PUTRAJAYA, Nov 4 — Former Undang Luak of Sungai Ujong Datuk Mubarak Thahak and five others failed to halt committal proceedings against them after the Court of Appeal dismissed their application today for a stay pending the disposal of their appeal.
A three-member panel comprising Justices Datuk Alwi Abdul Wahab, Datuk Shahnaz Sulaiman, and Datuk Amarjeet Singh unanimously dismissed the application and ordered the six appellants to pay RM60,000 in costs to the respondents: Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (DKU) and its secretary Raja Norazli Raja Nordin.
The six applicants, comprising four Undangs and two chieftains, had appealed against the Seremban High Court's decision granting the DKU and Raja Norazli leave to initiate committal proceedings against them for allegedly breaching an injunction order.
The six appellants, besides Mubarak, are the Undang Luak of Jelebu Datuk Maarof Mat Rashad, the Undang Luak of Johol Datuk Muhammed Abdullah, the Undang Luak of Rembau Datuk Abdul Rahim Yasin, Tunku Besar Tampin Tunku Syed Razman Tunku Syed Idrus Al-Qadri, and the Shahbandar of Sungai Ujong Datuk Seri Badarudin Abdul Khalid.
Justice Amarjeet said the committal proceedings directly involved the court's jurisdiction to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice and to preserve the court’s authority in the public interest.
“In view of their nature, committal applications ought to be dealt with expeditiously in the interest of justice,” he said when delivering the bench’s decision.
The issue raised by the six concerning their purported immunity should be determined after, and not before, the substantive hearing of the committal proceedings.
"The very issue ought to be fully ventilated and determined at the committal proceedings during the substantive stage,” Justice Amarjeet said.
He noted that the court found the appellants had not approached the matter with clean hands, as they sought equitable relief while simultaneously pursuing a separate judicial review application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on the same issues.
More importantly, the appellants failed to disclose to the High Court the existence of the injunction order and that leave to commence committal proceedings had already been granted against them.
The legal dispute began on May 5, when Mubarak and five others filed an originating summons in the High Court to obtain a copy of the minutes of a special DKU meeting held on April 17. The meeting minutes included a decision to remove Mubarak as the Undang Luak of Sungai Ujong.
On June 5, the High Court granted an ad interim injunction to preserve the status quo, maintaining the existing composition of the DKU and Raja Norazli’s position as its secretary, pending the determination of issues relating to jurisdiction and justiciability, or until further order of the court.
However, Raja Norazli claimed that media reports on the same day showed that the plaintiffs, particularly Maarof, had been involved in the purported appointment of the Yang Dipertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan under Article 11 of the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution 1959, despite the injunction order still being in force.
He alleged the appointment defied the court order, prompting the DKU and himself to seek leave from the High Court to commence committal proceedings against the six individuals for contempt of court.
