KUALA LUMPUR: Fourteen movable assets were seized from the residence of Sungai Besar Umno Division chief Datuk Seri Jamal Md Yunos (
pic), following his failure to settle legal costs of over RM66,000 owed to Seputeh MP Teresa Kok from a defamation case.
The plaintiff's lawyer, Datuk S N Nair, explained that the seizure was executed at Jamal's Ampang Jaya home at 11.42 am by a team that included a senior assistant registrar, bailiffs, Nair's associate G Maniggandan from SN Nair & Partners, and police officers.
Advertisement
"Upon arrival, the senior assistant registrar and bailiffs attempted to contact the occupants by calling out and ringing the doorbell, but received no response," Nair said in a media release.
"As a result, acting under a Court Order dated Jan 23, 2026, the senior assistant registrar authorised a forced entry. The seizure was completed by 12.36 pm, and the confiscated items are now pending disposal by public auction," Nair said.
Nair explained that the court-issued writ of seizure and sale was executed to recover an outstanding judgment debt of RM66,061.85, which represents the unpaid legal costs owed to the plaintiff, Teresa Kok, from the concluded case.
"The court order empowered the bailiffs to use reasonable force to gain entry if access to the premises was refused," the lawyer added.
In a related legal development, Jamal's application for leave to appeal the High Court's initial RM300,000 in damages awarded to Kok was dismissed by the Federal Court on July 30, 2024. Jamal has since fully settled the said amount.
On July 26, 2022, the High Court, presided over by Judge Datuk Mohd Arief Emran Arifin, awarded Kok damages of RM300,000 and ordered Jamal to pay costs of RM50,000.
Kok filed the defamation suit on April 6, 2017, alleging that statements Jamal made about the Yawas fund during a press conference on March 8, 2017, were defamatory.
In her statement of claim, she asserted that the remarks were widely disseminated through both print and electronic media, including Jamal’s Facebook page.
Kok argued that the statements had portrayed her as someone who had misappropriated state government funds for personal benefit and as an unethical individual.
