JUDGMENT

KN Segara JCA:

[1] The appeal before us is against the learned High Court Judge's decision in dismissing on 19 February 2009 the appellant's application for an order of mandamus to coerce the respondents to carry out their statutory duty under s. 33(3) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (GPA) to honour payment of half of a judgment sum with interest as required by the certificate issued by the Court on 12 August 2008. The learned judge instead directed the respondents to deposit the said judgment sum into Court (pending the disposal of an appeal by the respondents against the quantum of damages assessed by the Deputy Registrar, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court Judge on 4 October 2005).

[2] The appellant is merely seeking the assistance of the Court to get the State Government to satisfy the judgment sum obtained against its officers. The procedure to be followed is set out in s. 33 GPA which reads as follows:

33(1) Where in any civil proceedings by or against the Government or in any proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief Act 1950 , or in any such proceedings as would in England be brought on the Crown side of the Queen's Bench Division, or in connection with any arbitration to which the Government is a party, any order (including an order for costs) is made by any Court in favour of any person against the Government or against an officer of the Government as such, the proper officer of the Court shall on an application in that behalf made by or on behalf of that person at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or, in case the order provides for the payment of costs and the costs require to be taxed, at any time after the costs have been taxed, whichever is the later, issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing particulars of the order:

Provided that, if the Court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant.

(2) A copy of any certificate issued under this section may be served by the person on whose favour the order is made upon the person for the time being named in the record as the advocate for the Government or for the Government department or officer concerned.

(3) If the order provides for the payment of any money by way of damages or otherwise, or of any costs, the certificate shall state the amount so payable, and the appropriate Government shall, subject as hereinafter provided, pay to the person entitled or to his solicitor the amount appearing by the certificate to be due to him together with the interest, if any, lawfully due thereon:

Provided that the Court by which any such order as aforesaid is made or any Court to which an appeal against the order lies may direct that, pending an appeal or otherwise, payment of the whole of any amount so payable, or any part thereof, shall be suspended, and if the certificate has not been issued may order any such directions to be inserted therein.

(4) Save as aforesaid no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued out of any Court for enforcing payment by the Government of any such money or costs as aforesaid, and no person shall be individually liable under any order for the payment by the Government or any officer of the Government as such, of any such money or costs. (emphasis provided)

[3] We are of the view that there is only one primary issue before us, namely: Has the judge misdirected himself in law in refusing an order of mandamus when directing the respondents to deposit into Court the judgment sum in the face of an unchallenged certificate under s. 33 GPA issued to the appellant and the absence of a stay of execution of the damages assessed by the Deputy Registrar?

[4] Briefly, the background facts leading up to the issue of the certificate under s. 33 GPA and the application for judicial review for an order of mandamus is as follows.

[5] On 24 January 2005 the Penang S