Khalid's appeal to recuse High Court judge allowed
The appellate court has today unanimously allowed the Selangor menteri besar’s appeal to recuse High Court judge Rohana Yusof from presiding in his suit against Bank Islam and vice versa .
The appellate court has today unanimously allowed the Selangor menteri besar’s appeal to recuse High Court judge Rohana Yusof from presiding in his suit against Bank Islam and vice versa.
Following this, the matter will be heard before another judge.
The dispute between Khalid Ibrahim and the bank was over Khalid’s purchase of Guthrie Bhd’s shares which he made via a loan with Bank Islam through the Al Bai Bithamin Ajil Facility (BBA), and the bank disposing of the shares after the former Guthrie chief executive officer was allegedly unable to pay it.
The three-member panel found there is a real danger of bias.
The panel was led by Justice KN Segara. The other judges were Justices Sulaiman Daud and Jeffrey Tan.
Lawyers for Khalid argued that as Justice Rohana was the former deputy director of the Islamic Banking and Takaful Department in Bank Negara, she may have communicated on Khalid’s matter with Bank Islam’s former chief operating officer Fazlur Abdul Rahman.
Khalid was represented by counsels Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (right), Matthew Patrick Thomas and Asmah Yunus, while Bank Islam is represented by senior lawyer Tommy Thomas.
Malik had at the High Court applied to recuse Justice Rohana from hearing the case, but the judge dismissed the application, resulting in the appeal.
On Aug 21, last year Justice Rohana had also entered a summary judgment against Khalid in the RM66 million suit, ruling the suit need not go through a full trial, and ordered the Selangor MB to pay the amount.
However, on appeal at the Court of Appeal, Khalid had on March 10, this year managed to set aside the summary judgment.
Background to the suit
Khalid in filing the suit in 2007 had sought:
- A declaration that there exists a collateral contract between Khalid and the bank on the BBA loan agreement;
- A declaration that the BBA facility in isolation and without collateral contract is null and void; and
- A declaration that Bank Islam has breached the collateral contract or the BBA facility.
He also sought general damages, following the breach of the collateral contract and the bank’s wrongful sale of the shares.
A week after Khalid filed the suit, Bank Islam filed its counter-claim based on the RM66 million losses it suffered following the shortfall sell.
Khalid, however, claimed the price of the Guthrie shares which were sold some time before November 2006, could have been sold at a higher price when the share appreciated in early 2007.
He said the bank had sold his shares without his consent and that the sale was done prematurely without his knowledge, resulting in the (RM66 million) shortfall for Bank Islam and also a financial loss to himself.
Had Bank Islam followed instructions, said Khalid, he and the bank would have made a substantial profit as Guthrie shares were appreciating as a result of a merger exercise.
