PKR Liew ordered to pay RM557 million in attempted land grab

KOTA KINABALU: A state owned company is claiming damages of over half a billion ringgit from Sabah PKR deputy chief Christina Liew and two others in an attempted land grab in Lahad Datu.

The High Court in Tawau found that Liew, her employee, Siti Rahfizah Mihaldin, and Samsuri Baharudin had unlawfully induced 819 smallholders to breach a joint venture agreement they had with Borneo Samudera Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of Sawit Kinabalu.

They had thereafter tried to buy the lots from the Bagahak Smallholders Scheme through Liew representing “a buyer”, who later turned out to be Siti Rahfizah, while Samsuri acted as the representative of the smallholders, many of whom were poor and illiterate.

In his ruling on Sept 30, Judge Chew Soo Ho had granted a declaration that the smallholders be relieved from the sale and purchase agreement they entered into with the trio between 2005 and 2006.

The court also found that Liew had prepared sale and purchase agreements which stated the joint venture agreement between the smallholders and Borneo Samudera had been breached. The joint venture agreement was never terminated.

Chew also granted an injunction to restrain Liew, who is also Api-Api assemblyman, Siti Rahfizah and Samsuri from committing further breaches or unlawfully interfering in the joint venture agreement between the smallholders and Borneo Samudera.

Chew ordered that the damages in the sum of RM557,641,716.29, claimed by Borneo Samudera against the defendants, were to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar of the Tawau High Court, with interest and costs.

Borneo Samudera, as the plaintiff in the suit, claimed that the trio had designed and schemed to unlawfully induce the breach of joint venture agreement to obtain lots measuring about 4,850ha from the smallholders for their own use and benefit.

Chew pointed out Liew had failed to disclose the identity of Siti Rahfizah until it was discovered by Borneo Samudera that she was her employee.

Chew said the non disclosure was a deliberate act by the trio and it was tainted with ulterior motive to conceal their scheme.

“The deliberate and direct interference with the plaintiff’s joint venture agreement with the smallholders is undoubtedly for the defendants ultimate personal gains or benefit or enrichment.”