An application for judicial review must name proper parties and be filed in the appropriate jurisdiction based on where the cause of action arose, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements.

[1] This is an application for leave for a judicial review seeking for the following reliefs:

i. An order of Certiorari to quash the Notice of Refusal of Entry dated 15 April 2011 issued by the Second Respondent, who had refused the Applicant entry into the State of Sarawak; and

ii. An order of Mandamus to compel the First, Second and Third Respondents to permit the Applicant to enter the State of Sarawak.

Facts

[2] The facts leading to this application are these. On 15 April 2011, the Applicant arrived at Kuching Airport from Kuala Lumpur. At the Immigration Department Counter, the Applicant was denied entry into the State of Sarawak. No pass was issued to her to enter the State. The Applicant was given a notice of Refusal of Entry dated 15 April 2011 as per exh A-3 (the impugned decision). The Applicant left Sarawak on the next available flight for Kuala Lumpur.

Preliminary Issue

[3] Learned counsel for the Applicant Encik Tommy Thomas, raised an issue on whether learned Senior Federal Counsel Datin Azizah Nawawi and learned State Counsel of Sarawak Dato' J C Fong could be present at the stage where leave was to be obtained. He contended that since an application for leave is to be heard by way of ex parte and that there was no affidavit filed by the Respondents, they were not entitled to be present in Court at this stage of the proceedings. Hence, the Court should just accept the statements of the Applicant in the application as the truth on face value as there were no affidavits in rebuttal.

[4] Dato' JC Fong's countered the argument citing the decision of the late Lim Beng Choon J in George John v. Goh Eng Wah Bros Filem Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors, . In that case, the presence of Senior Federal Counsel at leave stage, opposing leave on ground of locus was objected to by the Applicant. The learned Judge observed that though leave is an ex parte application, it does not preclude any person who has interest or who is adversely affected by a decision of the Court from appearing. In fact under O 53 r 8 of the RHC, any person who de sires to be heard or who appears to the Judge, to be a proper person, may be heard not with standing he is not been served with the application. The present application was served on the Attorney General's Chambers under O 53 r 3 (3) of the RHC. It is a mandatory requirement to serve the Attorney General's Chambers. Following such a requirement, it makes little or no sense to deny the appearance of the learned Senior Federal Counsel. It also follows that if O 53 allows the attendance of a person who has an interest to appear even if that person was not served with the application; it would accordingly be more so the case for the representative of the Attorney General considering that service on his chambers is mandatory. The reason for the presence of the representative of the Attorney General and the State Legal Counsel here is well understood. The reliefs sought in this application would invariably affect the public officer or authority that made the impugned decision in the State of Sarawak and the Respondent cited. In my view, this in itself is sufficient to justify their presence in Court. Their presence to address the issue on whether or not, there is proper application before the Court may prevent waste of judicial time on vexatious and or frivolous application. That is also good enough reason bearing in mind that the Courts are often burdened with cases resulting in back log of cases in the legal system. Furthermore, no objection was raised when both learned Senior Federal Counsel and learned State Legal Counsel were present at the last hearing date. They both filed their written submissions then and adjournment was sought by learned counsel for the Applicant to be heard today on the basis that time is required to reply to the objections raised in their written submissions in opposing th