Justice Roz Mawar Rozain issued the order after the defendants – the DKU and its secretary, Raja Norazli Raja Nordin – raised a preliminary objection during today’s proceedings, Utusan Malaysia reported.
The counsel for the defendants, Steven Thiru, argued that under Article 16(3) of the state constitution, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
He submitted that the DKU’s advice on matters relating to state customs, including the election, succession, removal or vacation of any ruling chief, is final and cannot be challenged in any court.
Roz Mawar then instructed the defendants to file their application, supported by an affidavit detailing their objection, within seven days.
The application will be heard on July 28.
Earlier this month, three undangs and Mubarak, who disputes his sacking as the undang of Sungei Ujong, filed an originating summons in the High Court.
The co-plaintiffs were Jelebu undang Maarof Mat Rashad, Johol undang Muhammad Abdullah, Rembau undang Abdul Rahim Yasin, Tunku Besar Tampin Tunku Syed Razman Syed Idrus Al Qadri, and Sungei Ujong Syahbandar Baharudin Abdul Khalid.
The plaintiffs want a court order compelling the DKU to release a copy of the minutes of a meeting held on April 17 at which Mubarak was purportedly removed from office.
They also want the court to bar the enforcement of any decision made during the April 17 DKU meeting until the minutes are handed over to them.
The plaintiffs were represented today by seven lawyers led by Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud, while the state government was represented by assistant state legal adviser Ala’uddin Baharom, senior federal counsel Amalina Zainal Mokhtar and federal counsel Shafiq Sazali.
Ala’uddin today objected to the plaintiffs’ application, arguing that only council members are entitled to a copy of the minutes.
“The preparation, drafting, safekeeping and release of the meeting minutes do not fall under the jurisdiction of the state government.
“I believe the issue of jurisdiction must first be determined because, generally, meeting minutes and decisions are two different matters.
“As for the application to bar the enforcement of decisions from the April 17 DKU meeting, the defendant strongly objects and requests that the issue be heard first,” he said.
The court made no order on the plaintiffs’ application for an interim stay of all enforcement actions pending the delivery of the minutes.
Roz Mawar said the court could not issue the order sought due to the lack of information supporting the application.
However, she said the plaintiffs were at liberty to file a fresh application on the matter.