TAWAU: Trial proceedings involving a dispute over interests and gold mining operations continued at the Tawau High Court on Monday (April 27) before Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos, with focus on the cross-examination of a key witness and issues surrounding documents submitted late by the defence.

The proceedings involve two consolidated suits, namely Bahvest Resources Berhad and Wullersdorf Resources Sdn Bhd (WRSB) as plaintiffs against Datuk Lo Fui Ming and others as defendants, as well as a separate action by Southsea Gold Sdn Bhd (SGSB) against WRSB and Bahvest.

Datuk Lo Fui Ming was present throughout the proceedings.

The hearing saw the continuation of the trial with the cross-examination of the first plaintiff’s witness (PW1), Chong Tzu Khen, conducted by counsel Henry Lim together with Chia Kho Yee of Messrs Lawrence Chai, Peter Soong&Partners, representing the third defendant.

The plaintiffs are represented by Norbert Yapp of Messrs Norbert Yapp & Associates together with Azimi Yahya, while the first, second and fourth defendants are represented by Andy Tay of Messrs Andy Tay & Associates.

The court first addressed the issue of additional documents filed by the defence under Enclosure 186, which was objected to by the plaintiffs on the grounds that the documents were produced late despite having existed earlier, thereby causing prejudice as the witness had no opportunity to respond.

The court ruled to reject and expunge several documents, including Items 1 to 5 as well as Items 14, 15, 16 and 22, and disallowed documents created after November 24, 2025. The remaining documents were admitted and marked as CBOD Part C under Enclosure 186.

During cross-examination, the witness confirmed that Chong Khing Chung is not a director of Bahvest but is a director of WRSB, and does not hold shares in SGSB.

A central issue in the trial concerns the rights over approximately 150 acres of land adjacent to the mining operations, with the witness maintaining that such rights derive from a Letter of Consent (LOC) dated 2015 as well as an easement agreement.

However, the witness acknowledged that an easement confers only a right of way and not full usage of the land, including for the construction of facilities such as a factory, crusher and workers’ quarters, which forms part of the dispute as to whether WRSB had the legal right to utilise the land for its operations.

The court also heard testimony on the requirements for disclosure of related party transactions to Bursa Malaysia, with the witness maintaining that disclosure is only required upon finalisation of a transaction, while disagreeing with the proposition that preliminary discussions do not require any announcement.

Thresholds of approximately 2.5 per cent for public disclosure and five per cent for shareholder approval were also raised in assessing whether certain transactions ought to have been disclosed.

Some of the admitted documents relate to gold production and royalty records, which the defence contends demonstrate that the allegedly missing gold had in fact been sold, with the witness’s testimony considered crucial in determining the validity of such claims.

The court further examined four letters between SGSB and WRSB covering the period from 2020 to 2022, with the witness acknowledging their existence but alleging that they were backdated, raising questions as to whether they triggered payment obligations and disclosure requirements to Bursa Malaysia.

The witness also agreed that agreements not reduced into writing generally lack legal effect, but disputed whether prolonged conduct and dealings between the parties could amount to a binding understanding.

The trial continues today.