The court confirmed that the Assembly's internal proceedings, including the election and removal of its Speaker, are not subject to judicial review, affirming immunity under the Federal Constitution and relevant statutory provisions.

Introduction

[1] The parties will be referred to like what they were referred to at the High Court. Thus, Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu will be referred to as the plaintiff. While Ganesan a/l Retanam will be referred to as the defendant.

[2] On 15 May 2009, the plaintiff filed his writ of summons and his statement of claim citing the defendant as his adversary.

[3] On 21 May 2009, the plaintiff then filed his summons in chambers as seen in encl 3 for the following orders:

(a) the Defendant and/or his agents or servants be prevented from denying the Plaintiff entry to the Assembly or from prohibiting or obstructing the Plaintiff in any way whatsoever from occupying the office of or carrying out his duties as the lawful Speaker of the Perak State Assembly;

(b) the Defendant and/or his agents or servants be prohibited from carrying out any further acts of abuse, assault and/or battery on the Plaintiff;

(c) the costs of and occasioned by this application be borne by the Defendant; and

(d) such further or other consequential relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and just.

[4] On 30 June 2009, the defendant filed an application by way of a summons in chambers in encl 11 to strike out the plaintiffs writ of summons and the statement of claim under O 18 r 19(1)(b) or (1)(d) of the Rules of the High 1980 ("RHC"). In its original text, the striking out application was worded in this way:

atas pendengaran permohonan Defendan di bawah A 18 k 19(b) atau (d) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi, 1980 untuk suatu perintah bahawa:

(1) writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan di dalam tindakan ini dibuang keseluruhannya; atau

(2) secara alternatifnya, kesemua kenyataan dalam pernyataan tuntutan yang menyentuh perjalanan dalam Negeri Perak dibatalkan;

(3) kos berbangkit dari dan bersampingan dengan permohonan ini hendaklah ditanggung oleh plaintif dan dibayar serta-merta; dan

(4) lain-lain relif yang dianggap suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.

[5] In due course, the learned judge of the High Court allowed the defendants application to strike out the plaintiffs writ of summons and the statement of claim by allowing encl 11 paras (1) and (3). The learned judge of the High Court then proceeded to strike out the plaintiffs application for an interlocutory injunction in encl 3 with costs.

[6] Aggrieved by the decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal to this Court.

The Facts

[7] What transpired on 7 May 2009 during the sitting of the Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak - the Perak State Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the "Assembly"), took centre stage in this appeal.

[8] The plaintiffs statement of claim narrated the events that took place on 7 May 2009 as seen from the plaintiffs perspective and that statement of claim makes for interesting reading material. In its original text, the plaintiffs statement of claim averred as follows:

1. The Plaintiff is at all material times, and still is the Tronoh State Assemblyman and the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly (the Assembly).

2. The Defendant is at all material times not an elected member of the Assembly and therefore his presence at any As