Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2001
HIGH COURT MALAYA TAIPING
PHRAKHRU SANGKARAT BAU @ IDENG DIN RUANG – Appellant
Versus
WAI SENG MOH & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: AB-23NCVC-2-06-2020]
The tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of termination in favor of the plaintiff, absence of reasonable cause, and malice, none of which were established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Land Enactment 1897 - Section 6 - Land Enactment 1903 - Section 8 - Dispute over land use and ownership - The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against the Defendants, finding no malice or lack of reasonable cause for the committal proceedings initiated by Defendants. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 46)
(B) Malicious Prosecution - Requirements - The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove the essential elements for malicious prosecution, including termination of proceedings in his favor and absence of reasonable and probable cause. (Paras 20, 28, 46)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff and Defendants have been in disputes over a piece of land since 2004, with previous suits leading to the current claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The Defendants filed committal proceedings against the Plaintiff for non-compliance with a High Court order to demolish a structure. (Paras 1-3, 11, 15)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiff did not establish malicious prosecution as the committal proceedings were based on reasonable grounds and the Plaintiff did not comply with the High Court order. (Paras 46, 56)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Defendants engaged in malicious prosecution and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to claim damages. (Paras 14, 46)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed due to failure to demonstrate malice, lack of reasonable cause, and inability to prove damages. (Paras 46, 56)
Result: Plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff and the Defendants in this case have been involved in a number of civil suits and actions against each other since more than years ago but the dispute had been going on since the year 2004. Earlier, there was a civil suit No: 22-20-2011 (which will be referred to as "Suit No 1") which was commenced by the Defendants against the Plaintiff and another person by the name of Nellie Sammuel Peter Simon ("Nellie") that led to the decision and order dated 27 April 2016 by the then Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Zaini Mazlan (as His Lordship then was). Suit No 1's Order dated 27 April 2016 became the subject matter of later actions and will be referred to as "the Order".
[2] In this Civil Suit No: AB-23NCVC-2-06/2020 (which will be referred to as "Suit No 2"), the Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were struck off by the then Judicial Commissioner of the Taiping High Court , Tuan Muniandy Kannyappan (as His Lordship then was) on 24 May 2021 upon the Defendants' application in Encl 5 dated 18 August 2020. Upon the Plaintiff's appeal, the Court of Appeal on 25 April 2022 allowed it and the case was remitted to the High Court to be heard on the merits.
[3] The trial commenced before me on 11 September 2023 with a total of 2 witnesses for the Plaintiff and 3 witnesses for the Defendants. On 14 May 2024, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims of tort of malicious prosecution and/ or tort of abuse of process and he filed a Notice of Appeal against this Court 's decision on 10 June 2024. The Court now gives its decision for dismissing the claim. Unless stated otherwise, the parties will be referred to as they were in Suit No 2.
Factual Matrix
[4] The disputes centred around the same piece of land, known as Lot 347, Jalan Muzaffar, Mukim Assam Kumbang, Taiping (referred to as "Lot 347"). The history of Lot 347 can be found in the learned JC's grounds of judgment of Suit No 1 where the Defendants here were the plaintiffs in that suit and vice versa. The document can be found in the Common Bundle of Document II (CBOD2) at pp 281-300 of Suit No 2. The history stated that in 1899, the Perak State Government had through a notification under s 6 of the Land Enactment 1897, under Gazette No 655, dated 4 August 1899, reserved a piece of land i.e. Lot 347 to be designated as a place of worship for the Buddhist community. It was also stated in the gazette, that Lot 347 is to be protected against trespass, and kept in good order by the trustees of the Buddhist temple called the Bodi Langka Ram and their successors in office. In the following paragraphs, I would use the word "plaintiffs" to refer to the present Defendants and the word "defendants" to refer to the Plaintiff as he was one of the 2 defendants then and the other was Nellie. The following paragraphs are from the Judgment dated 28 July 2016:
"[2] Some few years later, Lot 347 was enlarged to include the land adjacent to it. Subsequent to that, the Perak State Government had through Gazette No 668, dated 28 August 1903, reserved the enlarged Lot 347 in the same terms as the previous gazette. The terms are as follows:
RESERVATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
No 668. By virtue of the powers vested in him by s 8 of the Land Enactment 1903, the British Resident is pleased to hereby reserve the land described in the schedule hereto, and described in a plan of event date herewith, deposited in the office of the Superintendent of Revenue Surveys, for the purpose of a place of worship for the Buddhist Community of Taiping, the said land to be protected against trespass, and kept in good order by the Trustees of the Buddhist Temple called the "Bodi Langka Ram" and their successors in Office:
I shall for ease of reference, describe the second gazette as 'the gazette', and Lot 347 as 'the land'.
...
[4] Sadly though, there was discontentment between two groups, namely, the Sinhalese and the Thai Buddhists, who were the domina
