Q1: Identify & Explain Constitutional Remedies (Types)

 Federal Constitution (“FC”) Article (“Art”) 121

Judicial Powers of Federation: -
 FC Art 121(1)(a) High Court of Malaya
 FC Art 121(1)(b) High Court of Sabah & Sarawak
 Parent Law – Grant Judicial Powers of High Court through Courts of Judicature Act 1964

 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA”)

 CJA S25(2) – Grant Additional Powers of High Court stipulated in CJA Sch Para 1
 CJA Sch Para 1 – Prerogative Writ (Judicial Remedies) → Enforce FC Part II Fundamental Liberties:
Habeas Corpus ∙ Mandamus ∙ Prohibition ∙ Quo Warranto ∙ Certiorari
Mandamus (“We Command”)
 Discretionary judicial remedy: -
 Defects of justice
 Against executives failing to discharge public duties required by the law
 Aid specific rights without legal remedy
 Inchape Malaysia Holdings Bhd v RB Gray [1985]:
 Court Order → Executives (Gov ∙ Public Authority ∙ Subordinate Court)
 Perform act / duty obliged by the law
 Court Order ≠ Contravene against Any Prevailing Statutory Provision
 Available under Rules of High Court 2012 Order 53 & Specific Relief Act 1950 Section 44
Mandamus - Requirement
 Not available in presence of specific remedy
 Re Bukit Sembawang Rubber Co. Ltd & Sembawang Estates Ltd [1961]: Public duty in nature
 Public duty of the executive → √ Imperative ∙ × Discretionary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010]
Mandamus → Failure of Public Officer to Discharge Public Duties
 Sulaiman Daud JCA: -
 √ Enforce the performance of a public duty where there had been failure(s) to discharge such public
duty
 × Remedy to compel any person / authority from exercising power
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010]
Jeffrey Tan JCA: Mandamus ≠ Any Person / Body not Holding Public Office
Mandamus
 Minister of Finance, Government of Sabah v Petrojasa Sdn Bhd [2008] Arifin Zakaria FCJ:
Command Authority to Perform Public Duty Required by Law
 Mandamus is issued in favour of the Respondent for a breach of the respondent’s right to property (FC Art 13)
 Unpaid judgment debt owed to respondent deprives the respondent’s right to property by the State Government
of Sabah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Administrative Law, (Clarendon Press, Oxford (7th Ed) p 644 ∙ William Wade: -
 Disobedience to mandamus = Contempt of court, punishable by fine / imprisonment
 Mandamus = Mandatory Injunction
 Both commands originated from the courts
 Mandamus ≠ Mandatory Injunction
 Mandatory Injunction = Equitable Remedy; applicable mainly to the private law
 Mandamus = Common Law Remedy (Based on royal authority); applicable only in the public law
Prohibition
 Discretionary judicial remedy → Judicial Review of administrative laws
 A prerogative writ by the Superior Courts: -
 Prevent the Subordinate Courts from exceeding permitted judicial powers
 Prevent the Subordinate Courts from usurping judicial powers which were not legally vested See: Haji Salleh
bin Jafaruddin v Datuk Celestine Ujang & Ors [1986]
 Prevent the Subordinate Courts from commissioning alternative remedies of judgments in presence of adequate
right of appeal
 Restrain the Government Authority from an act or practice forbidden by law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997]
 High Courts, through CJA1964 S25 are vested with power to issue: -
 To any person or authority directions;
 orders or writs: writs of the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any
others;
 for the enforcement of the rights conferred by FC Part II or any of them, or for any purpose
Prohibition
 Hoh Kiang Ngan v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [1996] Prohibition can be set aside
by Higher Court Authority
 The plaintiff, a group general manager ("P") was dismissed under misconduct
 Industrial Court: P → a 'workman" specified in Industrial Relations Act 1967 Section 2 & entitled to
damages of a 'workman'
 High Court: P ≠ a "workman“. Industrial Court made an error of law & failed to deliver property assessment of
the evidence, leading to wrong reasons for the award
 Writ of Prohibition was issued to restrain the Industrial Court from proceeding the case
 Federal Court: Reversed the High Court's decision and set aside the Writ of Prohibiton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] Lord Diplock: Prohibition → Applicable to Judiciary & Executives
 Prohibition, by origin, was directed to inferior courts to control lower courts from acting in excess of their
jurisdiction or in contravention of law (Applicable to Judiciary)
 It was later extended by the superior court to statutory bodies (Applicable to Executives)
Prohibition
 Sugumar Balakrishnan v The Chief Minister of the State of Sabah [1988] Prohibition ≠ Absolute
 The Court ≠ issue the order of prohibition against the state authority or the state government if explicitly
specified in Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956 S29(2)
Quo Warranto
(“By What Warrant / Authority”) (“Semakan Kehakiman”)

