JUDGMENT

Hashim Hamzah JCA:

Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as they were in the High Court below.

[2] In the present case, the Plaintiffs are pensionable members of the Malaysian Armed Forces ("MAF") who had retired from service before 1 January 2013 and have been receiving their pensions in accordance with their pensionable status. The Defendants are the Government of Malaysia, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Senior Minister of Defence, and the Armed Forces Council, respectively.

[3] On 17 November 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an application to the High Court through an originating summons, claiming the following relief:

(a) a declaration that all the Defendants had breached arts 137 and 8 of the Federal Constitution ("FC") read together with s 187 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 [Act 77] due to the Defendants' respective failures to carry out any pension adjustments for all MAF pensioners who had retired before 1 January 2013; and

(b) all MAF pensioners who retired before 1 January 2013 should have their pensions adjusted at a rate and in a manner similar to the adjustments made for MAF pensioners who retired after 1 January 2013.

[4] After hearing both parties, the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") decided in favour of the Plaintiffs and allowed the Plaintiffs' application with no order as to costs. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Defendants filed this appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Plaintiffs' Case

[5] In summary, it is the Plaintiffs' case that:

(a) the last pension adjustment was made in 2002 following the implementation of Sistem Saraan Malaysia ("SSM");

(b) the Defendants failed to carry out any further pension adjustment from 2002 to 2013 concerning all MAF pensioners who retired before 1 January 2013;

(c) the alleged failure by the Defendants has created a gap in the amount of pension received by MAF pensioners of the same rank who retired before and after 1 January 2013; and

(d) there was unfairness and unequal treatment of MAF pensioners who retired before 1 January 2013 regarding their pension adjustments, which breached arts 5, 8, and 147 of the FC.

The Defendants' Case

[6] The Defendants, on the other hand, contended that:

(a) pension adjustments were implemented from 2002 to 2012 in accordance with the respective salary revisions mandated by the Government;

(b) from 2012 onwards, there have been no salary revisions implemented by the Government, thus resulting in an absence of any pension adjustment; and

(c) there was no unequal treatment of MAF pensioners' pensions by the Defendants for those who retired before 1 January 2013 compared to those who retired after 1 January 2013, as alleged by the Plaintiffs.

The Law On Appellate Intervention

[7] The law is established that an appellate Court should not intervene in the trial Court 's findings on primary facts unless it is satisfied that the trial judge was plainly wrong, ie, the "plainly wrong test". An appellate Court is entitled to examine the trial Court 's evaluation process of evidence. It may overturn any decision of the trial Court that lacks proper judicial appreciation of the evidence or is based on errors of law.

[8] See Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors; [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 6 AMR 781; UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor; [2018] MLJ (Supp) 363; [2010] 9 CLJ 785; Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd; [2015] 2 MLJ 441; [2015] 2 CLJ 453; [2015] 2 AMR 601; and Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors; [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 8 AMR 227.

[9] With this fundamental legal principle in mind, we turn to examine the issues raised by both parties in this appeal.

Our Analysis And Findings

The Relevant Laws

[10] Before addressing the issues raised by the parties involved in this appeal, we consider it essential to outline the relevant laws pertaining to this case.

[11] First and foremost, art 147 of the FC safeguards the pensio