Table of Content
1. defenses of justification and prior judgments. (Para 4 , 5)
2. admissibility of criminal judgments in civil courts. (Para 6 , 7)
3. distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's approach to striking out claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. complexity in legal issues requires careful consideration. (Para 15)

"to summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in a homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivolli Villa did happen sometime...."

in the judgment of the Federal Court in this case relied upon in support of this defence.

[4] The appellant's pleaded case was that:

"The above quotation clearly means that the Federal Court found the Plaintiff to be involved in homosexual activities. Earlier, the High Court at Kuala Lumpur found the plaintiff guilty on a charge of sodomising one, Azizan b Abu Bakar and the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In the appeal to the Federal Court, although the plaintiff 's appeal was allowed by the majority of the Federal Court, nevertheless the majority had made a specific finding of fact as quoted above;

Further, the dissenting judgment of Rahmah Hussain, FCJ in the same case concluded that the plaintiff was guilty of the offence under s 377B of the Penal Code , a buggery offence.

Another man, Dr Munawar Anees's conviction still stands, in taking part with the plaintiff in homosexual acts. The application by Dr Munawar Anees to the Federal Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeal under r 137 of the Rules of the Federal 1995, was dismissed on 17 December 2008".

[5] On 21 February 2011, the appellant filed a summons in chambers under O 18 r 19(a), (b) and (d) contending that the appellant's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or was frivolous, vexatious and filed in abuse of the process of the Court inter alia on the following grounds:

"a) Bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP , 2004 MarsdenLR 1984 jelas telah mendapati plaintif pernah terlibat dalam aktiviti-aktiviti homoseksual. Pada awalnya Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur mendapati plaintif bersalah di atas tuduhan meliwat Azizan bin Abu Bakar dan sabitan ini telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan. Di dalam rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan, walaupun rayuan plantif dibenarkan oleh majoriti Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, namun begitu majoriti telah membuat keputusan fakta secara spesifik seperti petikan di perenggan 10 afidavit sokongan Khairy Jamaludin Abu Bakar yang diikrarkan pada 18 February 2011. Oleh yang demikian, Defendan adalah berjaya menunjukkan pembelaan justifikasi;

b) Bahawa defendan pada masa tersebut adalah Naib Ketua Pergerakan Pemuda UMNo Malaysia yang mempunyai tanggungjawab undang-undang, moral dan sosial kepada orang awam dan masyarakat Melayu. Orang awam secara amnya mempunyai suatu kepentingan sah yang bersamaan dalam menerima maklumat tentang hal-hal dalam perbincangan-perbincangan yang memberi kesan kepada kebajikan sosial, ekonomi dan politik. Oleh yang demikian, defendan adalah dilindungi oleh Pembelaan Perlindungan Bersyarat;

c) Bahawa terdapat keputusan kehakiman didalam prosiding-prosiding sebelumnya di antara plantif dan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed pada tahun 1999 di mana tindakan plaintif telah dibatalkan oleh RK Nathan J atas alasan bahawa tindakan plantif jelas tidak dapat dipertahankan setelah mempertimbangkan sabitan-sabitan Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja dan Dr Munawar Anees dan pembelaan "justifikasi' dan 'Perlindungan Bersyarat". Prosiding-prosiding tahun 1999 ini dilaporkan sebagai Dato' Seri Anwar v. Dato' Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed [1997] 7 CLJ 32. Rayuan plaintif kepada Mahkamah Rayuan telah ditolak. Ini dilaporkan sebagai Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. Dato' Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed, [2001] 2 MLJ 65. Kemudiannya kebenaran untuk merayu di Mahkamah Pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document