KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today dismissed lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla’s RM12.5 million claim against Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia and three others, ruling there was no contractual basis for payment.
Justice Datuk Akhtar Tahir held that Haniff’s legal services to Bersatu between 2016 and 2020 were rendered voluntarily and not pursuant to any fee agreement.
“This is evidence that when this party was formed, voluntary services were rendered by various parties, which included lawyers,“ he said.
The judge found that the plaintiff’s advisory role in the formation of Bersatu constituted a collective political effort undertaken for the broader benefit of Malaysians.
Akhtar noted that Mohamed Haniff did not raise any claim for payment or issue any billing during the material period, with the first invoice only submitted in January 2021.
“This supports the defendants’ version that there was no agreement to pay for the services,“ the judge stated.
The court found that the plaintiff had rendered his services on a voluntary basis without any payment arrangement.
As a result, this court dismisses the plaintiff’s claim with costs of RM150,000,“ the judge said.
Mohamed Haniff commenced the action in July 2021, naming Bersatu, its president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, then secretary-general Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin, and treasurer Datuk Mohamed Salleh Bajuri as defendants.
He claimed that he had provided legal services to the party since its formation in 2016 under the leadership of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
The plaintiff further contended that he represented Bersatu in proceedings involving allegations of kleptocracy, corruption, and abuse of power against then prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Mohamed Haniff also asserted that he had provided legal advice and assistance in drafting Bersatu’s constitution and official correspondence.
He stated that he continued to advise Bersatu periodically until February 2020, when the Pakatan Harapan administration collapsed following the ‘Sheraton Move’.
The plaintiff claimed that on Jan 11, 2021, he issued an invoice to Bersatu for legal services rendered between 2016 and Feb 23, 2020.
In their defence, Bersatu and the named office-bearers contended that no agreement for payment existed, asserting that all services were voluntary.
When met after the proceedings, Mohamed Haniff indicated his intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal soon. – Bernama
