Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
DEWAN PERNIAGAAN MELAYU MALAYSIA NEGERI JOHOR – Appellant
Versus
MENTERI BESAR JOHOR & ORS – Respondent
[Judicial Review No: 25-28-05-2013]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Contempt proceedings can be initiated against Ministers and public officials for disobedience of court orders, as the Rules of Court explicitly exclude only the Federal and State Governments from certain protections (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that contempt involves interference with justice and that leave to commence committal proceedings against public officials requires establishing a prima facie case, which involves a clear and verified statement of the alleged contempt (!) (!) (!) .
The procedural safeguards for contempt proceedings include the requirement for a detailed and sufficiently particularized statement (O 52 statement) supported by a verifying affidavit, ensuring the alleged contemnor understands the charges and can prepare a defense (!) (!) (!) .
At the leave stage, the court's assessment focuses on whether there is a prima facie case, which is determined by whether the O 52 statement and affidavit show that a contempt has been committed and that the contents are not inherently improbable (!) (!) (!) .
The criteria for granting leave involve a lower standard of proof, primarily a prima facie or reasonable basis, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court must also consider whether the allegations are sufficiently particularized and whether procedural safeguards are met (!) (!) (!) .
Procedural irregularities, such as lack of personal service or absence of penal notices, are generally not fatal at the leave stage if the contemnor has notice and awareness of the order, and these issues can be addressed at the substantive stage (!) (!) (!) .
The rules do not provide immunity for Ministers or officers of the Government from contempt proceedings. The scope of protection under the rules is limited to the Government as a whole, not individual public officials acting in their official capacity (!) (!) .
The legal authority to perform land alienation is vested in the state authority, and the proposed contemnors' obligations to transfer land are consistent with their roles within the state machinery. Their actions are considered capable of representing the state's authority, and their non-compliance can be subject to contempt proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The rules and legal principles support the view that contempt proceedings can be instituted against Ministers and government officers, including those acting in their official capacity, especially when there is a breach of court orders that they are obliged to obey (!) (!) .
The overall legal framework affirms that public officials, including Ministers, are accountable for disobedience of court orders, and such proceedings serve to uphold the rule of law and ensure judicial orders are enforced effectively (!) (!) .
If you require further detailed elaboration or assistance with specific legal issues related to this document, please let me know.
Introduction
[1] This case concerns an application under O 52 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 for leave to commence committal proceedings against the three respondents. It discusses the law on the principles governing the request for leave and the important point of law on the applicability of enforcement process by way of committal to Ministers, including Menteri Besar of State Governments.
Key Background Facts
[2] It is crucial that the specific prayers set out in the ex parte notice of application (encl 17) (the translated version) be reproduced, as follows:
1. That each of the following (together, the "proposed contemnors"):
a. Menteri Besar Johor ("first proposed contemnor");
b. Pengarah Tanah & Galian Negeri Johor ("second proposed contemnor"); and/or
c. Unit Perancang Ekonomi Negeri Johor ("third proposed contemnor")
be committed to prison and/or fined such amounts as may be deemed appropriate by this honourable Court for the proposed contemnors' contempt of this honourable Court in disobeying the order of this honourable Court dated 6 February 2014 granted in the underlying proceedings and/or interfering with the administration of justice in failing to comply with the said order;
2. That the proposed contemnors, jointly and severally, do pay the applicant on a full indemnity basis all costs of, arising from or otherwise occasioned by these proceedings;
3. Any further and/or other order this honourable Court deems fit and/or otherwise appropriate.
And that the statement pursuant to O 52 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 dated 27 May 2015 and the affidavit in support of Mohadi bin Sardi dated 27 May 2015 in support of this application be read in support of the grounds on which this application for leave to apply for an order for committal is being sought.
[3] The order of 6 February 2014 stated to have been disobeyed by the proposed contemnors is in respect of the judicial review remedy of mandamus. Based on the matters specified in the requisite statement pursuant to O 52 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 dated 27 May 2015 ("the O 52 statement") and the affidavit in support, the legal dispute amongst the parties began about a decade ago, in respect of which, for greater clarity I set out hereunder the earlier relevant Court proceedings in a summarised fashion, especially given that they were mentioned in the terms of the order of mandamus said to have been transgressed.
The Civil Suit
[4] The applicant had, vide Johor Bahru High Court Civil Suit No: 22-290- 2005, instituted an action against the proposed contemnors for, amongst others, the following reliefs (the "civil suit"):
(i) that the defendants (the proposed contemnors herein) do deliver to DPMM Negeri Johor (the applicant herein) the land containing an area of 65,377 acres comprised in Lot PTB 20114 situated at Pantai Lido, Johor Bahru, Johor;
(ii) alternatively, profits amounting to RM475,000,000.00 (less RM153,000,000.00 payable to the 3rd defendant (the third proposed contemnor herein) in 15 years) or a net sum of RM322,000,000.00; and
(iii) the amount actually expended by the plaintiff (the applicant herein) in the sum of RM631,303.00.
[5] Whilst the trial of the civil suit was in progress at the initiative of the proposed contemnors, the applicant and proposed contemnors entered into negotiations with a view to settling the civil suit.
The First Consent Order
[6] A settlement was reached between the parties and recorded in the High Court by way of a consent order dated 14 December 2009 (the "first consent order"). The exact terms of the first consent order are reproduced as follows:
"1. The defendants shall alienate and transfer to the plaintiffs within six months from the date of this Order two acres of contiguous leasehold (99 years) land of international status free from encumbrances for commercial development located within the lands held under title deeds No PTB 22055 HS(D) 446607 and PTB 22056 HS(D) 446608, both in Bandar Johor Bahru, the exact location and the plotti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
