The appellant operated a canteen at the hospital premises of the 1st respondent on a two-year contract basis. The 1st respondent extended the contract for a further 6 months subject to a review for a further extension provided the appellant overcame the complaints on its quality of service. However, the contract was subsequently awarded to the 4th respondent. The appellant applied for an injunction in the court below from eviction but the judicial commissioner (`JC') refused the application on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal for an urgent injunction against the respondents.

Held (dismissing the appeal)

Per Gopal Sri Ram JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

[1] Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 29(`the Act') is not an impediment to restraining a private defendant from entering into a transaction with the governmentGovernment of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang [1988] 1 CLJ 63. Therefore, in the present case, there was no reason why the 4th respondent could not have been restrained from entering into a contract with the government to run a canteen at the 1st respondent hospital. It followed that the JC fell into error when she held against the appellant on this part of the case. (p 130 a-b)

[2] The effect of current authority is that the courts have jurisdiction to grant interim and permanent injunctions against any servant of the government. Accordingly, there was no jurisdictional bar to the High Court granting the appellant the injunction it sought against the 1st respondent, the director of the hospital in question. (pp 133 h & 134 a)

[3] It has been settled since at least 1978 that s. 29 of the Act does not prohibit the grant of temporary injunctions against the government. In Tengku Haji Jaafar & Anor v. Government of the State of Pahang, it was held that s. 29 did not take away the right of the court to grant an interlocutory injunction. This court treated the ratio in that case as having settled the law in Kekatong Sdn Bhd v. Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd [2003] 3 CLJ 378 CA (refd). Although the Federal Court reversed this court's decision in that case, the judgment on this point was approved sub silentio. (p 134 c-d)

[4] Section 29 of the Act does not prohibit the grant of temporary injunctions against the government. However, the merits of the present case did not justify the grant of the injunction sought. This was a case of a pure breach of contract. The appellant had no interest whatsoever in the immovable property in which the canteen was situated. All that the appellant had was a purely contractual right to run the canteen at the 1st respondent's premises, nothing more. If the appellant established a breach of contract at the trial of the action then it would be entitled to an award of damages in the ordinary way. Further, the appellant's complains were readily compensated by a monetary award. Since monetary compensation was an adequate remedy, it followed that in accordance with well-settled principles governing equitable discretion, specific relief was inappropriate in the circumstances. (pp 134 f & 135 c-d)

[This court did not approve the High Court in Muniandy v. Majlis Perbandaran Langkawi [2003] 4 CLJ 123 HC (refd) accepting Salleh Abas LP's view in Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang [1988] 1 CLJ 63 as opposed to Edgar Joseph Jr J's view in Tan Suan Choo v. Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang when the latter view was affirmed by this court in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 293 CA (refd). The lower courts were advised to abide by the latter view.]

[Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu mengusahakan sebuah kantin di premis responden pertama untuk tempoh dua tahun berasaskan kepada suatu kontrak. Responden pertama kemudian melanjutkan tempoh kontrak selama enam bulan tertakluk kepada kemungkinan dipertimbang untuk lanjutan seterusnya jika perayu dapat mengatasi aduan-aduan mengenai kualiti perkhidmatannya. Kontrak, bagaimanapun, akhirny

Click Here to Read the rest of this document