Back
2013 MarsdenLR 2304
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AMRAN AB RAHMAN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
DATO HJ IKMAL HISHAM ABDUL AZIZ & ORS (ENCL 9) – Respondent
[Suit No: 22NCVC-191-02/2013]
The lack of locus standi hinders the ability of a plaintiff to maintain an action, even in cases seeking declaratory judgments, emphasizing that interest in the subject matter is essential.
Headnote:(A) Societies Act 1966 - Rule 18(19)(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 - Striking out of Plaintiffs' action - Plaintiffs lacked locus standi to maintain their action against the Defendants due to their terminated membership in UMNO and failure to demonstrate sufficient interest - Case law established that only those with a legitimate interest may seek a declaratory judgment. (Paras 10-14)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs sought various reliefs against UMNO and its officials, including a declaration that UMNO Bahagian Tanah Merah was an illegal organization and seeking damages amounting to RM 205,285,504.00. The Defendants sought to strike out the suit on the grounds that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. (Paras 5-6)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that all Plaintiffs lacked the required locus standi and that the suit was deemed frivolous and vexatious, resulting in it being struck out. (Paras 16-18)
Issues: The court addressed whether the Plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi to initiate this action and whether their claims were frivolous. (Paras 16-18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a Plaintiff must possess an interest in the matter and that the refusal of standing safeguards judicial resources from frivolous actions; hence, the Plaintiffs' actions were struck out for lacking merit. (Paras 14-16)
Result: The Plaintiffs’ Suit is struck out with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the plaintiffs' claims and defendants' applications. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 2. standards for striking out under o 18 r 19. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's consideration of locus standi. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. clarification on locus standi requirements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. consequential relief and its implications. (Para 17) |
| 6. final order striking out the plaintiffs' suit. (Para 18) |
[6] Encls 5 and 13 are filed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants whilst and Encl 9 is an applications by the 3rd Defendant to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ of Summons dated 21 March 2013 and Statement of Claim dated 21 March 2013 under O 18 r 19(1) Rules of 2012. All Enclosures are heard together. The 1st and 2nd Defendants are proceeding under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d) Rules of 2012 whilst the 3rd Defendant is proceeding under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) Rules of 2012 on the following grounds:
[a] that the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the 3rd Defendants;
[b] the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring this suit against the 3rd Defendants.
[7] In the 3rd Defendant's submission, it is stated therein that the 3rd Defendant shall only be proceeding on the 2nd ground ie that the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the action herein.
The Law On Striking Out Under O 18 r 19 (1) Of The Rules Of 2012 (" ROC 2012")
[8] In the Supreme Court case of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd, , Mohamed Dzaidin bin Hj Abdullah SCJ [as he then was] held as follows:
"The principles upon which the Court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19(1) of the RHC are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule (per Lindley MR in Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v. Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7, and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it 'obviously unsustainable' (see AG of Duchy of Lancaster v. L & NW Rly Co 8). It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence (see Wenlock v. Moloney & Ors 9). The Court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the defences raised are not arguable."
[9] Further in the Supreme Court case of Sim Kie Chon v. Superintendent of Pudu Prison & Ors, ; , Abdul Hamid Omar CJ, at p 386, held as follows:
"The principle governing the striking out of pleadings is clear in that it is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under O 18 R 19 of the Rules of the High 1980: "the summary procedure under this Rule can only be adopted when it can clearly be seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it 'obviously unsustainable'." (Attorney-General of Duchy of Lancaster v. L & NW Railway Co) [1892] 3 Ch 274.( Supreme Court Practice 1985)."
Consideration Of The Application [Encl 9]
[10] Having read and considered all the relevant pleadings and submission of learned counsels for the Defendants and the Plaintiffs, this Court finds that there are merits in the 3rd Defendant's application [Encl 9] on the following grounds.
Locus Standi
[11] The Plaintiffs contended that on the issue of Plaintiff's locus standi, it is sufficient if the Plaintiffs can show their interests to institute and maintain this suit. The Plaintiffs relied on the case of Affin Bank Berhad v. Mohd Kassim Ibrahim , [2013] 1 CLJ 465 where the Court held inter alia as follows:
"A declaration merely declares the right of the parties. As such, a person seeking for a declaratory judgment need not show or establish a cause of action. He merely needs to show his interest in the issue at hand"
[12] On the issue of the 1st Plaintiff's locus standi, this
