Badariah Sahamid JCA (Majority):

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur dated 14 May 2018, which dismissed the Applicants application for judicial review with costs.

[2] My learned brother Ahmadi, JCA and myself affirmed the decision of the learned High Court Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs, while my learned sister, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, JCA held a dissenting view.

Judicial Review Application

[3] The application for judicial review had sought primarily for the following relief:

(a) certiorari to quash the conditions imposed by the Respondent in its decision contained in its letter dated 2 May 2017 where, having agreed to confer on the Applicant the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, (PhD) it required the Applicant to submit his final thesis with a publication date in 2017;

(b) certiorari to quash the decision made by the Respondent contained in its letter dated 23 June 2017 for failing the Applicant (gagal keluar) in the degree of Doctor of Philosophy merely on the basis that the Applicant failed to submit his thesis with a publication date in 2017;

(c) a declaration that it was neither reasonable, rational nor proportionate for the Respondent to fail the Applicant entirely from the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (gagal keluar) merely on the basis that his final thesis was printed with a publication date of 2006 instead of 2017;

(d) a declaration that the Guidelines of the Respondent governing the dating of the final thesis of a candidate are directory in nature and should not result in the Applicant failing (gagal keluar) his degree of Doctor of Philosophy when the Respondent has agreed that his thesis has academic merit tobe awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy;

(e) a declaration that the Applicant is entitled to date his thesis in 2006;

(f) a declaration that the Applicant be conferred the degree of Doctor of Philosophy without the condition that his final thesis be specifically printed with the publication date 2017.

Issues Before Us

[4] At the outset, it is important to note that from the Applicants submissions and prayers in his third JR application, the Applicant would have us believe that the issue before us is the unreasonable action of the Respondents Senate to fail the Applicants PhD thesis for the trivial reason (the applicants words) of the mere dating of his PhD thesis (2006 instead of 2017),when his thesis had achieved sufficient academic merit to be awarded a PhD. This oversimplification of the issue before us is not only misleading but erroneous, as it fails to take into consideration the facts and circumstances in the earlier two JR proceedings which has a direct bearing to and had led to the third JR, which is on appeal before us. Thus, it is important to be apprised of the earlier two JR proceedings, which the learned High Court Judge (learned Judge) in the third JR aptly did in his judgment.

Background Facts

[5] A summary of the background facts are derived from the learned Judges Judgment, with suitable modifications. The narration of the background facts is necessarily lengthy as they traverse primarily the years 2006 to 2017 and three applications for Judicial Review (JR) by the Applicant to challenge the decisions of the Respondent in respect of the same Applicants PhD thesis. For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in proceedings before the High Court.

[6] At the outset, it is worthy of note that the instant appeal arose from the third JR application instituted by the Applicant against the Respondent in respect of the Doctor of Philosophy program undertaken by the Applicant with the Respondent. While all three JR proceedings relate to the same PhD thesis, in his third JR application, the focus of the prayers sought by the Applicant is for a declaration that the Applicant be conferred a PhD with the publication date of 2006 instead of 2017, which is the date required under the Guidelines for The Preparation of Research Repor