The counsel representing former SMK Taun Gusi students who won a civil suit against their absent teacher in 2023 should have written in to inquire about the court-ordered damages payment, said Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar.

Dusuki confirmed to Malaysiakini yesterday that the government did not appeal against the Kota Kinabalu High Court’s order, and that there are procedures that should be followed to obtain the payments.

“The procedure that should be followed (is for) the lawyer to write a letter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) asking for the status of the (court-ordered) payment.

“The AGC will then forward the lawyer’s letter and document, along with the court order, to the Finance Ministry.

“The ministry will issue a form for the plaintiff’s lawyer to fill. Once completed, AGC will forward it again to the Finance Ministry for processing,” he said.

Dusuki (above) was responding to lawyer Sherzali Herza Asli, who claimed that his clients had not received damages from the government following the court order two years ago.

Lawyer Sherzali Herza Asli

Yesterday, he said that the government did not file an appeal against the decision and that there was no application to postpone the court-ordered payments to the plaintiffs Rusiah Sabdarin, Nur Natasha Allisya Hamali, and Calvina Angayung.

Nearly RM18k in interest

The Kota Kinabalu High Court had ordered the government, Education Ministry’s director-general and minister, as well as SMK Taun Gusi’s principal Suid Hanapi and teacher Jainal Jamran to pay RM150,000 to the plaintiffs.

Judge Leonard David Shim had awarded RM50,000 nominal and aggravated damages to each plaintiffs and a separate 5 percent interest per annum from the July 18, 2023, verdict date until the full settlement.

Calvina, who was present alongside Sherizal at yesterday’s press conference, confirmed that a total of RM17,541.67 in interest has accumulated to date.

She and her classmates had sued Jainal over his absenteeism and won the case after the court found they had proven the teacher was frequently absent in the months leading up to their November 2017 examination, with no evidence that he was on leave or engaged in other school activities.

The judge ruled that the defendants breached their statutory duty under the Education Act 1966 and Regulations 3C, 25 and 26 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.