The court confirmed it cannot interfere with legislative assembly decisions under the separation of powers doctrine, dismissing the Erinford Injunction sought by the Plaintiff.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of this Court in dismissing the Plaintiff's application for an Erinford Injunction to prevent the Defendants from taking action to vacate his seat based on art 14 of the Penang State Constitution ("PSC").

[2] This Court, after hearing the arguments of both Learned Counsels has dismissed encl 71 without costs on 2 March 2023. The parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court

Brief Facts

[3] The Plaintiff (ADUN for Seberang Jaya) filed the Originating Summons (encl 1) in order to obtain a declaration that art 14A of the Penang State Constitution is void under art 4(1) of the Federal due to its inconsistency with art 10(c) of the FC .

[4] On 12 January 2023, this Court dismissed the OS on the primary basis that the primary cause of action relating to the constitutionality of art 14A of the PSC was decided by the Federal Court.

[5] The Federal Court further held that the applicability of art 14A of the PSC to the Plaintiff was to be determined by the First Defendant in accordance with the Separation of Powers doctrine.

[6] The Plaintiff have appealed against that decision. While waiting for the cases to be disposed of by the Court of Appeal (COA), he was informed by the State Legislative Assembly that a motion to declare the status of their seats will be tabled on 6 March 2023.

[7] This is the Plaintiff's application for an Erinford Injunction for the Originating Summons No: PA-24NCvC-708-10/2020. The Plaintiff has filed Erinford Injunction to seek an order preventing the First Defendant from submitting, proposing, debating or voting on motions to vacate their seats under art 14A of the PSC

[There are two (2) more similar applications in two (2) different Originating Summons]

Issues

First

Whether This Court Has Jurisdiction To Issue The Erinford Injunction; And

Second

Whether "The Erinford Injunction Is Necessary To Maintain The Status Quo Of The Parties."

Plaintiff's Brief Arguments

First Issue

[8] This Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to grant an injunction pending an appeal against this Honourable Court's dismissal of the Originating Summons ("OS").

[9] One of the substantive reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the Originating Summons is injunctive in nature, which seeks to prevent the Defendants from tabling, proposing, debating, voting upon and/or passing any motion pursuant to art 14A of the PSC purporting to vacate the Plaintiff's seat as State Assemblyman. In this application, the Plaintiff apply for an Erinford Injunction pending the final hearing and disposal of the appeals in the Court of Appeal.

[10] It is trite law that the an Erinford Injunction can be granted by this Honourable Court despite its decisions being appealed by the Plaintiff. In fact, the case of Subashini a/p Rajasingam v. Saravanan all Thangathoray and other appeals , . ("Subashini") shares some factual similarities with our current situation. In Subashini, the High Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the substantive injunction against the Syariah Court's decision as it is expressly provided under art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution that the civil courts shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. Nevertheless, the High Court granted an Erinford injunction to the Plaintiff pending the Plaintiff's appeal to the appellate Court. Subsequently, the Federal Court reaffirmed the High Court's decision that, an Erinford injunction can be granted by the High Court that had already dismissed the substantive injunctive relief based on the reason that it had no jurisdiction to grant the substantive injunction:

"[28] The learned judicial com