(1) This case has a history. But we are spared from dealing with all of it. So far as this appeal is concerned, the facts fall within a narrow compass.

(2) The plaintiff (the respondent before us) brought an action by writ in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur. In it, he claimed a number of declarations. They were all directed at a meeting of the third defendant which the defendants (the appellants before us) intended to convene for the purpose of discussing certain allegations relating to the judiciary which they considered matters of public interest. The plaintiff stopped that meeting by means of an interlocutory injunction. Later, a trial took place before the learned judge in the High Court. It was on issues framed by the plaintiff that encompassed the justiciability of the whole of the relief he had claimed at the foot of the writ. The judge amended the issues and ordered a trial. Oral evidence was led on both sides with the former President of the first defendant, namely the second defendant, being subjected to cross-examination on his affidavit. After hearing evidence, and at the close of the proceedings, the learned judge reserved judgment. Later, on a date fixed for mention of the case, he made a statement in the following terms:

Gentlemen of the Bar,

In so far as this case is concerned, I have already reached a decision.

All it requires is for me to tell you my decision and in the event of

an appeal, to write my judgment. But before I pronounce my decision, I

take this opportunity to appeal to both sides to reconsider your

positions. In addressing the plaintiff, I would urge you to consider

the fact that whilst you might have been motivated by the

highest of ideals for having filed this suit, you must be aware that

subsequent events have so quickly overtaken your desired aims that they

now seem superfluous. Let’s face it. The raison d’etrefor your

filing this suit, namely the allegations against YAA Tun Eusoff bin

Chin, the former Chief Justice of Malaysia, is no longer an issue as he

has since retired. Any perseverance of this goal is now an exercise in

futility. Let bygones be bygones.

On this score, it must be noted that the present Chief Justice, YAA Tan

Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Haji Abdullah, the Minister in the Prime

Minister’s Department, YB Dato’ Dr Rais Yatim, and the President of the

Bar Council, Tuan Haji Sulaiman bin Abdullah, have all voiced their

hope that the new millennium will bring about a change. The joint

effort of these three personalities must not go to waste. I now make

this impassioned plea to both parties to hang up your gloves and enter

the ring of peace.

The whole country is reverberating with the sound of the word ‘unity’.

It is axiomatic therefore that the Bar ought to lead by example. When I

say the Bar, I include the plaintiff herein. Just about a year ago I

was to hear the defamation suit filed by Mohammad Sabu (the then MP for

Party PAS) and Ibrahim Ali from the UMNO, regarding a reference made by

the latter in respect of a khalwat case. On the day fixed for hearing,

and with the consent of both solicitors I talked with the plaintiff and

the defendant and urged them to show the Nation that notwithstanding

their different ideologies, they stood united as a race. The parties

asked for a short adjournment and returned within half an hour to

inform me that for the sake of Malay Unity the plaintiff was

withdrawing his suit with no order as to costs. It was a spontaneous

show of respect for each other which no doubt the media had then

canvassed.

Then I had the occasion to hear yet another defamation suit whereby Mr

Lim Kit Siang, the DAP stalwart and its former MP, sued YB Dato’ Seri

Lim Keng Yaik, the