The court determined that claims for false imprisonment under the Emergency Ordinance are limited to procedural compliance, not merits, thus voiding the plaintiff's claim and necessitating clear identification of tortfeasors for vicarious liability.

[1] The plaintiff's writ action against the defendants was for the tort of false imprisonment (wrongful detention) and for contempt of court. In the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim dated 30 May 2008 ("SOC") the plaintiff pleaded that his arrest and detention by the defendants from 5 December 2006 to 10 April 2007 was unlawful and an infringement of his basic rights as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution . The plaintiff claimed for special damages for loss of income and livelihood for the whole duration that he was unlawfully arrested and/or detained as well as general, exemplary, aggravated and punitive damages. The plaintiff's claim for damages also covered the period he was detained from 3 April 2006 to 5 December 2006.

[2] The defendants disputed the plaintiff's claim and in their defence to the plaintiff's claim, the defendants pleaded that two detention orders made pursuant to s 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 ("POPOC") and the process leading to these two detentions were lawful and in accordance with the procedures as set out in POPOC. The defendants further claimed that as the plaintiff's arrest and detention were justified and lawfully made pursuant to the clear authority of the law, the defendants were not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff whether special, general, aggravated, exemplary or punitive. Further, the defence raised the issue of limitation and that the proper party and/or the tortfeasors had not been named in this action.

[3] This case proceeded by way of a full hearing with one (1) witness having testified for the plaintiff and two (2) witnesses having testified for the defendants.

[4] After giving full consideration to the evidence, both documentary as well as testimonial, and the submissions by both learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants, on 13 February 2013 I dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs. After a brief submissions on costs I awarded costs, of RM30,000.00 to the defendants.

[5] Aggrieved by the said decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the court of Appeal, Malaysia against the whole of the said decision.

The Documents

[6] At the outset of the trial, both learned counsels had agreed to dispense with the marking of the documents individually as exhibits and for these agreed documents to be deemed accepted as exhibits and be referred to in the manner these documents were paginated in the Agreed Bundles of Document marked as "B1" and "B2" respectively. The relevant documents referred to in the course of this trial were as follows:

Additional Common Bundle of Documents

Issues To Be Tried

[7] Both parties had framed two (2) sets of issues to be tried (Documents marked as "C1" and "C2" respectively). For ease of reference, all the issues stated in the Documents marked as C1 and C2 are reproduced as follows:

Issues in C1

a. Whether the detention of the plaintiff from 5 December 2006 to 10 April 2007 amounted to a wrongful detention and a contempt of the court Order;

b. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to aggravated and/or exemplary and/or punitive damages;

c. Whether it had been proved that the 1st defendant had informed the police about the release of the plaintiff pursuant to the order of the court dated 29 November 2006 and whether the 1st defendant had delayed in releasing the plaintiff and or that the 1st defendant or h