The court ruled that provisions of the Internal Security Act oust its jurisdiction to award damages for false imprisonment against the Minister.

[1] The factual matrix of the case is rather short and straightforward. The respondent was initially detained by an order dated 12 September 1991 issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs under subsection 8(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (the ISA). This initial order of detention was for a period of two years. Towards the end of the initial two-year period, the Deputy Minister, on 11 September 1993, issued an extension order under subsection 8(7) of the ISA, extending the period of detention for another two years with effect from 14 September 1993, (extension order).

[2] Aggrieved with the extension order, the respondent then applied for a writ of habeas corpus at the Penang High Court. He succeeded in his application. The High Court allowed his habeas corpus application on 7 September 1994 and the respondent was accordingly released. The appellants then filed an appeal against the said decision but later withdrew it. Thus the decision of the Penang High Court stands.

[3] Based on the decision of the Penang High Court allowing the respondent's application for habeas corpus and upon his release, the respondent brought an action in the Kuala Lumpur High Court for damages for the tort of false imprisonment in respect of the extended period of detention from 14 September 1993 until his period of release on 7 September 1994 which covers a period of approximately 300 days.

[4] The learned judge of the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled in favour of the respondent, and awarded damages of RM3 million as general damages together with RM300,000.00 for exemplary damages for the respondent.

[5] The appellants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said decision. The Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of the High Court and held that the extended detention of the respondent was unlawful, and unconstitutional, and therefore the appeal on liability was dismissed.

[6] On quantum of damages, the Court of Appeal set aside the award made by the High Court and substituted it with an award of RM300,000.00 as general damages with interest and costs in favour of the respondent. The Court of Appeal did not make any award for exemplary damages and set aside the award of exemplary damages by the High Court.

[7] Still not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellants then filed an appeal to this Court. Hence the present appeal before us.

The Present Appeal

[8] The present appeal before us is against the decision of the Court of Appeal allowing the respondent's claim for false imprisonment and awarding a sum of RM300,000.00 as general damages in favour of the respondent.

[9] The appellants' application for leave to appeal to this Court against the whole judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal was allowed on 9 September 2014 on the following questions of law:

(i) whether on the true construction of subsection 8B(1) and s 8C of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 82), the Court has jurisdiction to award damages for the tort of false imprisonment against the Minister of Home Affairs, (Question 1); and

(ii) whether the Court has discretion in allowing or not allowing a question of law raised for the first time on appeal in view of the clear words of a statute ousting the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of a specific matter (Question 2).

[10] The issue of jurisdiction under subsection 8B(1) and