The court established that a Menteri Besar is deemed to have vacated office if he fails to resign following a loss of confidence, which is not exclusively determined by a formal vote.

Introduction

[1] Following the General Election held on 8 March 2008, the political alliance called Pakatan Rakyat (PR) won 31 seats out of the 59 seats in the State Legislative Assembly of Perak (LA). The remaining seats went to Barisan Nasional (BN). On 17 March 2008, the appellant was appointed the Menteri Besar of Perak (the MB) by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak (HRH). On 5 February 2009 three members of the LA for Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang declared and informed HRH that they no longer supported the PR and instead threw their support behind BN. The appellant then had an audience with HRH on the same day where he was informed that his request for dissolution of the LA was rejected by HRH. He was then directed to tender the resignation of the Executive Council, as he no longer commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the LA. The direction was made pursuant to art XVI(6) of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak ('the State Constitution'). The appellant did not comply with the direction given by HRH. On 6 February 2009 HRH appointed the respondent as the new MB, replacing the appellant.

[2] Dissatisfied with the decision of HRH, the appellant filed an application for judicial review seeking the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the appellant is still the MB of Perak;

(b) A declaration on the Interpretation of art XVI(6) of the Undang- Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak that in the circumstances where:

(i) the MB wanted, and had given advice to dissolve the Perak Legislative Assembly ('LA');

(ii) the LA was not dissolved;

(iii) there was no motion of no confidence against the MB in the LA; and

(iv) there is no resignation from the post of MB, whether the office of the MB Perak falls vacant or has been vacated.

(c) A writ of 'quo warranto' be issued against the respondent to show cause and to give information how and under what authority can/is the respondent act as the MB of Perak;

(d) A declaration that the respondent has no legal right to be MB;

(e) An injunction to stop the respondent and/or agents from acting as the MB; and

(f) Damages (punitive, aggravated and exemplary).

Prayers (g), (h) and (i) were withdrawn at the end of the hearing before the High Court.

[3] The High Court granted the declaration that the appellant at all material times was and is the MB and the writ of quo warranto was issued against the respondent. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the learned High Court Judge was reversed.

[4] On 9 July 2009, this Court allowed the appellant's application for leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the following questions:

(1) Whether, under art XVI(6) of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak and in the circumstances that:

(i) the Menteri Besar of Perak wishes, and has advised for the dissolution of the Perak State Legislative Assembly; and

(ii) there was no dissolution of the Perak State Legislative Assembly; and

(iii) there was no motion of no confidence taken in and adopted by the Perak State Legislative Assembly against the Menteri Besar of Perak; and

(iv) there was no resignation by the Menteri Besar of Perak;

the post of the Menteri Besar of Perak may be and/or has been vacated.

(2) Whether, under art XVI(6) of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak , the determination of the issue of confide