JUDGMENT

Abdul Hamid Acting LP:

This is an appeal against an exercise of discretion of the Court below. The facts are not in dispute. Indeed in the grounds of judgment the learned Judge made the following findings:

(1) that a resolution suspending the appellant was passed in his absence. He was orally informed. A letter followed on 26 November 1985;

(2) that the appellant was not notified of Majlis Kerja Tertinggi's intention to resolve his suspension;

(3) that the appellant was not given any notice specifically of what he was accused of. It was only the appellant's belief that Majlis Kerja Tertinggi was going to discuss his conduct when he was asked to leave the meeting; and

(4) that the appellant was not given the opportunity of being heard before the resolution was made to suspend him.

However the learned Judge declined to grant the interlocutory injunction sought by the appellant on two grounds. The question we have to decide on appeal is whether the learned Judge had erred in law in so declining.

The principles governing the exercise of discretion to grant or withhold an interlocutory injunction are well established. Injunction is pre-eminently a discretionary remedy. The disc