Judge Zainon binti MOhd. Ali & her clowning glory

E-mail :yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au
Blog : http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com

I am writing on this blogsite and I assume that most of the readers will be LAWYERS. I will state only the relevant facts to keep the discussion short.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is the laughing stock of the entire lawyer community, she awarded to the same respondents BOTH their applications for security for costs and later, upon payment by petitioner of the RM.60,000 ordered by her as security for costs, she again awarded to the same respondents an order for striking out of petition. It is a disgrace that a high court judge can be so ignorant of the law and logic that she could find herself doing such an ILLITERATE thing. I was trained in the LAW at the University of Singapore, a most outstanding university.

I spoke to one of my former classmate who is now a retired Judge, and he said that when an order is made for striking out, that order puts an end to the petition. THAT WOULD BE TRUE IF THE APPLICATION for striking out was made IN THE NORMAL WAY i.e. the application for striking out must PRECEDE the application for security for costs, It is logically and has always been the case that litigants MAKE THEIR APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT first in time and if their application fails then SUCH LITIGANT WILL GO ON TO APPEAL; followed by the litigant going on to make a subsequent application for security for costs (if their appeal for striking out fails too). This is the normal sequence of process. This is the normal process because LOGIC DICTATES IT TO BE as I will discuss in my next paragraph.

In my wife's case all 6Respondents, together applied for security for costs in the sum of RM.650,000; the 6 respondents being 1st Respondent, the respondent company, represented by their Secretary Mr Kwong Sea Yoon (one of the Perjurors; 2nd Respondent, Wong Kem Chen, 3rd Respondent, Stephen Lim Cheng ban, need only mention 6th Respondent, Harris Onn bin Hussein Onn, son of the late PM, Tun Hussein Onn. ( I mention Harris Onn bin Hussein because Harris Onn is the son of a former PM and now a lawyer in the Firm of Skrine & Co.and it is obvious that it is he who has the influence to cause Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to pervert the course of justice.).

The most important fact that I want readers to bear in mind is that all 6 respondents jointly applied for an order for security for costs first in time and then when petitioner paid up the RM.60,000, security for costs; and later in time (ie.after the payment of the RM.60,000) Stephen Lim Cheng Ban went on to apply for an order to strike out said petition. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had applied for striking out said petition because he had no defence bearing in mind the rule in Company law grounded in the Court of Appeal case of Kelepa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. V. Yeoh Kim Leng (1991) which states that no share issued by the directors UNSUPPORTED BY A VALID COMPANY RESOLUTION CAN BE VALID. Put in another way, any share that is issued by the directors that is unsupported by a valid company resolution authorising such issue is void. My wife’s pleading stated that “she had never ever passed any company resolution in company with the only other promoter, director and share holder, Lim Cheng Ban whatsoever. This statement is clear that except for the two shares issued to the only two promoters & directors of the company, namely Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Lim Choi Yin (PETITIONER IN THIS CASE) there is no other share holders whatsoever, as laid by the case law embodied in the case of Kelepa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd.
That being the facts prevailing at all times, the 6 respondents applied for security for costs in the sum of RM.650,000. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali trimmed down their request to the sum of RM60,000 and petitioner paid this sum into the hands of the 6 respondents. PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT NONE OF THE LITIGANTS EVER APPEALED AGAINST THE ORDER MADE FOR THE AWARD OF SECURITY FOR COSTS IN THE SUM OF RM.60,000. This means all the litigants had accepted the decision of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. THERE WAS NO APPEAL WHATSOEVER. The most important point that need to be mentioned, at this stage is the fact that all 6 respondents HAD FUCKING ENFORCED THEIR FUCKING ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, AND PETITIONER HAD PAID UP THE WHOLE OF THE RM.60,000 AND THE RESPONDENTS HAD ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT.

Please take note that at the time when the order for security for costs was enforced by all 6 respondents, by the payment of RM.60,000, THERE WAS NO ORDER TO STRIKE OUT IN PLACE; therefore the order for security for costs face no impediment to its validity. The order for security for costs is still alive and valid because up to today there is no order to invalidate or set aside respondents’ order for security for costs and their enforcement of their award of order for security for costs.

Having enforced their ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, respondents do not have any legal recourse whatsoever to proceed to further apply for an order for striking out. THERE IS NO SUCH COURT PROCESS THAT RESPONDENTS CAN SUPPORT THEIR APPLICATION AND JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAS NO POWERS OR JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THEIR APPLICATION. This shows how ignorant of the law Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is of the LAW.

An Order for security for costs IS ALREADY RECOGNITION THAT THE PETITION IS A VIABLE ON, and that upon payment of the RM.60,000 the petition will be set down for trial. Having taken the RM>60,000 respondents cannot turn around and say OOOPS ! I Change my mind. There is no OOOPS ! in Law. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali does not have the powers to entertain respondents’ application for striking out in these circumstances because EQUITY requires that a litigant MUST COME TO COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS; respondents on the facts of our case cannot come to court with claen hands because they have enforced their order for security for costs and taken the money THAT IS DESIGNATED AS MONEY FOR COSTS OF THE TRIAL. It is merely security for costs AND NOT COSTS; this is where judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali shows her ignorance of the LAW. There cannot be court costs without a trial, therefore, the RM.60,000 CANNOT BE DISBURSED UNTIL & WHEN THERE IS A TRIAL. This distinction between security for costs and COSTS was not understood by Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali and I believe it is because she IS NOT FLUENT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The question that I want to ask the Malaysian Government is, “how do you expect a judge to rule correctly in the English Common Law field when she can hardly understand & differentiate the difference between COURT COSTS and SECURITY FOR COSTS. They are two different concepts.

Putting the above proposition in very simple terms Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali as the arbitrator in a dispute between the 6 respondents in this petition on the one hand, and Petitioner as the opposing party. An agreement through the arbitration of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had been reached and Petitioner agrees to pay up said RM.60,000 as security for costs and petitioner did pay up said RM.60,000. CAN JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI AT THE INSTIGATION OF STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN SAYS SHE (JUDGE) IS CHANGING HER MIND; SHE WILL ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO KEEP THE SUM PAID BY PETITIONER OF SAID rm60,000, but petitioner’s case is struck out. Is this not what Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had done ? The Law does not allow for any OOOPS! I made a mistake; but Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali does not know this !

JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI is a half cooked, half baked LAWYER, she is just over her head and the Malaysian Government should relief her of her agony. SHE NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN BEING MALAY TO KNOW THE LAW. She needs to know English at least.

If you are objective and if you will consider the status of my wife’s Petition at this very moment, you will observe that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s first Order awarding to 6 respondents their application for security for costs of RM.60,000 IS STILL ALIVE and due to the criminal conduct of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali she has enforced THAT PART OF THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS THAT BENEFITS THE 6 RESPONDENTS but suppressed the part of the same order for security for costs that confers petitioner’s RIGHT TO A TRIAL OF THE PETITION. It is indeed sad that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali lacked the intelligence to realise that she is perpetrating a nonsense.

A High Court of any civilised nation cannot make a court order that is a nonsense; one that allows one side of the litigation to enforce said court order, while suppressing the other side to enforce her side of the same order for security for costs.

DEAR JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI YOU ARE A DUMB ARSED OF BELOW AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE.