JUDGMENT

Nordin Hassan FCJ:

Introduction

[1] The Appellant filed two appeals before this Court against the decisions of the Court of Appeal, which are as follows:

(i) Civil Appeal No 01(f)-29-09/2024(D) concerning the decision of the Court of Appeal in dismissing the appellant's appeal regarding the quantum of damages awarded by the High Court .

(ii) Civil Appeal No 01(f)-30-09/2024(D) concerning the decision of the Court of Appeal in allowing the respondent's appeal against the decision of the High Court that allowed the appellant's claim for wrongful detention.

[2] This Court allowed one leave question for the present appeal, which is as follows:

"Whether an accused person, upon being investigated under the Armed Forces Act 1972 and where the charge is not dealt with summarily, be remanded automatically under s 96(3) of the said Act without having to consider the remand procedures prescribed under s 94 of the Act and rr 4, 15(1), (2), 16(1), and 38(1) of the Armed Forces (-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, with regard to remand pending trial by a Court -Martial."

The Background Facts

[3] The undisputed brief facts in the present case are as follows:

(i) The Appellant was a soldier in the 5th Battalion of the Royal Ranger Regiment, Desa Pahlawan Army Camp, Kota Bharu, Kelantan ('the Army Camp').

(ii) The 1st Respondent was the appellant's commanding officer at the Army Camp.

(iii) On 29 March 2014, at about 12.30am, a drug prevention operation was conducted in the Army Camp, where 26 rangers, including the appellant, were instructed to provide their urine samples. These urine samples were then sent to the Chemistry Department of Malaysia for analysis. The analysis found that out of the 26 urine samples, 9 of the samples, including the appellant's urine sample, contained methamphetamine, a drug substance prohibited by a 'standing order' made under s 51 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 (the AFA).

(iv) On 7 August 2014, the appellant was brought before the 1st Respondent under s 95 of the AFA, for the investigation of the charge of contravening the 'standing order', which was an infringement of s 51 of the same Act.

(v) The 1st Respondent then placed the appellant under close arrest pending the completion of the investigation under rr 13 and 14 of the Armed Forces (-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 (the AFRP).

(vi) On 26 August 2014, upon the completion of the investigation, the appellant was brought before the 1st Respondent and was informed that the appellant was guilty of the charge under s 51 of the AFA. Before recording the said finding of guilt, the 1st Respondent informed the appellant of his rights to elect to be tried by the Court -Martial under s 97(9) of the AFA.

(vii) The Appellant then elected to be tried by the Court -Martial and was then further placed under close arrest pending the disposal of the trial before the Court -Martial.

(viii) On 8 April 2015, the Appellant was brought before the Court -Martial and the charge under s 51 of the AFA was read to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the trial was adjourned to 18 May 2015 until 20 May 2015 to enable the charge to be served on the Appellant's counsel.

(ix) From 18 May 2015 to 20 May 2015, the trial before the Court -Martial was postponed due to the unavailability of the prosecuting officer, and the trial was deferred to 22 June 2015 until 23 June 2015.

(x) On 2 June 2015, the appellant's counsel applied to the High Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus for the appellant's release from detention. The hearing of the application was scheduled for 13 July 2015.

(xi) However, before the hearing date of the habeas corpus application, on 3 July 2015, the appellant was released on open arrest pending the trial before the Court -Martial. In the circumstances, the application for habeas corpus was withdrawn.

(xii) The trial before the Court -Martial commenced on 15 October 2015 until its conclusion.

The Proceedings At The High Court

[4] The appel