​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 regarding several pending applications.

​The legal 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 the application to strike out the action, along with the supporting affidavit, was emailed to the relevant parties last week.

​The court set February 26, 2026, as the deadline for filing the Affidavit in Opposition, while the Affidavit in Reply must be filed by March 12, 2026.

​The same counsel also informed the court that he represents the fifth defendant and will be filing another striking-out application in the near future.

​The court decided that the new application will follow the same timeline as Enclosures 15 and 55, namely the Affidavit in Opposition by March 2, 2026, and the Affidavit in Reply by March 16, 2026.

​The court also fixed the timeline for written submissions for three applications, including Enclosure 50, Enclosure 55, and the fifth defendant’s new application.

​All parties were directed to file written submissions simultaneously before March 31, 2026, while reply submissions must be submitted by April 14, 2026.

​The hearing date has been set for April 29, 2026, which will also include an open court hearing for Enclosure 4. The previous date of March 18, 2026, has been vacated.

​Meanwhile, counsel Yapp informed the court that submissions for the injunction application have not yet been filed. The court directed that the same timeline as the other four applications shall apply to the injunction application.

​Counsel for the plaintiffs informed the court that representatives for the sixth, seventh, and ninth defendants intend to file an application for an extension of time.

The plaintiffs raised no objection. ​However, the court emphasized that any application for an extension of time must be filed within the stipulated period.