Back
2021 MarsdenLR 757
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
JEGA JOTHY C THIAGARAJAH & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PERSATUAN RUMAH BERHALA SRI NAGESWARI (ENCL 33) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-582-09/2020]
Plaintiffs lacked locus standi to sue the Temple association as they were neither its office bearers nor registered representatives, rendering their claims frivolous and an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Societies Act 1966 – Section 9 – Lack of locus standi – Plaintiffs' claim struck out due to inability to demonstrate adequate interest in the Temple’s management as required under section 9(c), not being the registered public officer or office bearers of the society – Plaintiffs’ suit regarded as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. (Paras 20, 23, 24, 50)
(B) Orders sought by the plaintiffs – The plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs prayed for as they are not parties entitled to initiate the action on behalf of the Temple, contrary to the provisions of the Societies Act. (Paras 40, 41, 46)
(C) Assertion of public rights – The plaintiffs cannot enforce public rights associated with the Temple without the Attorney General's consent as required under the Government Proceedings Act 1956. (Paras 47, 48)
Facts of the case: The case revolved around the Temple managed by the defendant association; plaintiffs are said to be devotees and donors with grievances concerning funds misallocated by office bearers. They sought various injunctions against the defendant regarding the mismanagement of Temple assets. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Findings of Court: The defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the suit and thus their case was struck out as being unsubstantiated. (Para 54)
Issues: The major issue was whether plaintiffs possessed sufficient standing to sue the defendant association, and if reliefs they sought were justifiable. (Paras 20, 40)
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs could not prove sufficient interest as they were neither representatives of the association nor did they follow appropriate legal protocols for suit initiation, rendering their claims untenable. (Paras 23, 31)
Result: Application to strike out the writ action granted with costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This was an application by the defendant to strike out the statement of claim filed by the plaintiffs, principally by reason of the lack of locus standi.
[2] At the conclusion of the hearing which was conducted via zoom remote communication technology, I allowed the application and provided the principal grounds for the same. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.
Key Background Facts
[3] This case concerns Rumah Berhala Sri Nageswari ("the Temple"). It is a Hindu temple located in Jalan Lengkok Abdullah, Off Jalan Bangsar, in Kuala Lumpur. It is managed by the defendant, Persatuan Rumah Berhala Sri Nageswari which is registered as an association under the Societies Act 1966 since 1979, through a committee formed under the constitution of the association.
[4] The first and second plaintiffs are said to be devotees and donors of the Temple. They are not members of the defendant association. The third plaintiff was at the material time initially the assistant, and later became the acting treasurer of the defendant association.
[5] The three plaintiffs filed a writ action against the defendant, arising from a dispute concerning the supervision and control of the process and works on the re-building and renovation of the Temple. Their pleaded case is that despite the formation of a special building committee to perform the oversight role, key decisions were instead taken by certain individuals only, bypassing the authority of the said committee. These related to the expenses incurred by the defendant which included payments made to third party contractors for works which were later disputed.
[6] The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant, but with specific references to certain of its office bearers, primarily Shanmugam a/l Ana Kinggar Salam (chairman of the management committee of the defendant), Muniandy a/l Palanisamy (its secretary) and Sarvananthan a/l Seenivasagam (its treasurer) committed various misconduct such as abuse of authority, breach of trust and misappropriation of the funds and assets of the Temple. There are also allegations of other office bearers being dismissed from their positions and even that of assault during meetings.
[7] The key remedies that the plaintiffs prayed for include a mandatory injunction for the defendant to take action against the relevant office bearers for their failure to discharge their duties in accordance with the constitution of the association, an injunction to prevent these individuals from continuing in their positions on the management committee and from being elected in future terms, an injunction against the management committee to compel these individuals to return the assets and funds of the association to the defendant, and an injunction to compel the defendant to convene an extraordinary general meeting to elect new office bearers for the management committee, as well as for the committee to administer the Temple in accordance with its constitution.
[8] In addition to seeking to defend this suit commenced by the plaintiffs, the defendant also moved to institute this application to strike out the writ action filed by the plaintiffs against it.
[9] Before I proceed to examine the grounds for the striking out as advanced by the defendant, and the arguments posited by the plaintiffs, it is useful that the law on striking out be stated, albeit in summary fashion.
The Law On Striking Out - A summary
[10] The starting point of reference must be O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of 2012 ("the RC 2012") which relevant provisions read as follows::
"19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O 18 r 19)
(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that:
(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;
(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;
(c) i
