PUTRAJAYA — The Federal Court has set Aug 6 to hear a review application brought by Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan concerning their tort of misfeasance in public office lawsuit against former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Dr Mahathir, 92, and Khairuddin, 55, former Batu Kawan Umno vice-chief wants the Federal Court to review its earlier decision in refusing to grant them leave to appeal against the High Court and Court of Appeal’s decisions to strike out the suit.
The matter came up for case management before Federal Court deputy registrar Wan Fatimah Zaharah Wan Yussof today.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla representing Dr Mahathir and Khairuddin told reporters that the review application was filed on April 26, this year.
He said during the case management proceeding, counsel Caleb Goh for Najib had requested for extension of time to file affidavit.
Dr Mahathir, Khairuddin and former Langkawi Wanita Umno member Anina Saadudin sued Najib on March 23, 2016, accusing him (Najib) of having committed misfeasance in public office and acting in breach of his fiduciary duty over the management of sovereign investment fund 1MDB.
On April 28 last year, the High Court allowed Najib’s application to strike out the suit, ruling that the prime minister was not a public officer but a member of the administration.
On Aug 30, last year, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by Dr Mahathir, Khairuddin and Anina, 43, prompting them to file an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
On Feb 27, this year, the Federal Court three-man bench led by Chief Justice Tun Raus Sharif dismissed Dr Mahathir and Khairuddin’s applications for leave to appeal.
Anina’s application for leave to appeal was struck out by the Federal Court on April 16, this year.
Mohamed Haniff said the review application was filed on two grounds namely there was a likelihood of bias as Justice Raus had sat on the panel and did not recuse himself following the extension of his tenure as Chief Justice although he had reached the mandatory retirement age of 66 years.
The second ground is that Justice Raus had applied the wrong principle under section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 in rejecting the leave to appeal. — BERNAMA