Suit by 10 Gombak voters against Mohamed Azmin to go for full trial next year

This followed High Court Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir's decision in dismissing Mohamed Azmin's application to strike out the suit.

Justice Akhtar also rejected the voters' application to strike out several paragraphs of Mohamed Azmin's statement of defence. The judge made the ruling via online proceedings today.

Counsel N. Yohendra, representing the voters, when confirming the matter to the media via a WhatsApp message, said that the judge fixed June 7, 8, 9 and 10 next year to hear the suit and April 7 for case management.

The judge dismissed Mohamed Azmin's striking out application and also our application to strike out parts of the Gombak MP's statement of defence with costs, he said.

Mohamed Azmin filed the application to strike out the suit on March 12 this year on grounds that the suit did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and regarded it as defamatory, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process, as well as ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

He contended that the suit violated his fundamental right to freedom of association as provided under Article 10 Clause (1) (c) of the Federal Constitution.

The 10 voters, who registered in the Gombak constituency, filed the suit on Nov 27 last year against Mohamed Azmin for alleged deceit and breach of fiduciary duty through the "Sheraton Move" that caused the Pakatan Harapan government to collapse in February the same year.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs, aged between 37 and 65, are seeking, among others, a declaration that Mohamed Azmin, as the Gombak MP, had breached his fiduciary obligations, deceived them during the elections in the constituency as well as breached the representation made to them.

The voters claimed that by breaching these representations, the defendant had violated constitutional rights, especially the principles of parliamentary democracy and representative democracy, which form part of the basic structure of the constitution.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are applying for a declaration that the defendant has breached his fiduciary duties and the duties owed, in addition to deceiving them, and as such are seeking damages, including aggravated or exemplary damages, interests, costs and other orders deemed fit by the court.