Back
2014 MarsdenLR 531
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
SYED IDRUS SYED AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
AFANDI ABDUL MANAP & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit: 21NCVC-27-06/2012]
To prove malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must demonstrate the prosecution ended in their favor, lacked reasonable cause, and was motivated by malice, all of which the plaintiff failed to establish.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Quality Act, 1974 - Sections 22(1) and 377(b) Criminal Procedure Code - Tort of negligence and malicious prosecution - Plaintiff, falsely accused as a director of Fourth Defendant, claimed for damages due to trauma and loss of reputation - Court found that the issuance of the warrant was lawful and based on a proper search, the relevant evidence did not support the Plaintiff's claims of negligence or malicious prosecution, and ultimate decision was to dismiss the claim. (Paras 1-89)
(B) Malicious prosecution - Essential ingredients must be proven: prosecution by the Defendant, ended in Plaintiff's favor, absence of reasonable cause, and malice - Plaintiff failed to prove any of these elements. (Paras 39-88)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff resigned as a director of the Fourth Defendant in 2001 but was summoned for an alleged offence committed by the Fourth Defendant in 2006. He maintained that he should not have been implicated, arguing negligence by the Defendants in not updating his directorial status. (Paras 3-10)
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff’s claims of malicious prosecution and negligence were unsubstantiated; he failed to prove injury, damages, or malice, and the summons was served following proper protocol based on a valid Companies Commission search. (Paras 45-88)
Issues: Whether the Defendants acted negligently by implicating the Plaintiff after his resignation, and whether they acted maliciously in instituting the prosecution against him. (Paras 32-37)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the search document from the Companies Commission was sufficient to establish the Plaintiff's directorship at the time of the alleged offense; failure to update the records did not entail negligence by the Defendants. (Paras 55-76)
Result: Claim dismissed with costs. (Para 89)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's background and involvement in negligence case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's experience during arrest and case proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. witness testimonies related to events surrounding the prosecution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
[1] The Plaintiff brings this action for the tort of negligence against the first and Second Defendants for getting him involved in an environment case in the Session Court Georgetown vide criminal summons 63-111-09 even though he was no longer a director of the Fourth Defendant.
[2] The Plaintiff had resigned as director in 2001. The First Defendant was the prosecuting officer who conducted the said case in the Sessions Court. The Second Defendant was the director of the Jabatan Alam Sekitar, Pulau Pinang is brought in as the principal of the First Defendant.
[3] The Plaintiff sued the third and Fourth Defendants for failure to inform and to take any action to remove the name of the Plaintiff as a director from the Fourth Defendant's list of directors with the Companies Commission Malaysia and also for not informing the Second Defendant that the Plaintiff had resigned from the Fourth Defendant's company since 2001. The Fourth Defendant is a subsidiary of the Third Defendant.
[4] This case had one gone for trial. The Plaintiff had one witness (himself). The Second and Third Defendants called five witnesses and the third and fourth Defendants had a witness each.
Evidence
[5] The Plaintiff (SP1) gave evidence that some policemen came to his house at Edgecumbe Road on 12 February 2010 to effect/serve a warrant of arrest on him. As the Plaintiff was not in his house at that time, the police allowed the request of the Plaintiff's wife to have the Plaintiff surrender and report to the Pulau Tikus Police Station.
[6] Thereafter SP1 went to the police station and was informed that the warrant was for his failure to appear in Court for the summons case. SP1's wife then signed a bond for the release of SP1 and for his appearance in Court on 19 February 2010. SP1 said he was on the point of collapse.
[7] On 19 February 2010, when SP1 attended and appeared at the Sessions Court, Georgetown, his warrant of arrest was cancelled by the Court and was ordered to attend Court on 5 March 2010. On 5 March 2010 when SP1 appeared in Court, he was informed about the charge and a copy of the charge sheet was given to him.
[8] According to SP1, that was the first time he realised that he was charged as a director of the Fourth Defendant for an offence committed in 2006 by the Fourth Defendant. SP1 then explained to the prosecutor that he was totally innocent as he was no longer the director of the Fourth Defendant as at 2006.
[9] SP1 claimed that the prosecutor refused to listen and SP1 claimed trial for the case which was adjourned to 12 July 2010 for full trial. After that SP1 went to consult his lawyer who then wrote to the Second Defendant on 6 Aril 2010 informing them that the Plaintiff was no longer a director of the Fourth Defendant since 2001 and therefore not privy to the offence committed by the Fourth Defendant in 2006. (see: bundle C pp 8-12).
[10] According to SP1, there was no reply from the Second Defendant but sometime on 4 &5 July 2010 representatives from the Second Defendant went to see him at his home and shop in Pitt Street to persuade him to plead guilty. They also tried to get him to sign a statement which SP1 declined to do. The Plaintiff testified that he was badly affected by the visits as he was treated as a common criminal.
[11] Subsequently, SP1 visited the Fourth Defendant's office and pleaded with its director Dato' Seri Haji Samsuri to inform the Second Defendant that he was not responsible as he had resigned as a director in 2001. According to SP1, Dato' Seri Haji Samsuri did nothing.
[12] On 12 July 2010, SP1 arrived in Court early and he went and asked the prosecutor if he was withdrawing the charge. According to SP1, the prosecutor answered in the ne
