TAWAU: The civil trial involving AuMas Resources Berhad (formerly Bahvest Resources Berhad) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Wullersdorf Resources Sdn. Bhd., continued today at the Tawau High Court before Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos.
During the proceedings, the court issued several case management directions concerning a number of pending applications that have yet to be determined.
The civil action names Lo Fui Ming, Lo Teck Yong, Chong Khing Xhung, and Southsea Gold Sdn. Bhd. as defendants.
Counsel for the fourth and fifth defendants informed the court that an application to strike out the action, together with its supporting affidavit, had been emailed to the relevant parties last week.
The court fixed 26 February 2026 as the deadline for the filing of affidavits in opposition, while reply affidavits must be filed no later than 12 March 2026.
The same counsel further informed the court that he represents the fifth defendant and intends to file an additional striking-out application in the near future.
The court ordered that the new application will follow the same timeline as Enclosures 15 and 55, namely that affidavits in opposition are to be filed by 2 March 2026 and reply affidavits by 16 March 2026.
The court also directed that written submissions be filed in respect of three applications, including Enclosure 50, Enclosure 55, as well as the new application by the fifth defendant.
All parties were ordered to file their written submissions simultaneously by 31 March 2026, with reply submissions to be submitted no later than 14 April 2026.
The hearing date has been fixed for 29 April 2026 and will also include the open court hearing of Enclosure 4. The earlier date set for 18 March 2026 has been vacated.
Meanwhile, counsel Yapp informed the court that submissions for the injunction application have yet to be filed. The court directed that the same timeline applicable to the four other applications shall also apply to the injunction application.
Counsel for the plaintiff further informed the court that representatives for the sixth, seventh, and ninth defendants intend to file applications for an extension of time. The plaintiff does not object to the request.
However, the court stressed that any application for an extension of time must be filed within the prescribed period.
