Procedural compliance is crucial in administrative detention cases; wrongful detention claims fail without proper service of revocation orders, limiting judicial review to procedural non-compliance issues.

[1] The claim by the plaintiffs is for damages premised upon the 1st plaintiff being allegedly wrongfully detained by the defendants from 12 March 2008 until the 1st plaintiff was released from "restricted residence" on 5 November 2010.

Background Facts:

[2] The 2nd plaintiff is the wife to the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff was detained under ss 3(1) and 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 on 10 September 2007.

[3] The 1st plaintiff was detained under the 1st defendant's order whereby the detention order were extracted on 6 November 2007 and was served on the 1st plaintiff. As a result, the 1st plaintiff was sent to Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Simpang Renggam, Johor for detention for a period of two years. The detention order is in p 25 Bundle C.

[4] On 12 March 2008 and 28 March 2008, suspension orders were extracted which was signed by the 1st and the 2nd defendants. The order dated 12 March 2008 was issued by the Deputy Minister, Dato' Mohd Johari bin Baharum whilst the order dated 28 March 2008 was issued by Dato Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar.

[5] However, it is not disputed that both these orders, ie dated 12 March 2008 and 28 March 2008 were never served on the 1st plaintiff. In fact the defendants claimed that the order dated 12 March 2008 was issued without authority due to the fact that it was issued during the "Caretaker" government period. While the order dated 28 March 2008 was subsequently recalled and cancelled. These, according to the plaintiff raised new defences as it was never pleaded in the statement of defence of the defendants.

[6] Be that as it may, the 1st plaintiff was then served with a restriction order dated 30 October 2008 in which the 1st plaintiff was restricted to living in Mukim Tanjung Bunga, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang with other conditions imposed on the 1st plaintiff and was released on 5 November 2010.

[7] The plaintiffs in the suit herein are seeking reliefs:

i) That the said detention of the 1st plaintiff is wrongful from 12 March 2008 by the defendants until the 1st plaintiff was released from "restricted residence", and the detention is therefore null and void;

ii) Special damages for the loss of business, dividends, royalties and possible contracts and logging concessions;

iii) General damages on the 1st plaintiff's violation of rights under the Constitution, resulting in bad reputation, undergoing a difficult life and not allowing the 1st plaintiff to seek for treatment, mala fide acts and abuse by the agents of the 3rd and 4th defendants.

The Court's Findings

[8] Before I proceed with the main grounds of my judgment, it needs to be clarified that earlier, this suit had been struck off by me under O 18 r 19 RHC 1980. It went on appeal to the Court of Appeal which decided as follows:

"Rayuan perayu pertama dibenarkan memandangkan terdapat isu untuk dibicarakan berhubung samada perayu pertama telah ditahan secara sah dari tarikh perintah penggantungan bertarikh 12 March 2008 dan samada kedua-dua perintah penggantungan bertarikh 12 March 2011 dan 28 March 2011 adalah perintah yang sah dan berkuatkuasa pada masa ianya dikeluarkan"

[9] Hence, as far as the 2nd plaintiff is concerned, her case has no relevance to the full trial anymore as the Court of Appeal only allowed the appeal by the 1st pla