A plaintiff must demonstrate locus standi and a reasonable cause of action; claims lacking specificity or regarding non-justiciable matters can be struck out to prevent judicial overreach.

Introduction

[1] Before this Court is a matter that piques the public's interest and constitutional import. The Plaintiff, a citizen, has boldly stepped forward to challenge a decision made by the administration and the Government, a decision that allegedly resulted in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money. This case, at its core, not only questions the stewardship of public funds but also the very pillars of administrative accountability and Governmental responsibility.

[2] The gravity of the allegations cannot be understated. The Plaintiff contended that the decision in question was not only imprudent but also lacked the necessary legal and procedural sanctity expected in the administration of public affairs. Such assertions, if proven, strike at the heart of democratic governance and the rule of law. The citizen's action, while arguably noble in its pursuit of Governmental accountability, must nonetheless be scrutinized under the unforgiving lens of legal legitimacy. Central to this deliberation is the concept of 'locus standi' - the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a Court. The principle of locus standi ensures that only those with sufficient interest in a case's outcome are permitted to bring a lawsuit. It is a fundamental doctrine designed to prevent the courts from being flooded with cases brought by individuals or entities with no legal stake in the proceedings.

[3] In this context, the Plaintiff's locus standi becomes a pivotal aspect of our determination. The Court is tasked with the intricate balancing act of upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law, while simultaneously safeguarding the democratic process from being undermined by litigations lacking a legitimate legal basis.

The Plaintiff's Suit

[4] To assess the Defendants' application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim (Enc 14), the Court turns to the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim (SoC) that was authored for 63 pages. He cited negligence and misfeasance in public office on the part of the Defendants for the alleged wrongful termination of the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project (the HSR Project) that resulted in compensation payment to the Government of Singapore. The amount of compensation payment pleaded against each of the Defendants differed. The 1st defendant for nearly RM46,000,000.00 which was the same amount as that pleaded against the 3rd defendant whilst the 2nd defendant for RM320,270,519.24. Both the amounts were pleaded against the 4th defendant.

[5] The Plaintiff claimed that it was an enormous economic loss and the denial of a first-class international level transportation that was expedient, safe, and affordable. His SoC iterated the chronology of the birth of the idea of the HSR Project until para 41 at p 22 where it was pleaded that the 1st defendant upon winning the 14th General Election on 9 May 2018 had proposed on 28 May 2018 to terminate the HSR Project to reduce the nation's debts. It was made known that the reason was that the HSR Project would incur enormous costs where the Malaysian public would not reap the benefits as reported.

[6] The Plaintiff's core allegation is that inappropriate, arbitrary termination of the HSR Project based on Defendants' personal interests rather than national interest unnecessarily resulted in major compensation costs paid by the Malaysian Government and people. His SoC stated that the alleged mismanagement and the unnecessary compensation costs payments occurred as:

1. The 1st defendant was negligent and abused his power when he postponed the H