The Court of Appeal in Malaysia has rejected Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s bid to halt a RM67.5 million payment to Lebanese jeweller Global Royalty Trading SAL, upholding a High Court ruling that she owes the sum for 43 missing pieces of jewellery. The decision, issued on September 23, 2026, means Rosmah must deposit the funds into a stakeholder account within a month, with the court ordering her to pay RM30,000 in costs.
Rosmah, the wife of former prime minister Najib Razak, had sought an unconditional stay on the payment, arguing her assets were tied to a separate 1MDB-related lawsuit. However, a three-judge panel chaired by Justice Mohd Firuz Jaffril ruled there were no grounds for such a stay, emphasizing that her undertaking in the 1MDB case only covered a specific list of assets, not her full financial position. Outside the courtroom, Global Royalty’s lawyer, David Gurupatham, said Rosmah was in breach of the court order and his client was ready to enforce the judgment sum awarded by the court.
The Court’s Rationale and Rosmah’s Legal Strategy
The Court of Appeal’s decision hinged on Rosmah’s failure to comply with a conditional stay granted by the High Court on August 12, 2026. Judicial Commissioner Marianne Antoinette Ghani had ordered Rosmah to deposit the RM67.5 million into a joint stakeholders account, but Rosmah’s counsel, Reza Rahim, argued this was insufficient. The appellate court, however, found no extenuating circumstances to warrant an unconditional stay, stating that There is not extenuating grounds to allow unconditional stay. For no other reasons, we dismiss this motion,
Rosmah’s legal team had contended that her assets were frozen in the 1MDB case. However, the court rejected this, noting that her 1MDB undertaking only applied to a specific list of items. Lawyer David Gurupatham referred to Rosmah’s affidavit where she claimed to have only RM20 in a dormant bank account, arguing it could not be accepted as evidence.
The Jewelry Dispute and Its Origins
The dispute stems from a 2018 police raid at Pavilion Residences, where Rosmah was staying. Global Royalty Trading SAL alleged that 43 pieces of jewellery were not returned to it. Justice Firuz noted during the proceedings that It is also yet to be proven that she owns these [pieces of] jewellery [which are subject of the suit].
This court cannot act on speculation.
The case involved 44 pieces originally supplied for viewing, with one bracelet subsequently recovered. Global Royalty’s lawyer, David Gurupatham, emphasized that the company’s claim was based on a consignment arrangement, where ownership remained with the jeweller. Gurupatham argued, The court cannot make the presumption that RM666 million, or even RM6 million, is available because every single piece of [jewellery] is subject to verification as to the owner of the title,
Implications and Next Steps
The Court of Appeal’s ruling clears the way for Global Royalty to enforce the judgment, with Gurupatham stating his client was ready to enforce the judgment sum awarded by the court. Rosmah’s team, however, indicated they would resist enforcement. Her counsels said in a statement that any attempt by Global Royalty to enforce the High Court order would be resisted vigorously
by their client because Rosmah has always maintained that the jeweller’s claim is without basis.
Rosmah’s appeal on the judgment sum has been fixed for March 25, 2027. Until then, the RM67.5 million was ordered to be paid into a joint stakeholders account between solicitors for the parties within a month from the decision date instead of paying directly to the plaintiff. The case highlights the complexities of cross-border commercial disputes, particularly in high-value transactions involving international assets and legal jurisdictions. As the legal battle continues, the outcome could set a precedent for similar cases involving bailment, ownership, and evidentiary burdens.
Sources and Context
