Ong J:

This is an action of some complexity involving the interpretation of certain Rules in the Constitution of the Malayan Indian Congress and, in particular, raises the question whether the President has power to suspend a member without first giving him an opportunity of being heard. The plaintiff claims a declamation that his suspension from membership is null and void, an injunction to restrain the defendant from denying him the exercise of his rights and privileges as a member, damages and costs.

The plaintiff is a general merchant and Government contractor. Since 1947 he had been a primary and ordinary member of the Malayan Indian Congress, hereinafter referred to briefly by its initials. On 16 May 1958, he held the offices of (a) President of the Pudu Branch of the MIC, (b) an elected delegate of the said Pudu Branch to the Selangor State Congress of the MIC, (e) an elected delegate of the said Pudu Branch to the Delegates Conference of the MIC, (d) Honorary Secretary to the Selangor State Congress of the MIC, (e) a representative of the Selangor State Congress of the MIC to the Selangor State Alliance Committee, and (f) a representative of the Selangor State Congress of the MIC to the Kuala Lumpur District Alliance Committee.

On 16 May 1958, which was two days before the election of office bearers at the Annual Delegates Conference of the Selangor State Congress, the plaintiff received from the defendant, who then was, and still is, President of the MIC, a letter suspending him from membership of the MIC in these terms:

This is to inform you that I have decided to suspend you forthwith from membership of the Malayan Indian Congress.

You have, in accordance with s. 28 of the MIC Constitution, the right to appeal to the Working Committee.

If you wish to appeal to the Working Committee, you may indicate your desire to the Secretary-General, who will then inform you the time and date at which your appeal will be heard.

The plaintiff alleges, in his statement of claim, which is not denied, that he was not given any reasons for his suspension, nor any notice of the defendant's intention so to do, nor any opportunity to answer any charges against him. He further alleges, in paras. 6 and 7, that he had not acted "in a manner in any way detrimental to the Congress", and contends that, in suspending him from membership, the defendant (i) had not acted bona fide, (ii) had acted capriciously and maliciously and not in the exercise of any judicial discretion and (iii) had acted contrary to the principles of natural justice. Finally, he alleges that, in the result, he was wrongfully prevented from attending the Annual Delegates Conference of the Selangor State Congress on 18 May 1958, and was thereby wrongfully deprived of his right to vote, and of his patrimonial interest and right to be elected to office, in consequence of which he has suffered injury in his credit and reputation.

The defendant's case is that - while denying the allegations in paras 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim -in suspending the plaintiff, he had acted in his official capacity as President of the MIC, and in exercise of the power given to the President by r. 28; that the plaintiff ought to have exercised his right of appeal under that Rule but had not done so, and that consequently the plaintiff had no cause of action.

At the trial of this action only the plaintiff gave evidence, in the course of which he stated that he had not acted in any way detrimental to the interests of the MIC On this point he was not cross-examined, and no evidence was called on behalf of the defendant to the contrary.

The plaintiff further stated that, by reason of his suspension, he was disabled from standing for election in the Selangor State Congress as its President or Secretary, as he had intended, and, in addition, he had lost all the offices he previously held, except that of President of the Pudu Branch. He gave it as his opinion that the defendant feared