KUALA LUMPUR – Former youth and sports minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Faizal Azumu, also known as Peja, is suing two individuals to recover a total of RM 2.11 million which is believed to be his deposit after an agreement to purchase a two-storey bungalow fell through.
According to Faizal’s amended statement of claim filed at the Shah Alam High Court via a confirmation letter on February 2021, he initially agreed to purchase the property located at The Reserve, Puncak Kayangan Kemensah from the defendants – Nik Hafiz Manshor and Moharina Mohamed – for RM4.9 million.
Then in April 2021, Faizal signed the sale and purchase agreement, including various terms including payment for an RM2 million deposit.
However, based on court documents, Faizal then decided not to continue the agreement.
“Via a letter dated March 2022, the plaintiff’s lawyers informed the defendants’ representatives that the plaintiff does not intend to continue the sale and purchase agreement and demanded a return of RM1.75 million,” court documents dated October 25 said.
While the former Tambun MP did not mention what the RM1.75 million was for, it is believed that the money Faizal demanded is the RM2 million deposit he would have to pay according to the terms of the agreement, taking into account RM245,000 forfeited for terminating the deal.
Faizal also stated that both defendants owe RM364,655 in interest for failing to return the RM1.75 million, making his total claim RM2.11 million.
“Despite making multiple demands, the defendants failed, refused and/or were negligent in returning the RM 2.11 million to the plaintiff,” the statement of claim added.
Meanwhile, according to the defendant’s amended statement of defence filed on Wednesday, they only received an RM1.7 million deposit from Faizal, adding that they are also entitled to RM245,000 in damages if Faizal terminated the agreement.
“The first defendant states that after the agreement was signed, vacant possession of the property was transferred to the plaintiff according to the terms of the agreement to allow the plaintiff to commence renovations.
“Although the sale and purchase agreement was terminated, vacant possession of the property was not returned to the defendants.
“In fact, until now, the plaintiff’s private caveat on the property is still in force,” the defendants’ court documents said.
According to the e-filing system, the case is currently scheduled for a hearing on November 20 for Faizal’s application to enforce a judgment in default against both defendants on the grounds that – among other things – they do not have a defence.
Meanwhile, the court also set November 27 for case management via e-review. – November 15, 2024