 25 and July 16, 2021 and between Feb 8 and July 8, 2022.
Earlier, Hisyam submitted that this was a fit and proper case for review as there were no other legal avenues nor recourses available for his client, but to seek the aid of this court to rectify the injustice that had arisen from the impugned decision.
"In a nutshell, the failure of justice resulting from the impugned decision is so grave and apparent on the face of the records that it warrants the review intervention of this court," he said.
Hisyam also submitted that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to reopen an appeal which it had already been determined to avoid real injustice in exceptional circumstances.
"The Appeals Court had powers to correct wrong decisions to ensure justice between the litigants involved and to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice," he added.
Meanwhile, Wan Shaharuddin argued that the Court of Appeal panel had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of appeals, including the appeal by the respondent (prosecution) under Rule 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 concerning the release of the applicant.
"This review application is an abuse of the court process. Therefore, I request the court to dismiss this review application and return this case to the Sessions Court for trial," he said
-- BERNAMA
