Sulaiman Daud JC:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned senior assistant registrar dismissing his application to extend the validity of the writ of summons in this action ("the said writ"). The said writ which was issued on 1 October 1998 was extended once by the learned senior assistant registrar for a period of twelve months from 1 October 1999 to 31 September 2000. This appeal relates to the dismissal of the application for the second extension.

The said writ is indorsed with the concise nature of the plaintiff's claim which reads as follows:

The plaintiff claims is for:

1. Damages for libel contained in a written judgment dated 9th October 1997 in Miri High Court Suit No. MR 26 of 1990 delivered and/or published by the Defendant;

2. An order that the impugned part and/or portion of the impugned judgment numbering eight (8) pages in all be expunged and/or expurgated and/or excluded from the said expugned judgment;

3. Interest on the damages at the rate of 8% per annum from the date herein until final settlement or at such rate and for such period of time as the courts deems just; and

4. Such other relief as the Court seems just.

From the aforesaid indorsement it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for damages for an alleged libel contained in the written judgment of the defendant in respect of the Miri High Court Suit No. MR 26 of 1990 ("the 1990 Suit").

The application was ex partebut at the very outset of the hearing Puan Azizah Hj Nawawi, a senior federal counsel of Attorney General Department appeared before the court. Mr Tai Choi Yu, the plaintiff, objected to her presence at the hearing on the ground that the application was ex parteand that she was not retained by the defendant to act on his behalf. He further argued that a judge is not a public servant and therefore cannot be represented by the senior federal counsel in this proceedings. Puan Azizah explained that she was not acting for the defendant but only appeared as amicus curiae. She also informed the court that she was allowed to appear in such capacity in the hearing before the learned senior assistant registrar. To justify her presence as amicus curiaeshe argued that the application involved a matter of public interest where a judge is being sued for an alleged libel contained in his written judgment. The learned senior federal counsel also cited the case of Re Application By Hamid bin Hassan[1979] 2 MLJ 183, where the trial judge in an ex parteapplication allowed a senior federal counsel to appear in that proceedings as amicus curiaeupon the invitation of the court.

Who is an amicus curiae. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon, 2nd edn. 1997, amicus curiaeis defined as a friend of the court, being a person who voluntarily or on invitation of the court, and not on the instruction of any party helps the court in any judicial proceedings. In the instant case notwithstanding that the senior federal counsel has volunteered to help the court in her capacity as amicus curiae, however, in my view she can only be heard if invited by the court to do so. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that a judge acting judicially is not, by virtue of s. 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, liable to be sued in any civil court for any done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty. I therefore agree with the senior federal counsel that any suit against a judge for an alleged libel contained in his written judgment will undoubtedly involve a matter of public interest. Having considered the subject matter of the suit and the fact that the senior federal counsel was invited by the learned senior assistant registrar in the hearing before him, I did not see any valid reason to object to the presence of the senior federal counsel as amicus curiaeto appear and be heard in this application. I therefore overruled the plaintiff's objection and invited the senior federal counsel to appear in the proceedings as suc