The principle of res judicata prohibits re-litigation of issues already adjudicated by a competent court to ensure finality in litigation.

(Enclosure 1)

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff commenced this Originating Motion against the defendant seeking for a declaration that s 3 read together with s 4 of the Sedition Act 1949 ("") is inconsistent with Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.

Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff is a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Selangor for Sri Muda.

[3] On 7th February 2011, the plaintiff was charged under s 4(1)(c) of Act 15 for the publication of an on-line article entitled "Pandangan saya berasaskan Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 1959" concerning matters surrounding the appointment of the Selangor State Secretary without the involvement of the Menteri Besar of Selangor.

[4] The plaintiff claimed trial to the charge and before the trial could proceed, the plaintiff commenced an action, by way of a Notice of Motion dated 1st April 2011 to the Shah Alam High Court seeking for the criminal prosecution instituted against him before the Session Court at Shah Alam vide Arrest No 61-1-2011 be struck out and quashed, an order that s 4 of Act 15 read as a whole is inconsistent with the FC and therefore void and for the Court to discharge and acquit him.

[5] On 19th January 2012, Her Ladyship Noor Azian Shaari held that s 4(1)(c) of Act 15 is not ultra vires the FC and dismissed the plaintiff's application.

[6] Aggrieved by the said decision the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, Malaysia. On 26th December 2013 the Court of Appeal had upheld the decision of the High Court Shah Alam and dismissed the appeal.

[7] The plaintiff then filed an appeal to the Federal Court. However, before the appeal could be heard and disposed of by the Federal Court, on 20th October 2014 the plaintiff withdrew the appeal. The withdrawal was in consequence to the decision in the case of Siow Chung Peng v. PP, [2014] 4 MLJ 504 where the Federal Court held that pursuant to s 87(1) of the (CJA) the Federal Court's jurisdiction did not extend to decisions of the High Court made in respect of a case tried or to be tried by a Subordinate Court.

[8] On 25th September 2014 the plaintiff filed an Originating Motion vide OM No 24-36-09-2014 in this Court. On 20th January 2015 the plaintiff filed Enclosure 13.

Decisions

[9] Having perused the cause papers, the written submissions filed by the respective parties herein and having heard the oral arguments the followings were my decision.

[10] I had earlier on heard the submissions of the respective parties concerning the constitutionality of ss 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act 1949 ("") read as whole vide an application filed by the plaintiff dated 20th January 2015 ("Enclosure 13"). I had dismissed Enclosure 13 and my grounds for dismissal were as stated in the grounds of Judgment in respect of Enclosure 13.

[11] After I dismissed Enclosure 13, I proceeded to hear Enclosure 1, the Substantive Motion filed by the plaintiff seeking for a declaration that ss 3 and 4 read as whole are consistent with Article 10 (1)(a) of the FC.

[12] When the Substantive Motion was called, Mr New Sin Yew informed the Court that in view of the dismissal of Enclosure 13, the learned Counsel would not be making any further submission but to rely on the written submission filed herein.

[13] Miss Alice Loke, Senior Federal Counsel of Counsel for the defendant sought for permission to submit on the Substantive Motion.

[14] The grounds relied by the learned Senior Federal Counsel were that the Substantive Motion was an abuse of the process of Court and res judicata.

[15] I proceeded to hear the submission of the Senior Federal Counsel and a short reply by the plaintiff's Counsel and dismissed the Enclosure 1 with costs. Both parties to the