 Prerogative Writ (Court Order) demanding the authorities to show proof of authority allowing them to
exercise the jurisdiction they claim to hold
 Proof of authenticity of power / authority exercised
 Restrain / Prevent “power thirst” government authorities from exercising powers beyond permitted
limits
 American Jurisprudence Vol 44 p 100 - p101:
 Appropriate & adequate remedy to determine right / title to a public officer;
 To oust incumbent public officer who unlawfully usurped / intruded into such office (authorities)
Quo Warranto
 Peguam Negara Malaysia v Dr Micheal Jeyakumar Devaraj [2012] Quo Warranto - Def
 Challenge the appointment of an individual holding public office;
 Require the court to ascertain the legality of such individual to hold public office and his/her discharge of legal
duties
 Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition): "public office" is a position whose occupant has legal capacity
to exercise government's sovereign powers
 Interpretation Act 1948 Section 3 "Public Office" = Office in any public services mentioned in FC Art
132(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Peguam Negara Malaysia v Dr Micheal Jeyakumar Devaraj [2012] Quo Warranto – Preconditions
 Office in question is created by written law; and
 Office in question is a public office; and
 Person holding office in question is not legally / properly qualified
Quo Warranto
 Dato Dr Abd Isa bin Ismail v Dato Abu Hasan bin sarif & Anor [2010] Quo Warranto ≠ Non-Public
Service Personnel

 FC Art 132(3)(b) excludes office of a member of State Legislative Assembly from Public Service

 Quo Warranto ≠ Applicable Non-Public Service Personnel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mohamad Yusof bin A Bakar & Anor v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2017] Prohibition vs Quo
Warranto
 Prohibition: Inspect legality of exercise of public function
 Quo Warranto: Challenge the legality of appointment of a person holding public office (public function)
Certiorari (“To be Made Certain”)
 Reexamination of lower court decision by a higher court’s discretion

 Prerogative Supervisory Writ to quash (Dispose) warrant of arrest and detention, and restricted
residence passed by lower courts or the Government authorities

 Inferior Court = acted without jurisdiction / excess of jurisdiction

 Committed error of law

 Acted against principle of natural justice

 Certiorari ≠ Available if alternative legal remedy is available

Certiorari
 Su Yin Min v Ketua Polis Negeri [2005] Certiorari to Challenge Restricted Residence Order

 Minister’s subjective function delegated & exercised by the deputy minister = Illegal

 Delay of 22 days from the date of arrest and the issuance of the order of restricted residence

 Another delay of 13 hours before deporting detainee to restricted residence

 Certiorari ≠ Applicable to FC Art 43A(2) which authorises a deputy minister to assist his minister

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai & Anor v Mohd Sobri bin Che
Hassan [2020] Certiorari → Breach of Rules of Natural Justice
 Order of Certiorari → Anyone dismissed in breach of the rules of natural justice
Certiorari
 Keng Kien Hock v Timbalan Menteri [2007] No unreasonable delay = No Certiorari

 Restricted Residence Act 1933 S2(1); Appellant was detained on 6th December 2005

 Restriction Order, however, was issued on 30th December 2005, 24 days later (Retrospective)

 Held: No unreasonable delay = No Certiorari

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 V. Sinnathamboo v Minister for Manpower [1981] Certiorari = Applicable to Statutory Body and
Non-Statutory Body
 P's representation of employment dismissal was rejected due to time-barred
Certiorari
 In Re Ong Eng Guan [1959] Certiorari ≠ Applicable to Commissioner appointed under Commission of
Inquiry Act 1950

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] Eusoff Chin CJ: Certiorari =
Liberal & Progressive Interpretation & Consequential Relief
 If certiorari is granted merely to quash the award, it will deprive the writ of its vital & effective meaning,
resulting grave injustice to the claimant
 Consequential Relief = Remedy which comes after Certiorari

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai & Anor v Muziadi bin
Mukhtar [2020] Consequential Order
 Consequential Order: Assess fair compensation/damages to the dismissed employee
Certiorari
 Md Aris bin Zainal Abidin v Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Anor [1996] Application of
Certiorari = Within 6 weeks from Date of Judgment (Time Limit)

 If Extension of Time (EOT) is needed, applicant is required to explain the delay in filing the
application
Habeas Corpus (“Show the Body / Bring the Body”)
 FC Art 5(2) Prerogative Writ of Habeas Corpus Against Unlawful Detention – Procedural Remedy /
Right of Detainee
 Show / Bring the Body (Detainee) before the Court to determine if the detainee's imprisonment or
detention is lawful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Zaidi Kanapiah v ASP Khairul Fairoz bin Rodzuan & Ors Anor [2021] Habeas Corpus =
Constitutional Remedy
 Chua Kian Voon v Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors [2019] Habeas Corpus Fundamental
Instrument to Safeguard Individuals Against Arbitrary ∙ Unlawful State Action
 Theresa Lim Chin Chin & Ors v Inspector General of Police [1988] Applicable by Detainee ∙
Detainee’s Rep
Habeas Corpus
 Yeap Hock Seng @ Ah Seng v Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia & Ors [1975] Habeas Corpus = As of
Right

 If 1st Detention = Illegal → Subsequent Detentions = Illegal

 Theresa Lim Chin Chin & Ors v Inspector General of Police [1988]

 Mohamad Ezam Mohd Noor v Ketua Polis Negara & Anor [2002]

 Kanu Sanyal v District Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors [1974]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 In Muhammad Jailani Kasim v. Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors
[2006] Breach of Detention Procedural Requirement ≠ Amount to Unlawful Detention
 Re Onkar Shrian [1970] | Choor Singh J Refusal of Bail ≠ Applicable to Habeas Corpus
 Re Gurbachan Singh's Application [1967] Restricted Residence ≠ Applicable to Habeas Corpus