2011 MarsdenLR 2024

AZIAH ALI
KARPAL SINGH RAM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
KETUA HAKIM NEGARA – Respondent

An applicant seeking judicial review and mandamus must demonstrate standing by showing that their personal rights would be affected, failing which the application can be dismissed as frivolous.

Headnote:(A) Judges Code of Ethics 2009 - Sections 12 and 13 - Specific Relief Act 1950 - Section 44(1) - Application for judicial review for mandamus against Chief Justice for failure to respond to a complaint - The applicant, a Member of Parliament, argued that the doctrine of necessity prevents the Chief Justice from determining his own conduct. The court held the applicant did not demonstrate standing under Section 44(1), leading to the dismissal of the application as frivolous. (Paras 1, 11, 17, 19)

(B) Locus Standi - Applicant must prove personal right would be affected to seek mandamus; mere right to lodge a complaint does not confer such standing. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The applicant alleged misconduct by the Chief Justice, submitted a complaint, and claimed a response based on Section 13 of the Judges Code of Ethics 2009, which was ignored. He sought mandamus to compel the Chief Justice to respond.

Findings of Court:
The court found the application to be without merit, claiming it was not supported by adequate evidence of personal right being injured.

Issues: Main issues were applicant's standing to seek judicial review and whether the Chief Justice had a legal duty to respond.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the applicant failed to show an injury to personal rights or that the Chief Justice had a legal obligation to respond, affirming the principle that one cannot be a judge in their own case does not create a duty actionable by mandamus.

Result: Application for leave dismissed with costs of RM10,000.