Abdul Hamid bin Omar LP:

These two appeals arise out of a decision given by Anuar J. on 23 March 1993 in respect of a procedural objection taken by the respondents. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 02-156-93 are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the proceedings in the Court below whilst the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 02-155-93 is the 3rd defendant in those proceedings. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to them as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants, respectively.

The Background

On 9 February 1993, the respondents obtained an exparte interlocutory injunction restraining the appellants from doing certain acts, including printing, circulating, distributing or publishing any allegation of impropriety, irregularity or illegality against the respondents or their subsidiaries and affiliated companies.

The respondents' case in the Court below is that the appellants breached the injunction and are accordingly in contempt of Court. On that basis, the respondents, on 23 February 1993 obtained leave ex-parte to issue proceedings against the appellants to commit them to prison for their contempt.

On 25 February 1993 the respondents filed their substantive Notice of Motion which is enclosure 27 in the High Court file. Meanwhile, on 20 February 1993 the appellants filed an application to set aside the injunction. That application, which was made by a summons returnable in chambers, is enclosure 21 in the High Court file.

On 2 March 1993, both enclosures 21 and 27 came on for hearing before the learned Judge. As at that date, the 3rd appellant had filed a summons to strike out the writ (the filing having been done on 1 March 1993) and this summons was on its face returnable on 3 March 1993. This application is enclosure 33 in the High Court file. The learned Judge's note, however, reflects that only enclosures 21 and 27 were before him for hearing on 2 March 1993. The appellants made some issue about this and we shall deal with it at the appropriate place in this judgment.

Due to insufficient time, the hearing scheduled for 2 March 1993 was adjourned to 3 March 1993 and again adjourned to 5 March 1993. And it seems clear that what was to be heard on 5 March 1993 were enclosures 21 and 27.

Preliminary Objection

When the hearing on enclosure 21 was about to commence before the learned Judge, Counsel for the respondents took a preliminary objection. He argued that the appellants ought not to be permitted to be heard on enclosure 21 until after enclosure 27 had been disposed of. After hearing lengthy arguments by Counsel on both sides, the learned Judge reserved his ruling which he delivered on 23 March 1993. He ruled that he would take enclosure 27 first and having disposed of it, would then deal with enclosure 21. The appellants are dissatisfied with the ruling. Hence the appeals.

Procedural Ruling

We would observe that this is clearly an appeal against a mere procedural ruling. This Court has always discouraged such appeals as they stand in the way of a speedy disposal of substantive trials and delay an expeditious result of the main proceedings. Be that as it may, on a closer examination of the matter, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Lim Kean Chye of Counsel for the 3rd appellant and Mr. Karpal Singh of Counsel for the 1st and 2nd appellants that matters of public interest and of principle are involved in these appeals.

Central in these appeals lies the important principle governing the rights, if any, of defendants who disobey orders of Court and then come forward to set aside the order disobeyed or to seek other relief from the Court.

Obedience to Court Order

It is established law that a person against whom an order of Court has been issued is duty bound to obey that order until it is set aside. It is not open for him to decide for himself whether the order was wrongly issued and therefore does not require obedience. His duty is one of obedience until such time as the order may be set aside or varied. Any person w