Judicial intervention in internal party disputes is permissible when constitutional rights are invoked, despite statutory provisions barring court involvement in political matters.

[1] This judgment pertains to the Defendants' respective applications to strike out the Plaintiff's Originating Summons (OS) under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). The primary issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff's OS discloses a reasonable cause of action or is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of Court process.

[2] The Plaintiff, a former member of Parti Pribumi BERSATU Malaysia (BERSATU) and the elected representative for N.43 Nenggiri, Kelantan, challenges his alleged loss of membership in BERSATU, the declaration of a casual vacancy in his seat, and the by-election conducted by the 4th Defendant.

Issues For Determination

[3] The applications to strike out the OS raise the following key issues:

(a) Whether the Plaintiff has disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants;

(b) Whether the claim is barred by s 18C of the Societies Act 1966 ;

(c) Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to challenge his removal from BERSATU and the vacancy of his seat;

(d) Whether the Plaintiff's claim against the Election Commission (4th Defendant) is sustainable;

(e) Whether the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are academic, moot, or an abuse of Court process.

Analysis And Findings

Issue 1: Whether The Plaintiff's OS Discloses A Reasonable Cause Of Action

[4] The test for striking out under O 18 r 19(1) RoC is well-established. A claim should only be struck out if it is plain and obvious that it is unsustainable — the Supreme Court's decision in Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd 1993 MarsdenLR 99 ; ; ; [1993] 2 AMR 1969 . The Federal Court in Tony Pua Kiam Wee v. Government Of Malaysia & Another Appeal 2019 MarsdenLR 332 ; ; ; [2019] 8 AMR 325 reaffirmed that a cause of action must contain a complete factual matrix to sustain the claim.

[5] Upon reviewing the Plaintiff's OS and supporting affidavits, this Court finds that the Plaintiff's challenge to his membership status in BERSATU and the validity of the by-election raises arguable legal and factual issues. These include:

(a) Whether the retrospective application of BERSATU's constitutional amendments is lawful under the Federal Constitution;

(b) Whether the Speaker's (3rd Defendant) declaration of vacancy was made ultra vires given the factual disputes surrounding the Plaintiff's membership status;

(c) Whether the Plaintiff's fundamental rights under arts 5, 8 and 10 of the Federal Constitution were violated.

Issue 2: Whether The Claim Is Barred By Section 18C Of The Societies Act 1966

[6] The law under s 18C of the Societies Act 1966 bars the Court from entertaining disputes arising from political party matters. The Court of Appeal in Tan Sri Datuk Seri M Kayveas & Ors v. Datuk Seri Maglin Dennis D Cruz & Ors And Another Appeal [2023] MLRAU 166; [2023] 6 MLJ 194 held that the said provision is absolute in preventing judicial intervention in internal party disputes.

[7] The 1st and 2nd Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's expulsion from BERSATU falls squarely within s 18C of the Societies Act 1966 , rendering the matter non-justiciable. However, the Plaintiff argues that his removal resulted from unconstitutional retrospective amendments to BERSATU's Constitution.

[8] This Court finds