Following a ‘peculiar' decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court not to hear witnesses in a RM500 million lawsuit against the government, the plaintiff has applied for a full trial.

Langkawi R&D Academy Sdn Bhd (Lardac) has named the defence minister (then Najib Abdul Razak), the ministry's secretary-general (then Hashim Meon) and the government in its suit for alleged breach of contract over a project to upgrade F5/E aircraft.

Nine witnesses had been called - five for the plaintiff and the rest from the government for a three-day hearing from April 6.

However, the hearing fizzled out after Justice Abdul Wahab Patail decided not to call the witnesses. This came about after both the plaintiff and defendants agreed to go through submissions.

The verdict was initially due to be delivered on May 14, but was postponed to June 11. Last month, Abdul Wahab was elevated to the Court of Appeal.

M Manogaran, who is representing Lardac, said his client wants a full trial before a verdict is delivered.

He said he had met with Abdul Wahab's secretary last week to ask for a full trial and that the judge responded by requesting a written application.

zaki azmi chief justice installation event 291008 03 Lardac and Manogaran then wrote to Abdul Wahab and Chief Justice Zaki Azmi (left) , applying for a full trial. The letter was faxed to Zaki's office on Friday.

Letters were also sent to the managing judge of the Kuala Lumpur Court, Justice James Foong (also a Federal Court judge), and Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria.

"I was then told by Wahab's secretary that he wanted to decide on whether to have a full trial after hearing our submission," said Manogaran.

"My client feels that only way justice will be served is by going through a full trial, with all the witnesses being able to (testify) and being cross-examined.

"This will be fair to both parties as submissions without the hearing of testimony cannot resolve many serious issues that can only be done through witness statements."

Lardac has claimed that the premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Najib had been briefed about the project and had witnessed the signing of the contract during the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace exhibition in 2001.

jet engine air force rmaf tudm northrop f-5 tiger ii 231209 The statement of claim , filed on Sept 2, 2005, said the contract was to carry out avionics upgrading and refurbishment works involving the first of 10 RMAF Northrop and F5/F fighter jets, which were subsequently grounded on Oct 11, 2001.

The defendants suddenly terminated the contract on Sept 6, 2002 without reasonable grounds, according to Lardac.

It also claimed to have learnt about 'secret dealings' directly with its partner - the UK-based Caledonian Airbone Systems Ltd - to continue with the work.

Lardac is seeking RM48 million in general damages and another RM432 million in future losses, exemplary damages, costs and other reliefs deemed fit by the court.

‘Interests of justice'

Manogaran, who is also Teluk Intan MP, explained that testimony would fortify a case.

"This case has been placed under case management for four years under the same judge, and not allowing witnesses to testify is an injustice. The case was initially fixed for trial for three days and witnesses were called," he said.

"During the hearing, the judge decided to look at the statement of claim and defence statement, which my client felt could have been done during the case-management period. (It) should not have taken this long when Abdul Wahab himself is the presiding judge."

a kugan detention death funeral ummc to puchong 280109 m manogaran Manogaran (left) said his client is not satisfied with the court's decision to disregard the witnesses called, along with their prepared statements which had been filed before the scheduled hearing.

"The statement of claim is not an exhaustive document...we maintain that the witnesses should be called in the interests of justice," he said.

"This is especially to avoid any untoward claim of bias. Furthermore, should the matter go up for appeal, we would have to show the witness statements."

The case is expected to provide a glimpse into the inner workings of the Defence Ministry in awarding contracts to private companies, as well as insight into what went wrong with the F5/E aircraft.