Federal Court hears PKR’s argument that Zuraida’s RM10m bond was reasonable; decision reserved

The Federal Court heard PKR's appeal to reinstate the RM10 million payment from Zuraida Kamaruddin, which the Court of Appeal had reduced to RM100,000.

PKR argued that Zuraida admitted the value conferred upon her exceeded RM10 million and that the bond should be considered within the context of political instability.

Zuraida's counsel claimed the bond was not equitably negotiated, asserting that political parties cannot bypass statutory protections against penalty clauses under Section 75 of the Contracts Act.

PUTRAJAYA, Sept 14 — The Federal Court was told today that the High Court’s decision ordering former Ampang MP Datuk Zuraida Kamaruddin to pay RM10 million to Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) for breaching a bond with the party was reasonable.

PKR counsel Ranjit Singh submitted that there was an admission of fact that RM10 million, or a sum exceeding that amount, had been expended on Zuraida.

“Zuraida admitted that the value conferred upon her exceeded RM10 million, while the operative clause fixed RM10 million as the sum payable upon the occurrence of the stipulated events,” he said during PKR’s appeal against a Court of Appeal decision reducing the bond payment from RM10 million to RM100,000.

Ranjit submitted that the appeal ultimately turned on the legal consequence of a contractual admission of value where Section 75 of the Contracts Act is invoked.

“The recital recorded Zuraida’s admission that the value conferred upon her exceeded RM10 million. Section 75 remains the statutory control against penal, oppressive or unconscionable stipulations. But it must be applied to the contract as it stands, including the facts contractually admitted by the parties,” he said.

The counsel submitted that although the bond was contractual in nature, it had been executed against the backdrop of the country’s political landscape at the time, when political coalitions were prevalent, and party-hopping had become a scourge, amid concerns that it could lead to the collapse of governments.

“One must read the bond in a manner that explains why the sum of RM10 million was stipulated, which at first glance may appear excessive. But the reality is, look at what happened. The Sheraton Move led to the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition at the Federal level,” he said. He was assisted by lawyer Navpreet Singh.

Meanwhile, Zuraida’s counsel Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun contended that there was no separate or special category of “political contract” that stood exempt from Section 75 of the Contracts Act.

“The party cannot use its status and position as a political party to bypass statutory protections against penalty clauses. Section 75 of the Act does not cease to apply merely because the contractual obligations arose in the context of a political party.

“To hold otherwise would create, by judicial implication, an exception to Section 75. This court should not countenance such an approach,” said Azhar Azizan, who was assisted by counsel Nizamuddin Hamid.

Azhar said the relationship between a political party and its candidate was, in practical terms, institutional in nature. The individual candidate lacked equal legal bargaining power when negotiating the quantum of a unilateral bond imposed as the condition or price of candidacy.

“This unequal bargaining power is not dependent on the candidate’s seniority or position in the party. The bond demonstrates that it was not an individually negotiated agreement in which the respondent freely negotiated and agreed that RM10 million represented a reasonable measure of compensation in the event of default.

“It was imposed on the respondent by the party,” he said, adding that the RM100,000 imposed by the Court of Appeal was reasonable.

After hearing submissions from both parties, the three-member bench, chaired by Chief Justice Tun Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh and comprising Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Azizah Nawawi and Federal Court Judge Datuk Azmi Ariffin, reserved its decision for a date to be scheduled later.

On June 24, 2025, the Federal Court granted PKR leave to appeal the matter.

This followed the Court of Appeal’s decision on December 11, 2024, when a three-member panel upheld the High Court’s finding that Zuraida had breached the bond, but reduced the quantum payable from RM10 million to RM100,000.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling came after the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, on June 23, 2023, ruled in favour of PKR and ordered Zuraida to pay RM10 million in accordance with the bond’s terms. The presiding judge, Datuk Akhtar Tahir, held that the bond was a valid and binding contract.

The lawsuit had been initiated in 2020 by PKR secretary-general Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail on behalf of the party, claiming that Zuraida had violated the terms of a bond she signed before contesting in the 14th General Election in 2018.

