#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: Fong case reveals 'childish wants' of Sayed-Khaiyum

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Fong case reveals 'childish wants' of Sayed-Khaiyum

‘My neighbour’s house should be mine’: Illegal A-G Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum to Justice Roger Coventry before the coup
The once obscure, mediocre and bumbling lawyer Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, has become an intense object of psychological study. The psychologists are trying to understand his insatiable greed for power, his ruthlessness, cruelty and utter lack-of feeling, his contempt for established institutions and his lack of moral restraints.

 What is driving this bumbling and blundering lawyer to committing treason every second day and increasing the odds for his deliverance into the clutches of the International Criminal Court in the Hague sooner than post 2014?

The answer, to put it simply, is his childish wants, as revealed in the High Court documents (CIVIL ACTION NO. 0411 OF 2005 Between AIYAZ SAYED-KHAIYUM s/o Sayed Abdul Khaiyum (Plaintiff) FONG YOOK KIN aka KINA FONG LIU JUN aka LANA FONG and WILEON FONG (Defendants).
In his ruling of 26 August 2005, Justice Roger Coventry had stated that Khaiyum claimed that he had a binding agreement with the Fongs to purchase a house and its land. Khaiyumsaid the the Fongs had reneged on that agreement and he now sought specific performance thereof.
 A caveat was lodged on the title of this property by Khaiyum. He sought continuance of that caveat until the determination of his case. The power to extend is found at section 110(3) Land Transfer Act, Cap. 131.

The Fongs opposed this interim order. In essence they say there was no binding agreement concluded. The plaintiff’s evidence on the affidavits, taken at its highest, does not show such a binding agreement. They cite section 59(d) of the Indemnity, Guarantee and Bailment Act, Cap. 232.

It is pertinent to note that other persons had lodged a caveat on the title to this property.

Coventry had before him the affidavits of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum dated 10th of August 2005 and 22nd of August 2005 to support the application. There were no other affidavits before the High Court judge.

Khaiyum stated in his affidavits that there was an agreement to sell to him 23 Lovoni Road Suva by the three Fongs. A sale and purchase agreement was drawn up, although not as yet signed and dated. He received a letter from Prestige Real Estate dated the 8th February 2005  from the estate agents talking about a deposit. He said the delay was because two of the defendants were in China and a Power of Attorney had to be notarised.

He exhibited an e-mail dated 28th February to support this and the Fong’s willingness to enter into the agreement. There were then some delays in setting up the Power of Attorney. It was then on the 12th of May 2005 Khaiyum received what appeared to be a fax from Wileon Fong stating the agreement was invalid as the Fongs had been waiting for the last four weeks for documents.

The receipt for the deposit of $5,000.00 was exhibited at Annexure H. There was then exhibited documents in Chinese and English concerning the power of attorney and e-mail correspondence concerning the problems that had arisen. Annexure A showed the lodging of the caveat on the 24th of May. There was also another caveat lodged on the 2nd of June by apparently a Mr. & Mrs. Prasad.

It was agreed that the principles set out in American Cyanamid Company v. Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396 as approved by the Fiji Court of Appeal in Roxy Motorparts Limited and Raman Prasad Charan v. Habib Bank Limited in Civil Appeal Case No. 60 of 2004. Those principles are that the court, before it makes this kind of Order must be satisfied that:
1. The plaintiff has established a good arguable claim to the right he is seeking to protect,
2. That there is a serious question to be tried and
3. That on the balance of convenience the relief should be granted.

Khaiyum was seeking specific performance of what he alleged was a binding contract for the sale of land. When asked by the court what was so particular about this piece of land as opposed to any other which could not be compensated for in damages Khaiyum responded that it was adjacent to property he already owns and it was being acquired for his own family’s accommodation. This was not stated in the affidavits.
Khaiyum conceded there was no specific signed and written agreement of this contract. At the end of the hearing Coventry granted Khaiyum the relief he had sought from the High Court.
That was in 2005. In 2006, he not only chased Coventry out of Fiji because he did not like some of the learned judge’s anti-regime rulings, he also went and forcibly occupied the A-G’s chambers with the support of the barrel of the gun.

 As for the Fong family, God Help Them, that at least in 2005 they could put their case before the High Court – not today with a illegal psychopath making illegal laws, the most recent being the Media Decree.


Anonymous said...

Story around traps is that he's been busily assembling a nest egg -for his exile in Dubai for some time. Word also is that during that recent fund raising trip to the Emerates he had alreay negotiated an undeclared offshore

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to the Fongs? Did this illegal psycopath get the adjacent property or did he forcibly took it over after joining the dictator follwoing the 2006 coup?

Radiolucas said...

Doesnt an agreement to purchase land need to be WRITING?

If there was no signed agreement, what is his claim? An expectation?

What a clown.

Anonymous said...

All arrogance from the losers who all sit on their cowardly arses and watch everything go by. Easy to criticize the junta, at least they are doing something. What are you doing?