PUTRAJAYA: Former Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Datuk Zuraida Kamaruddin has been ordered to pay only RM100,000 from RM10 million to PKR for breaching the party bond.
However, a three-member bench comprising Court of Appeal judges Datuk See Mee Chun, Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, in a unanimous decision, upheld a High Court ruling that Zuraida had breached the party bond.
Justice See when reading the judgment said that the RM10 million compensation imposed by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Zuraida was unreasonable.
On June 23, 2023, High Court Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir ordered the former Ampang Member of Parliament to pay RM10 million after ruling in favour of PKR in the lawsuit against her.
The judge found the bond to be a valid and binding contract.
The suit was filed by PKR secretary-general Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail on Sept 28, 2020, on behalf of the party to claim RM10 million from Zuraida for allegedly breaching the bond binding her to the party.
In the statement of claim, PKR claimed that Zuraida had signed a bond on April 25, 2018, binding her to pay RM10 million to the party as stated in the bond’s terms and conditions.
PKR claimed that Zuraida agreed to pay the party RM10 million at the latest seven days, in the event of several incidents, after winning the election on a PKR ticket, including if she resigns from the party or joins other political parties or becomes an independent elected representative.
The party claimed that on or around Feb 24, 2020, Zuraida in a statement with 10 PKR Members of Parliament (MPs) announced their resignation from the party without her resigning as Ampang MP, and eventually formed a new bloc known as Perikatan Nasional (PN).
Zuraida, in her statement of defence, claimed that she was forced to sign the bond with the party to become its candidate in the 14th General Election (GE14) in 2018.
On the issue raised by the appellant’s counsel that RM10 million compensation was unreasonable, Justice See said the Appeals Court found that RM10 million cannot be construed as reasonable compensation.
The judge further said although there was a legitimate interest of the party to maintain its political position, the RM10 million is out of proportion to such interest of the party in the enforcement of the obligation of the bond.
“As explained by the respondent (PKR), the RM10 million is not confined to one parliamentary seat, as a national party the damage is done to all 222 divisions.
“Therefore, it is not reasonable for the appellant to take on the liability of the RM10 million single-handedly when the formula of the RM10 million was based on 222 divisions for the party at a national level. Seen in this light, the amount is also not proportionate,“ she said.
Justice See also said that the amount was not proportionate as the undisputed 22 months of the appellant’s service as a member of parliament had not been considered.
After considering the evidence and the principles of legitimate interest and proportionality, the court found that the RM10 million was not reasonable compensation and was excessive, unfair, and not proportionate to the legitimate interest it aimed to protect, she said.
She said the fact and finding remains that the appellant breached the bond and it follows that the respondent is entitled to some reasonable compensation, but not RM10 million.
“It behoves upon us to determine what the reasonable compensation ought to be. We are of the opinion that such an amount ought to consider the maximum amount to be spent in GE-14 for a parliamentary seat which is RM200,000, the appellant’s 22 months as a member of parliament and the contribution of the appellant in the party and the GE-14 election campaign.
“We think that these are valid factors which go towards proportionality. Towards this end, we find RM100,000 to be reasonable compensation. Therefore, we find that the High Court judge was wrong to have allowed the respondent’s claim of RM10 million.
“However, we cannot ignore the breach of the bond by the appellant and we vary the amount payable to RM100,000. The appeal is partly allowed and the decision of the High Court is varied to that extent. We award costs of RM40,000 to the appellant subject to allocatur, she said.
Meanwhile, counsel William Leong Jee Keen and Navpreet Singh, representing the PKR when met, said they would seek their client’s instructions on whether to appeal against today’s verdict.
