The civil jurisdiction of the High Court cannot adjudicate on the validity of criminal charges pending in the Magistrate's Court, emphasizing the separation of civil and criminal law.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff/Respondent brought an Originating Summons at the High Court wherein he made an application under s 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 ("CJA") under the general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court for a declaration:

(a) that the complaint made by the Defendant dated 17 July 2019 is without basis and invalid at law;

(b) that all consequential proceedings are null and void at law, particularly art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution (' FC '), and be struck out or set aside.

[2] Amongst the reliefs that he sought under O 7 of the Rules of Court, 2012 are the following:

1) A declaration as above;

2) A stay of proceedings that arose out of the said complaint pursuant to s 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 in the overriding interests of justice under O 1A, ROC and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court;

3) Any other relief or remedy deemed fit by the Court;

4) Liberty to apply for consequential orders; and

5) Costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

Salient Facts

[3] The Respondent, at the material time until around June 2020, was the registered owner of the premises known as A-05-01 Blok A Plaza Kelana Jaya, Jalan SS7/13A, Petaling Jaya, Selangor ("the Premises") under the Strata Title Act 1985 (Act 318) ("STA 1985").

[4] The Appellant, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya, is a local authority created under the Local Government Act 1976 (Act 71) pursuant to Art 76(4) of the Federal Constitution .

[5] The Respondent was summoned by the Appellant via a complaint dated 17 July 2019 (Exhibit BL-1). The summons related to an overhead shelter built on the accessory parcel to the Premises without prior permission from the Appellant under the SDBA 1974.

[6] The Respondent was charged under s 70(1) of the SDBA 1974.

[7] The Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge at the Magistrate's Court.

[8] The Respondent's appeal to the Shah Alam High Court (Rayuan Jenayah No BA-41(Ors)-6-7 Tahun 2020) was dismissed on 2 September 2020 based on DPP's preliminary objection that interlocutory matters cannot be appealed against.

[9] The Respondent filed an Originating Summons at the High Court for a declaration that the complaint made by the Appellant dated 17 July 2019 is without basis dan invalid at law.

[10] On 12 August 2021, the Learned High Court Judge ('LJ') allowed the Respondent's application with costs of RM1,000.00.

Our Decision

[11] In the LJ's view, the issues that arose for the Court's determination from the Appellant's application were correctly stated to be these:

(a) whether the Plaintiff's application is res judicata because the Plaintiff's appeal against the charge was dismissed by the Shah Alam High Court ('SAHC');

(b) whether there was consent from the Public Prosecutor ('PP') as required under s 123 of the SDBA 1974 prior to the institution of the proceedings against the Plaintiff; and

(c) whether the charge against the Defendant under s 70(1) of the SDBA 1974 is bad in law and without basis.

[12] Upon duly deliberating on the above core issues and considering the factual matrix of the case in applying the relevant principles of law to the facts, the LJ came to a determination as follows:

(i) Whether the Plaintiff's application is res judicata because the Plaintiff'