Under the bond, Zuraida, a former Housing and Local Government Minister, was required to pay PKR RM10 million within seven days if she resigned from the party, joined another political party, or became an independent representative after being elected on the party’s ticket. — Bernama

New Lawas Hospital expected to evolve into specialist centre to cut long‑distance referrals, says deputy health minister

Abdul Aziz appointed Deputy Inspector‑General of Police

Sixteen drownings in Pahang this year, Bomba urges public to respect warning signs

Court of Appeal slashes Muhammad Shafee’s damages in Malaysian Bar suit to RM120,000

联邦法院受理了人民公正党的上诉，要求恢复向祖莱达·卡玛鲁丁支付的1000万令吉款项，此前上诉法院已将该款项减少至10万令吉。

人民公正党认为，祖莱达承认她所获得的保释金超过 1000 万令吉，并且应该在政治不稳定的背景下考虑保释金的问题。

祖莱达的律师声称该债券的谈判并不公平，并断言政党不能绕过《合同法》第 75 条规定的针对惩罚性条款的法定保护。

布城，9月14日讯——联邦法院今日获悉，高等法院裁定前安邦国会议员拿督祖莱达·卡玛鲁丁因违反与人民公正党（PKR）的协议而向该党支付1000万令吉赔偿金的判决是合理的。

人民公正党律师兰吉特·辛格提交的证据表明，已承认在祖莱达身上花费了 1000 万令吉，或超过该金额的款项。

“祖莱达承认，她所获得的财产价值超过1000万令吉，而执行条款规定，在发生规定事件时，应支付的金额为1000万令吉，”他在人民公正党就上诉法院将保释金从1000万令吉减少到10万令吉的裁决提出上诉时说道。

Ranjit 认为，上诉最终取决于援引《合同法》第 75 条时，合同承认价值的法律后果。

“庭审记录显示，祖莱达承认她所获得的利益价值超过1000万令吉。第75条仍然是禁止惩罚性、压迫性或不合理条款的法定控制条款。但该条款必须适用于现有的合同，包括双方在合同中承认的事实，”他说道。

律师辩称，虽然该债券具有合同性质，但它是在当时该国的政治背景下签订的，当时政治联盟盛行，政党跳槽已成为一种祸害，人们担心这可能导致政府垮台。

“必须仔细阅读保释书，才能理解为何规定了1000万令吉的金额，乍看之下似乎过高。但事实是，看看发生了什么。喜来登事件导致了联邦层面希望联盟（PH）的垮台，”他说道。他的助手是律师纳夫普里特·辛格。

与此同时，祖莱达的律师丹斯里阿兹哈·阿兹赞·哈伦辩称，并不存在可以豁免于《合同法》第 75 条的单独或特殊类别的“政治合同”。

“政党不能利用其政党身份和地位来规避法律对违约处罚条款的保护。即使合同义务是在政党背景下产生的，该法第75条也不会因此而失效。”

“如果持相反观点，就等于通过司法推断，为第 75 条创造了一个例外。本法院不应容忍这种做法，”阿扎尔·阿齐赞说道，他的助手是律师尼扎姆丁·哈米德。

阿扎尔表示，政党与其候选人之间的关系实际上是一种制度性的关系。在就单方面强制规定的、作为参选条件或代价的保证金数额进行谈判时，候选人个人缺乏平等的法律谈判权。

“这种不平等的谈判地位并非取决于候选人的资历或在党内的地位。该保证书表明，这并非一份单独协商达成的协议，被告并未自由协商并同意1000万令吉是违约情况下合理的赔偿标准。”

“这是当事方强加给被告的，”他说道，并补充说，上诉法院判处的 10 万令吉罚款是合理的。

在听取双方陈述后，由首席大法官敦·旺·艾哈迈德·法里德·旺·萨利赫担任主席，沙巴和砂拉越首席法官拿督阿兹扎·纳瓦维和联邦法院法官拿督阿兹米·阿里芬组成的三人法官小组决定择日宣判。

2025年6月24日，联邦法院准许人民公正党就此事提起上诉。

此前，上诉法院于 2024 年 12 月 11 日作出裁决，由三名成员组成的小组维持了高等法院的裁决，认定祖莱达违反了保释金，但将应付金额从 1000 万令吉减少到 10 万令吉。

上诉法院的裁决是在吉隆坡高等法院于2023年6月23日作出有利于人民公正党的裁决之后作出的。高等法院当时责令祖莱达按照保函条款支付1000万令吉。主审法官拿督阿克塔尔·塔希尔认为，该保函是一份有效且具有约束力的合同。

该诉讼由人民公正党秘书长拿督斯里赛夫丁·纳苏蒂安·伊斯梅尔于 2020 年代表该党提起，声称祖莱达违反了她在 2018 年参加第 14 届全国大选前签署的保证书条款。

根据该协议，前房屋及地方政府部长祖莱达若退出该党、加入其他政党或在以该党候选人身份当选后成为独立代表，则须在七日内支付1000万令吉的保证金。——马新社

卫生部副部长表示，新拉瓦斯医院有望发展成为专科中心，以减少长途转诊。

阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹被任命为副警察总监

今年彭亨州已有16人溺水身亡，消防局呼吁公众尊重警示标志。

上诉法院将穆罕默德·沙菲在马来西亚律师公会诉讼案中的赔偿金额削减至12万令吉