Su Tiang Joo J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

It is concomitant with a fair trial with parties constitutionally entitled to the equal protection of the law, that the truth should serve to level the battleground, more so, when an individual takes on the might of the State and, in the process, the shield of privilege, if any, should give way to the test of relevancy.

Introduction

[1]On 24.11.2016 Amri Che Mat (“Amri”) left his home and has since disappeared. Police reports were lodged by his wife, the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the police has a duty to investigate, and had failed to do so effectively, either by reason of incompetence or more ominously, not wanting to do so, fearing where the investigations may lead to. To date, nine years on, Amri has not been traced. To the plaintiff, there is no closure.

[2]The plaintiff sued for breach of the right to life under Article 5 (1)Federal Constitution (“FC”), negligence, breach of statutory duty and, misfeasance in public office. And, she claimed for general, including aggravated damages of RM 2 million, exemplary damages of RM1 million, special damages of RM14,457.52 with interest on the damages at 5% p.a. from the date of judgment until full realisation, and costs of RM250,000.00.

[3]After a trial which ran for 23 days from 21.6.2023 until 9.7.2025, with 27 witnesses called (16 by the plaintiff and 11 by the defendants), and 22 bundles of documents produced, this is the Court’s judgment with the full grounds for the same.

PartiesPlaintiff

[4]At the time of the commencement of the suit on 18.11.2019, the plaintiff (PW3) was the wife of Amri. They were blessed with four children.

[5]During the course of the trial, on 29.4.2024 and 30.4.2024, this Court directed the plaintiff and the defendants to address the issue of the locus standi of the plaintiff. And, acting pursuant to section 165Evidence Act 1950fasakh application made on 29.5.2023, it has since been dissolved on 12.12.2023.

[6]I agree with the defendants that although the plaintiff asserted that she genuinely thought that the fasakh was not relevant (E301 p.11 para.18.4 c), as the challenge on locus standi has been taken at the outset by the defendants, the belated disclosure of the status of the plaintiff’s marriage to Amri up till 30.4.2024, paints her in a bad light as it gives the impression that she wanted to lead the Court to believe that she was still married to Amri.

[7]Pursuant to sections 52 and 53 of the Perlis Islamic Family Law Enactment 2006, a woman or a man is entitled to seek dissolution of their marriage by fasakh on the ground inter alia that the whereabouts of his or her spouse is unknown for a period of more than one year.

[8]The marriage certificate produced by the plaintiff on 30.4.2024 shows that on 12.12.2023, the plaintiff’s marriage to Amri was dissolved pursuant to a fasakh application. The plaintiff testified that she had no intention to divorce Amri, but was advised by an Ustaz Abas bin Din from the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Perlis to do so. This was to enable her to:

i)dispense with the need for Amri to be the Wali or guardian or protector for one of their daughters to be married; and

ii)secure welfare aid from the Majlis Agama and Istiadat Melayu Perlis for her children, as their children were denied aid by the Jawatankuasa Kemajuan and Keselamatan Kampung, due to Amri being missing.

[9]The plaintiff, further testified that she remained hopeful that Amri would be found one day and then she can remarry him.

[10]The defendants challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to initiate this suit both before and after the dissolution of her marriage with Amri. The issue of the legal standing of the plaintiff to initiate and maintain this suit will be dealt with in the later part of this judgment.

Defendants

[11]The first defendant, Khor Yi Shuen (“D1”), second defendant, Roslan bin Remeli (D2); third defendant, Kaneson A/L Maganathan (D3) and the fourth defendant, Azahar Muda (D4) were police officers serving at