Siapa Kata Saman Ummi Hafilda Tak Laku?

Gambar dari Blog Srikandi 7

Ummi Hafilda masih lagi berpeluang meneruskan niat beliau menyaman tokoh-tokoh politik walaupun diberitakan tarikh luput sesuatu kes tersebut ialah enam (6) tahun. Haknya sebagai seorang rakyat masih lagi terpelihara walaupun selama ini diperkotak-katikkan oleh mereka yang hebat dengan undang-undang.

Ketika aku melayari blog-blog Malaysia yang dianggapkan sebagai pengguna blog Kedua terbanyak di dunia, aku terjumpa satu entri di blog OutSyed The Box dengan tajuk Karpal Bulsh**tting Again yang menarik minat aku.

Kata-kata Karpal dalam The Star Online

Karpal: Time for Ummi to file suit has long passed. GEORGE TOWN: The time limit for businesswoman Ummi Hafilda Ali to file a suit against several members of the Opposition has long passed, DAP chairman Karpal Singh said. . . He said the suit that she was reported to be planning related to “something that happened more than 13 years ago”, which meant that the statute of limitations had long expired. . . . “When a case exceeds six years – the limit is six years – the court can strike it out without it being heard. I advise her lawyer to study the law carefully,” Karpal said yesterday.

Hasil kajian Tuan Syed Akhbar Ali bahawa walaupun anda tidak boleh menyaman seseorang itu selepas enam tahun kesalahan itu berlaku tetapi terdapat pengecualian di dalam undang-undang:

I have raised the same point in my Blog. The statute of limitations is generally six years – meaning you cannot sue someone six years after the wrong took place. However there are exceptions (there always are) in the law. Here is one : “Where there has been a fraud or concealment however, the Limitation Act 1953 provides for an exception. Section 29 of the Act states that where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant or his agent or where any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s cause of action was delibrately concealed or where such an action is based on mistake, the time of six years does not run until the discovery of the fraud, concealment or mistake by the plaintiff. The effect of this section is plainly seen in the case of Lim Yoke Kong v Sivapiran s/o Sabapathy [1992] 2 MLJ 571 ..”

Di samping itu Tuan Syed Akbar Ali juga menambah beberapa tips lagi untuk Ummi Hafilda mendapatkan keadilan bagi dirinya seperti yang disebutkan dibawah ini:

There is another angle to support Ummi Hafilda’s rights under the Law to sue for justice. Anwar Ibrahim’s last appeals (to the Appeals Court, Federal Court, World Court, Badminton Court etc) over all those cases that sent him to jail (including the cases where Ummi’s name was mentioned or involved) took place circa 2004. Meaning that although the events happened in 1997, the issue was still current in the Courts (the final appeals) up to 2004. So for the purposes of the same Court, the period of the Statute of Limitations should run from 2004, not from 1997 – so the argument goes. It still does put Ummi a little short, it is January 2011 now, so Ummi better hurry. But the Court will have its own views. Karpal Singh would know things like this. Mr Singh, apa punya pusing?

Ini bermakna Ummi Hafilda perlu segera mengfailkan samannya kerana masa sudah begitu suntuk sekiranya tempoh enam tahun itu diambil kira dari 2004 yang masih dipertikaikan.

Komen Si Bingai:
Seperti perjanjian pemajakan Pulau Pinang dari Kerajaan Kedah, perjanjian yang berdasarkan "Selagi ada matahari" maka begitulah keadilan dunia yang boleh kita gapai. Dan sebagai rakyat Malaysia sebenarnya kita sentiasa dilindungi undang-undang secara sedar atau tidak. Oleh itu jangan biarkan diri kita diperbodohkan macam AKU YANG BINGAI!