The Attorney General's consent under s 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act is subject to judicial review when it pertains to matters of public interest.

[1] There are two appeals before us, namely:

(i) Civil Appeal No 01(f)-58-10-2017(P) ("Civil Appeal No 58"); and

(ii) Civil Appeal No 01(f)-59-11-2017(P) ("Civil Appeal No 59").

[2] This court had directed that both appeals be heard together. The leave questions in respect of which applications for leave to appeal were allowed in these appeals were in relation to the justiciability of the Attorney Generals consent or his refusal to give consent under s 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 ("Act 359").

[3] The question of law in Civil Appeal No 58 is as follows:

"Whether the written consent given by the Attorney General under s 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 in respect of civil cases is non- justifiable or non-reviewable."

[4] The question of law in Civil Appeal No 59 is as follows:

"Whether the consent given by the Attorney General under s 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 in respect of civil cases is justifiable or reviewable."

[5] We heard both appeals together on 12 December 2018. After having heard the counsel representing the appellants and the respondents, and after having perused the records of appeal and the relevant case laws, we unanimously dismissed Civil Appeal No 58 and allowed Civil Appeal No 59. The reasons for so doing are set out below.

Factual Background And The Antecedent Proceedings

[6] These cases have had a chequered history with a number of legal skirmishes. Therefore, it is necessary to narrate the facts at some length in order to appreciate and decide the leave questions posed.

[7] The factual background of these appeals have been sufficiently set out by both trial judges in their respective grounds of judgment. We will not repeat the entire factual background save for those parts which are relevant to this judgment.

Civil Appeal No 58

[8] The parties in Civil Appeal No 58 are as follows:

The Appellant

The appellant is the Attorney General of Malaysia ("AG").

The Respondent

The respondent is the Secretary of the Persatuan Kebajikan dan Amal Liam Hood Thong Chor Seng Thuan ("the said Association"). The said Association comprises followers of the Buddhist faith and devotees of the Deity Liam Hood Thong Chor Seng Thuan ("the said Deity").

[9] One Cheah Leong Kean, deceased ("the Testator") made a public charitable trust in his Will that RM15,000 be given to his children Cheah Phin Kee, Cheah Phin Yeong and Cheah Phin Cheang ("the initial trustees") to construct a Pagoda and outhouses.

[10] Then by an Indenture dated 6 March 1941, four parcels of land were transferred to the initial trustees and a further amount of RM5,000.00 to be invested and the income arising from such investments to be used to maintain the Pagoda for the benefit of all devotees professing the Buddhist faith and conducting Buddhist religious customs of the said Deity.

[11] The 4 parcels of land referred to in para 10 are situated in s 1, Georgetown, North East District, Penang ("the said Lands"):

(i) Geran No 20348 Lot 491;

(ii) Geran No 20349 Lot 492;

(iii) Geran No 5935 Lot 292; and

(iv) Geran No 20273 Lot 960,

[12] The initial trustees had failed to ensure that building works were carried out as per the terms of the Trust and the trust funds were all spent. On 20 August 1982, Mustapha Hussain JC (as His Lordship then was) held in Penang Originating Summons No 387 of 1971 that a trust to construct a Pagoda is a public charitable trust and that the cy-pres doctrine be applicable.

[13] Since that order, the said Lands have been vested in the names of Robert Teng Lye Hock (deceased), So Miau Song, Tai Chong, Yeow Teow Giap (deceased) and Tan Siew Joo ("the current trustees"). However, it was alleged that there has been no effort by the current