JUDGMENT

George Seah SCJ:

This is an appeal by the appellant, Haji Salleh bin Jafaruddin, against a decision of Chong J refusing him leave to apply for an Order of Prohibition against the respondents, members of the Committee of Privileges of the Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court dismissed the appeal indicating that we would give our reasons at a later date. This I now proceed to do.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. The appellant is at all material times a member of the Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak for the constituency of Oya. The respondents are also members of the Dewan. Respondents 2 to 8 constitute the Committee of Privileges of the Dewan. The 1st respondent is the Speaker of the Dewan and by virtue of r. (5)(a) of the Standing O. 69 of the Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak is also Chairman of the Committee of Privileges. On 18 May 1985 Datuk Alfred Jabu ak. Numpang, a Deputy Chief Minister and Minister of Housing as well as a member of the Dewan gave a Notice of Motion that the appellant be referred to the Committee of Privileges for alleged breach of privileges in respect of a speech made by the appellant at the sitting of the Dewan on 16 May 1985. The said Motion was seconded by the 2nd respondent, Dr. Wong Soon Kai whereupon the Dewan resolved that the same be referred to the Committee of Privileges to investigate and to report its finding to the Dewan.

On 23 August 1985 the secretary of the Dewan issued a notice to the appellant requiring him to attend before the Committee of Privileges on 23 September 1985 when the Committee would inquire into the charge of the alleged breach of privileges. By letter dated 6 September 1985 the appellant applied to the 1st respondent in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee that the 2nd, 4th and 7th respondents be disqualified or withdrawn from the Committee of Privileges on the ground of likelihood of bias against him and that he be permitted legal representation at the hearing. On 9 September 1985 the 1st respondent replied that the application of the appellant was not approved. Apprehending an adverse outcome of the enquiry to be held by the Committee of Privileges the appellant applied to the High Court at Kuching for leave to issue an order of prohibition against the respondents directing and restraining them from proceeding with the enquiry scheduled on 23 September 1985. This was refused by the learned Judge. Hence this appeal.

Now, the writ of prohibition has been described as "a judicial writ, issuing out of a Court of superior jurisdiction and directed to an inferior Court for the purpose of preventing the inferior Court from usurping a jurisdiction with which it was not legally vested", or, in other words, to compel Courts entrusted with judicial duties to keep within the limits of their jurisdiction (see Short & Mellor, Practice of the Crown Office, 2nd Edn. at p. 252). This definition was cited with approval by Viscount Cave in the case of Clifford v. O'Sullivan [1921] 2 AC 570 at 582. This definition according to Viscount Cave is supported by the statements of text-writers (Bacon's Abr. "Prohibition", Vol. vi p. 564; Comyns' Digest, "Prohibition", Vol. vii, p. 139; Hale's History of the Common Law, 6th Edn. p. 45) as well as by the opinion of Milles J in LondonCorporation v. Cox LR 2 HL 239/254 and by that of Lord Blackburn in Mackonochie v. Lord Penzance [1880-81] 6 App. Cas. 424/443.

In 1882 in the case of The Queen v. Local Government Board [1882- 83] 10 QBD 309 at 321 Brett LJ said:

I think I am entitled to say this, that my view of the power of prohibition at the present day is that the Court should not be chary of exercising it, and that wherever the legislature entrusts to any body of persons other than to the superior Courts the power of imposing an obligation upon individuals, the Courts ought to exercise as widely as they can the power of controlling those bodies of persons if those persons admittedly attempt to e