JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS LAW ILLITERATE

SECURITY FOR COSTS; is that not scarry ? What modern nation could accommodate such an utter disgrace ? I will relate the facts that even a 1st yeaThe utter incompetance of this particular judge in the LAW and her total lack of fluency of the English Language thunders out of the night sky like thunder clap. This judge DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COSTS AND SECURITY FOR COSTS. A Judge sitting on the bench of the Court of Appeal WHO DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COSTS AND r undergraduate of the Uitm can understand.

This woman Judge awarded security for costs of Rm.60,000 against my wife in her ORIGINATING PETITION, which my wife paid into the hands of solicitors of the respondents. This would entitle my wife to proceed to trial as a matter of cause, but instead of doing what the LAW requires her to set the petition for trial, judge instead proceeded to APPROVE RESPONDENTS' 2ND APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION. In all of legal history there was never ever been a judge who was that incompetant and so illiterate in the LAW. There are 2 reasons in logic and common sense that says such incompetance has never until now ever been committed by a real judge. :

(a)security for costs is a deposit paid by the petitioner as a SECURED GUARANTEE FOR RESPONDENTS' COSTS, and is only disbursed if Petitioner loses her Petition. Therefore this payment is only a contingent payment because if my wife won her case she then becomes entitled to her costs and return of her security for costs. This particular judge approved her 2nd and opposing and conplicting order to strike out "IN TERMS", meaning that Petitioner is to bear the costs of the Respondents, even although according to this judge said Petition is void of all legal content. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, foolishly and ignorantly and without understanding the subtle consequences of her action (out of ignorance of the LAW) THOUGHT THAT SHE COULD TAKE THE COSTS UNDER HER ORDER TO STRIKE OUT FROM MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS, under the order for security for costs. The reason why she cannot achieve her intention is because, to take the costs OUT OF MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS, THE COSTS MUST HAVE BEEN TRUELY GENERATED FROM A TRIAL OF THE ORIGINATING PETITION. If there is no fucking trial of the ORIGINATING PETITION then there cannot be any costs much less to take it out of my wife's security for costs. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali did not know this ! She was just LAW ILLITERATE AND SHE IS NOT FLUENT IN ENGLISH. Therefor incapable of knowing that she CANNOT DO WHAT SHE INTENDED.

(b)she ALREADY APPROVED RESPONDENTS' APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, which translate in the LAW AS JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD FOUND IN HER APPROVAL OF RESPONDENTS' APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS TO BE A VALID AND LEGALLY ENFORCABLE PETITIONER'S CLAIM. It is fucking logic and commonsense that once she had found that Petitioner had a valid cause of action, she cannot again in the same matter finds that Petitioner had no valid cause of action. This part of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali's action CONSTITUTES FUCKING ABUSE OF HER JUDICIAL POWERS. If the Anti-Corruption Agency has cause to investigate the PM and DPM for abuse of powers, then Judge's action in her adjudication of my wife's case is PRIME CANDIDATE.