He was testifying before Judicial Commissioner Gabriel Gumis in the suit brought by Ambrose against him and Asli Jati Engineering Sdn Bhd.
Ambrose is claiming against Anthony and his company for commission payable to him for securing two UMS projects totalling RM70 million for Anthony's company through his (Ambrose's) close connection with the Prime Minister and to compel him to transfer his house to Ambrose as part payment of the commission.
Under cross-examination, counsel Sugumar Balakrishnan for Ambrose told Anthony that his assertion that Ambrose was a homeless man was highly improbable and not credible as at the material time Ambrose had his own house and was a man of means, being the political secretary to the Finance Minister, Penampang Umno Chief and as Anthony's superior in KDM Malaysia.
Sugumar then drew Anthony's attention to his defence where Anthony claimed he allowed Ambrose to stay in his house as a measure of goodwill because Ambrose was the KDM President then.
Anthony denied Sugumar's suggestion that there was contradiction when he claimed in his solicitors' letter that he allowed Ambrose to stay Ambrose was the KDM Malaysia President.
Asked by Sugumar how the interest of a non-profit NGO like KDM Malaysia would be served by him allowing Ambrose to stay there just because he was the KDM Malaysia President, Anthony said it was only normal for him to allow Ambrose to stay in his house by virtue of being KDM Malaysia President. Sugumar countered that his reason for doing so was improbable and not credible.
Anthony was then cross-examined by Sugumar on the RM143,000 renovations carried out by Ambrose after Anthony allowed Ambrose to stay in the house.
Anthony denied being aware of any such renovation but the latter's attention was drawn to his own evidence in his witness statement where he admitted being aware of the renovation. Anthony maintained that he was not aware of the "massive renovation" carried out by Ambrose.
Sugumar then put to Anthony that by giving vacant possession of the house and by being aware of the "massive renovation", Anthony had encouraged Ambrose into believing that the house would be transferred to Ambrose as part payment of the commission for securing the UMS projects.
Anthony's attention was then drawn to Ambrose's solicitors' letter in response to Anthony's solicitors' notice of eviction where Ambrose gave detailed explanation as to how and why he was given vacant possession of the house.
Anthony admitted he did not respond to Ambrose's solicitors' letter to which Sugumar replied that any reasonable man in his position would have responded by denying the contents of Ambrose's solicitors' letter. Anthony said there was no need to do so as it could be done in court.
He also denied Sugumar's suggestion that his failure to respond to Ambrose's solicitors' letter amounted to an admission of the contents of that letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment