Justice Zabariah Yusof – who chaired the bench alongside Justices Hasnah Hashim and Mary Lim – said the court would not be able to decide today and she fixed Aug 18, at 3pm, to deliver the decision.

The bench heard the appeal brought by Ramasamy, who was Barisan Nasional’s candidate, against the election court’s decision to strike out his petition.

The judges heard submissions from Ramasamy’s counsel Shafee Abdullah, lawyer Lau Yi Leong representing Pakatan Harapan’s Segamat MP R Yuneswaran and senior federal counsel Suzana Atan appearing for the returning officer and the Election Commission (EC).

Shafee argued that Ramasamy’s petition should be remitted to the election court for a full trial to enable witnesses to give evidence about alleged corruption on Yuneswaran’s part.

He said the allegation that food was given in a Chinese temple with a corrupt intention to influence voters raised a prima facie case of an offence under Section 8 of the Election Offences Act 1954.

He said the petition was not defective and should not have been struck out. He also argued that Ramasamy complied with the requirements of Rule 4(1)(b) and 4(4) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 by inserting sufficient material facts to support his case.

Shafee said there was also non-compliance with the requirements of the Election Offences Act when Form A on the oath of secrecy was not signed by Yuneswaran’s representative before the returning officer and that Form A had been presigned by the returning officer.

He said the election court judge erred when he stated the act of giving a treat to people at a temple on Nov 18, 2022, could not be implied to have presupposed the result of the election petition.

On April 3, election court judge Radzi Abdul Hamid struck out Ramasamy’s election petition after accepting the preliminary objections by Yuneswaran, the returning officer and the EC that Ramasamy’s petition was defective because he failed to comply with the requirements of the Election Offences Act and the Election Petition Rules.

Yuneswaran won the seat with a majority of 5,669 votes.

In his petition, Ramasamy sought a declaration that the parliamentary election for the Segamat constituency was void and a declaration that Yuneswaran was not a duly elected member of Parliament.

Yuneswaran’s counsel Lau urged the court to maintain the election court’s decision, adding that Ramasamy’s petition contained insufficient evidence of corruption, the identity of the organiser of the event, Yuneswaran’s agents, the recipients of the food as well as the speech allegedly given by Yuneswaran.

Thus, he said, Ramasamy had not complied with Rule 4(1)(b) and 4(4) of the Election Petition Rules.