|General||April 12, 2008 22:22 PM|
|Copyright Â© 2008 BERNAMA. All rights reserved. |
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form except with the prior written permission of BERNAMA. Disclaimer.
Best viewed in Internet Explorer 4.0 & above with 800 x 600 pixels
KES YANG MELIBATKAN PEROGOL BERSIRI DI MELAKA
Beberapa bulan yang lalu kedengaran bahawa wakil Josophine menemui pemimpin tertinggi parti alternatif mengemukakan bukti bekaitan dengan kes hubungan sex nya dengan RTC pada 1985 untuk di saman semula. Besar kemungkinan kes ini akan di kemukakan tidak lama lagi, mungkin sebelum penamaan calun pada pilihan raya akan datang.
Karpal Singh di jangka akan beraksi lagi. Seterus nya satu lagi kes yang di jangka timbul ia lah kes saman melibatkan saorang wanita pegawai tinggi kerajaan pusat yang mempunyai anak luar nikah dengan RTC semasa bertugas di dulu untuk mendapatakan pampasan hidup anak tersebut. Suami nya menceraikan nya apabila mendapati isteri nya yang waktu itu bertugas di bawah RTC mengandung apa bila dia pergi belajar ke luar negeri selama setahun di bawah anjuran jabatan kerajaan tempat dia bertugas.
Seterus nya ada satu lagi kes anak luar nikah RTC dengan perempuan cina di Muar juga akan membuat tuntutan, so the never ending RTC stories series of perogol bersiri yang masih bebas dan bermaharajalela.
http://members. tripod.com/ ~mahazalimt/ 071199xb. html
FLASHBACK... SALINAN SAMAN SIVIL JOSEPHINE NUNIS KEATAS PENZINA TERKEMUKA DIMELAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
MALAYA AT CIVIL SUIT NO OF 1985
JOSEPHINE DORIS NUNIS ... PLAINTIFF
DATUK SERI RAHIM THAMBY CHIK ... DEPENDANT
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The plaintiff is a spinster residing at No. 33 N, Jalan Bandar Hilir, .
2. The dependant is the Chief Minister, Melaka.
3. The plaintiff first met the dependant at Straits Inn in early 1982. The plaintiff was then working at the Strait Inn as a hostess.
4. The dependant befriended the plaintiff and used to take her out to various places including Federal Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Ming Court, Port Dickson, Banglo Kerajaan, Tanjung Kling, , the dependant's residence at Paya Ikan and Masjid Tanah, .
5. In early 1982 and on several occasions thereafter the dependant promised to marry the plaintiff.
6. In reliance upon the said promises, the plaintiff allowed the dependant to have the sexual intercourse with her on various occasions at the places mentioned in paragraph 4 herein.
7. In August or September, 1982 the dependant requested the plaintiff to resign as hostess. The plaintiff duly complied with the request.
8. The dependant presented the plaintiff with a diamond ring, a watch and a camera.
9. On or about 10th March 1984 the dependant broke off from the plaintiff without any reasonable cause. A few months later the plaintiff saw the dependant at his office and requested him to keep his word by marrying her. However, the dependant refused to relent.
10. The plaintiff was ready and willing to marry the dependant. However, in breach of his promises to marry the plaintiff, the dependant has refused to marry her.
11. As a result of the dependant's acts, the plaintiff has suffered humiliation and mental anguish and has suffered loss and damage.
WHEREFORE the palintiff prays for:- (a) Damages; (b) Costs and (c) Any further or other relief deemed fit and proper by the Honourable Court.
Dated this 12 day of September, 1985.
Solicitors for the plaintiff
____________ _________ _________ _________ __
http://www.ipsofact oj.com/archive/ 1986/Part2/ arc1986(2)-002. htm
Wan Yahya J
The application stems from a somewhat lurid and intriguing episode. On 13 September 1985 the second defendant, Mr. Karpal Singh, an advocate and solicitor of the High Court Malaya, filed on behalf of the first defendant, Josephine Doris Nunis a suit in this Court against Datuk Seri Abdul Rahim Tamby Chik, who was at the relevant time, and is currently, holding the office of the Chief Minister of Malacca.
It was alleged, inter alia, in that suit that the said Abdul Rahim had befriended the first defendant who was then employed as a waitress in a local hotel and that he had showered gifts on her. The first defendant claimed that as a result of the asseveration of marriage made by this person she had on various occasions rendered him sexual favours at several named places in , and Port Dickson. She claimed that she had given up her job as waitress at his request and that as a result of his subsequent unreasonable conduct in breaking off their association she had suffered mental anguish and humiliation. That suit which was registered in the High Court Registry as Civil Suit No 297/85 shall be hereinafter referred to as the 'Original Writ'.
An account of this story, and in one particular case the entire allegations in the writ, appeared in the newspaper the following day. According to the plaintiff in the present case, the second defendant had personally handed over unnumbered and unsealed copies of the writ to reporters who had in turn made copies of the writ and distributed them throughout the country. The plaintiff in the present suit ('libel suit) said that he is a member of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). He claims that he is suing on behalf of himself and all the other members of the Alai Branch in the Kota UMNO Division and alleges that the second defendant whom he described as a bitter and unscrupulous rival party member had distributed the writ containing the allegation of adultery and its subsequent publication in the newspapers with the motive or malicious intention of defaming the State Government and the UMNO. He went on to particularise the allegation of derogation as follows:
The plaintiff and UMNO members and officials are embarrassed in the mosques by PAS members and by the public as supporters of an adulterer;
UMNO Wanita avoids UMNO male members as a group of sex maniacs;
UMNO male members are prevented from attending UMNO meeting by their wives for fear of involving themselves in Sex Orgies;
UMNO male members are prevented by their wives from associating with the Honourable Chief Minister;
The DAP and PAS are holding ceramahs all over the Country and repeating the Statements of the defendants saying that they pity UMNO members for being followers of an adulterer;
In repetition of the defendants' defamatory statement UMNO members are now being told by the members of the public that UMNO has fallen to a woman;
The people of Kampong Morton, who were promised to have their area developed but due to the the State Government could not implement the programme and because the Portuguese Settlement has M$2,000,000 development already carried out for the Portuguese Cultural Centre, the ordinary Malays are abusing the UMNO members that the Portuguese Settlement has got the said development because of the Chief Minister's alleged adultery with the first Defendant.
The centre in of all this abuse and defamation of UMNO members is in Restaurant ANDA, Jalan Hang Tuah, their recitation is from the second defendant's unnumbered and unsealed said Statement of Claim; and
At the last Maulud Nabi at Kubu Stadium because of the defendant's aforesaid false and defamatory statements UMNO members were jeered by the pious worshippers of ALLAH.
The plaintiff claims that the publication of the contents of this writ had jointly and severally depicted both UMNO members and the plaintiff as persons of immoral and unIslamic principles and accordingly had brought them into hatred, ridicule, disrepute and public odium and contempt and subjected the plaintiff and UMNO members to low and lewd remarks from the public and members of opposition parties like the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Party Islam Malaysia (PAS). The writ also went on at some lengths on the mala fides of Mr. Karpal Singh and his intention as a bitter rival opposition member in publicising this case. By and large these insinuations are not to the point for the purposes of this application. For many decades now our Courts have enduringly precluded political issues from inhibiting their judicial considerations. This Court does not propose to make any exception to this practice either. The remarks, so far as they are irrelevant to the present issue, shall be ignored.
The original writ, however, was designed for a transitory debut only in this case. Four days after it was filed, the first defendant filed a notice of discharge of her solicitor, Mr. Karpal Singh and of her intention to act in person. On 17 September 1985 she finally discontinued the action before service of the writ could be effected on Abdul Rahim. The present application before this Court is to set aside the libel suit against Mr. Karpal Singh only, as service has not been effected on the first defendant.
The principle governing an application under o 18 r 19 has been succinctly set out by Lord Denning MR. in the Court of Appeal Case of Drummond-Jackson v BMA  1 WLR 688, 693 as follows:
The procedure of "striking out" is ready to hand. We have used it many times lately to decide preliminary issues. For instance, whether a barrister can be made liable for negligence in conducting a case in court: Rondel v Worsley  1 AC 191; whether the Inland Revenue Commissioners are bound to give a taxpayer the opportunity of seeing certain documents: Wiseman v Borneman  3 WLR 706; whether students of scientology are entitled to remain in : Schmidt v Home Office and whether an action lies for maliciously applying for a bench warrant: Roy v Prior  1 QB 283. All these issues were decided on an application to strike out the statement of claim. They took days to argue, but in the end the proceedings were struck out. It became clear, after argument, that the facts alleged by the plaintiff did not give rise to a cause of action.
Daripada Abu Umarah iaitu al-Bara' bin 'Azib radhiallahu anhuma, katanya: "Kita semua diperintah oleh Rasulullah s.a.w. untuk melakukan tujuh perkara, iaitu meninjau orang sakit, mengikuti janazah, menentasymitkan orang yang bersin, menolong orang yang lemah, membantu orang yang teraniaya, meratakan salam dan melaksanakan sumpah."