Negligence of a plaintiff cannot provide grounds for an award of damages when actions are based on court orders.

[1] The appellants'/defendants' appeal in respect of damages awarded for wrongful imprisonment of the respondent/plaintiff came up for hearing on 8 May 2014 and upon hearing we allowed the appeal. My learned brother Azahar Mohamed JCA and my learned sister Aziah Ali JCA have read the draft judgment and approved the same. This is our judgment.

[2] It must be noted that the cross-appeal was withdrawn with the consent of the parties on the date of hearing.

Preliminaries

[3] A common sense approach needs to be applied to understand the case in the right perspective. Evidence will show the plaintiff/respondent was himself negligent and did not show receipt of payment of fie for which he was imprisoned notwithstanding that he was represented by solicitors as well as his family members having visited him regularly in the prison. The elementary jurisprudence involved in the instant case relates to 'no man can take advantage of his wrong or mistake or negligence, etc'.

Brief Facts

[4] The plaintiff was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to a fie of RM150,000.00 in default, six months' imprisonment in respect of two charges under s 41(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 . That is to say he must pay a fie of RM300,000.00. He had paid RM220,000.00 and in consequence of not paying the balance, a warrant of committal was issued against the plaintiff stipulating RM150,000.00 if not paid, in default of six months imprisonment. That is to say for one charge he has paid in full and the other charge he has paid partly but the warrant says RM150,000.00. The plaintiff could have objected and produced the receipts of payment on the day of arrest and imprisonment and/or could have done so through his solicitors. The fact that he has to serve imprisonment for not having paid the balance RM80,000.00 is not in dispute.

[5] The plaintiff's complaint is that he has orally informed the Kajang Prison and later the Bentong Prison where he was detained but the prison authorities had ignored him. One need to pause here - the warrant of committal was issued by the court and if it was erroneous he ought to have informed the court and corrected the same. The prison authorities were purely acting on the warrant.

[6] The plaintiff says that because of the negligence of the prison authorities he was detained for extra 74 days and claims the portion of the days spent as wrongful imprisonment.

[7] The learned trial judge indeed found as a fact that he had orally informed the prison authorities and found the defendants liable without explaining how that could have been under the law:

(i) when the order for warrant of committal was issued by the court and the prison authorities were just performing their duties in relation to the warrant and if release is to be ordered, it has to be done by the courts and for the purpose of the release the role of the prison authorities at the most could have been only 'a messenger' to inform the court.

(ii) the fact that it was the court who had ordered the release upon confirming that the payment was received pursuant to a letter by the plaintiff's solicitor dated 8 February 2010 which was received by the prison authorities on 17 February 2010 who had immediately brought to the attention of the court.

(iii) without explaining why the plaintiff and/or his solicitor could not have written the same letter and provide the information as early as 4 August 2009 when the warrant of committal was issued and how exemplary damages of RM100,000.00 could be awarded when the negligence or fault line was on the plainti