KOTA KINABALU (Jan 10): An English language teacher, who is the first defendant in a suit filed by his three former students, told the High Court here on Tuesday that he had no knowledge there was any complaint against him for allegedly not attending class to teach students.
Mohd Jainal Jamran, 50, testified before Justice Leonard David Shim that he was never informed by the school’s principal nor any teacher at the school about the alleged matter.
In his witness statement, Mohd Jainal further testified that he had also never seen any written complaint against him.
Mohd Jainal, who is still teaching in the same school in Kota Belud where his three ex-students namely Rusiah Sabdarin, Nur Natasha Allisya Hamali and Calvina Angayung (the plaintiffs) were schooling, further testified that in 2017 the three plaintiffs were in Form Four Sports Science when he was their English language teacher.
He further stated in his witness statement that during that year he entered the Form Four Sports Science class as per his teaching timetable for the class but while teaching, he was also involved in other matter at the school.
Under examination-in-chief by Senior Federal Counsel Mohd Hafizi Abd Halim, the teacher explained that while teaching at the said class, there was time the students entered the class late during his teaching period.
Mohd Jainal claimed in his witness statement that their attitude had disturbed his concentration to teach because he had to repeat what he had just taught to those who entered the class late.
To a question, Mohd Jainal further claimed that some of the students did not focus, did not pay attention and did not do any preparation in his class.
However, Mohd Jainal testified that he still continued to enter the said class to teach the students.
Apart from Mohd Jainal, the three plaintiffs, all aged 21, also named in their suit Hj Suid Hj Hanapi (sued in his capacity as the principal of the school), Director-general of Education Malaysia, Minister of Education Malaysia and Government of Malaysia as second, third, fourth and fifth defendants respectively.
The trio sought reliefs against the defendants namely a declaration that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants are allegedly in breach of their statutory duty under the Education Act 1996 by allegedly failing to ensure that the three plaintiffs were taught the English language during the period of March 2017 to November 2017.
They also sought a declaration that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants are allegedly in breach of their statutory duty under the Education Act 1996 by allegedly failing to prepare the three plaintiffs for examinations as prescribed under the Education Act.
Apart from that the plaintiffs also wanted declarations that the second defendant is allegedly in breach of his duties under Regulation 3C, 25, 26 Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 and the alleged acts of the first and second defendants complained of amounts to misfeasance in public office.
Lastly, they sought a declaration that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants have allegedly violated the three plaintiffs’ constitutional right to access to education guaranteed to them under Article 5 read together with Article 12 of the Federal Constitution.
Mohd Hafizi and Federal Counsel Fazriel Fardiansyah Abdul Kadir acted for the defendants.
The three plaintiffs, who were represented by counsel Sherzali Herza Asli, had closed their case after calling 10 witnesses to give their evidence in court.
The trial resumes on Wednesday.