Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
v.
[The originating summons was reinstated and remitted to the High Court
to be heard and disposed of on merits before another judge].
A Hj Salleh Jafaruddin v. Datuk Celestine Ujang & Ors [1986] 2 CLJ 209;
[1986] CLJ (Rep) 142 SC (refd)
Indah Desa Saujana Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. James Foong Cheng Yuen
& Anor [2008] 1 CLJ 651 CA (refd)
Karpal Singh v. Sultan of Selangor [1987] 2 CLJ 342; [1987] CLJ (Rep)
686 HC (refd)
B
Lim Cho Hock v. Speaker, Perak State Legislative Assembly [1979] 1 LNS
45 HC (refd)
Tan Beng Sooi v. Penolong Kanan Pendaftar (United Merchant Finance
Bhd, Intervener) [1995] 2 CLJ 846 HC (refd)
Tengku Mariam Tengku Sri Wa Raja & Anor v. Commissioner for Religious
C Affairs, Trengganu & Ors [1968] 3 LNS 1 HC (refd)
Tropical Profile Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Malaysia, Jabatan Kerja Raya
Malaysia & Ors [2008] 1 CLJ 513 HC (refd)
YAB Dato’ Dr Zambry Abd Kadir & Ors v. YB Sivakumar Varatharaju
Naidu; Attorney General Malaysia (Intervener) [2009] 4 CLJ 253 FC
(refd)
D
Legislation referred to:
Federal Constitution, arts. 63, 72
Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 15 r. 16, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (2), (3)
Specific Relief Act 1950, s. 41
E
Other source(s) referred to:
Malaysian Court Practice 2008, Vol 1 pp 1553, 1555 and 1556
[Appeal from High Court, Shah Alam; Originating Summons No: 21-380-
2009]
JUDGMENT
Appeal
[1] On 21 March 2011, the Shah Alam High Court allowed the
respondents’ (defendants’) summons in chambers and struck out
I the appellants’ (plaintiffs’) Originating Summons (the OS) under
O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. Being
dissatisfied, the plaintiffs filed this appeal.
294 Current Law Journal [2012] 2 CLJ
Factual Background
[3] Defendants 1 and 8 refer to one and the same person ie,
Dato’ Teng Chang Khim (Dato’ Teng) who is the Chairman of
the SLA Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and
Transparency (“SELCAT”), the Chairman of the SLA Committee C
of Rights and Privileges (“CRP”) and the Speaker of the SLA.
Both SELCAT and CRP are Committees constituted under the
Standing Orders of SLA (“SO”).
(a) That the composition of SELCAT does not reflect the balance
between the parties within the SLA as required by SO 72(1);
(a) Lim Cho Hock v. Speaker, Perak State Legislative Assembly [1979]
1 LNS 45 HC;
F
(b) Hj Salleh Jafaruddin v. Datuk Celestine Ujang & Ors [1986]
2 CLJ 209; [1986] CLJ (Rep) 142 SC;
(d) Gobind Singh Deo v. Yang DiPertua, Dewan Rakyat & Ors
[2010] 9 CLJ 449 HC.
H [10] Mr Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin (Mr M M Athimulan, Mr
Lim Kon Keen and Ms Siti Maspuah Maulan with him) submitted
that the plaintiffs have a reasonable cause of action; and the court
must hear and determine the OS on its merits.
I
296 Current Law Journal [2012] 2 CLJ
[11] In essence, the learned High Court judge has struck out the A
OS on the basis of O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), on the ground that the OS
discloses “no sustainable cause of action” and so it was a “plain
and obvious case for the court to allow the striking out order”.
The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
B
3. As this is an application for a striking out order under
O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980, it is my
duty to see whether the defendants have shown that the
plaintiffs indeed have no sustainable cause of action against
them. After reading all the cause papers and scrutinizing the
parties written submissions as well as listening to their oral C
submissions, I am satisfied that this is a plain and obvious
case for the court to allow the striking out Order.
[12] The above submissions and the High Court judgment under
this head revolve around the resolution of the following question: D
[17] Next, the subject matter in Haji Salleh Jafaruddin, supra, was
an application for judicial review under O. 53, seeking an order for
prohibition. There was no trace of O. 18 r. 19(1) being invoked
E to strike out the notice of motion which was indeed heard on
merits.
[20] Our analysis leads us to the view that the aforesaid four
authorities, relied on by the defendants herein, are of no assistance
to them. On the contrary, these authorities clearly militate against
I them, especially the second to the fourth authorities which had
been heard and disposed of on merits, and not under O. 18
r. 19(1)(a).
298 Current Law Journal [2012] 2 CLJ
Declaratory Judgment E
Conclusion