Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2728
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DATO PAHLAWAN RAMLI YUSUFF – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI ABDUL GANI PATAIL & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 21NCVC-72-11-2013]
Public officers can be held accountable for misconduct under torts like malicious prosecution, despite claims of immunity, provided allegations of bad faith are substantiated.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 145 - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 - Plaintiff, a former Commissioner of Police, alleges conspiracy, false investigation, and malicious prosecution against multiple defendants. Court addresses the merits of causes of action including conspiracy, misfeasance, and malicious prosecution based on sufficient pleadings (Paras 1-21).
(B) Public Authorities Protection Act - Court finds causes of action not time-barred; proceedings terminate in plaintiff's favor upon dismissal of appeals (Paras 43-52).
(C) Prosecutorial Immunity - Prosecution must act within lawful limits; improper motives can lift immunity, permitting claims for damages against prosecutors when acting in bad faith (Paras 54-64).
(D) Denial of immunities based on the need for accountability in public service (Paras 76-86). (E) Misjoinder - Court allows for amendments to correctly identify parties in the case (Paras 87-89).
Findings of Court:
No grounds to strike out the claims; sufficient causes of action disclosed warranting trial.
Issues: Applicability of public authority protections, prosecutorial immunity, and misjoinder of defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts maintain that public officials must act within the lawful bounds of their authority and malice negates claims of immunity.
Result: Defendants' motion to strike out dismissed, allowing the case to proceed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
[1] The plaintiff pleads in his statement of claim that he was a highly decorated career Police Officer with the Royal Malaysia Police ("PDRM") and that during his tenure with PDRM he had risen to the rank of Commissioner of Police and was appointed Director of the Commercial Crimes Investigation Department, Bukit Aman on 2 May 2006.
[2] The plaintiff in paras 2.1 to 2.12 of the statement of claim identifies the defendants and attributes the following facts to them either jointly or severally.
[3] The 1st defendant, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, was and is the Attorney General ("AG") of Malaysia appointed under art 145 of the Federal Constitution. The 1st defendant is also the Public Prosecutor of Malaysia and has the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any legal proceedings. The AG has control over all officers of the Attorney General's Chamber ("AGC") who act on his authority.
[4] The 2nd defendant, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, was at the material time the Inspector General of Police ("IGP") appointed under the provisions of the Police Act 1967 . The PDRM and its members come under the direct command and control of the 2nd defendant and acted on his authority.
[5] The 3rd defendant, Dato' Nordin Hassan, was at the material time the Head of Prosecutions of the Anti-Corruption Agency (" ACA ") and acted under the control, directions and authority of the 1st defendant.
[6] The 4th defendant, Kevin Anthony Morais, was at the material time a Deputy Public Prosecutor with the AGC and was seconded as the Deputy Director of Prosecution of the ACA and reported to the 3rd defendant and acted on the authority of the Attorney General.
[7] The 5th defendant, Chew Kam Soon, was at the material time a Police Officer holding the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police serving in the Internal Disciplinary Unit of PDRM. The plaintiff avers that the 2nd defendant had direct control and authority over the 5th defendant.
[8] The 6th defendant, Sok One a/l Esen, was at the material time the head of an investigative unit of the ACA . The plaintiff avers that 6th defendant is subject to the control, supervision and direction of the Director General of the .
[9] The 7th defendant, Saiful Ezral Bin Ariffin, was at the material time an investigating officer of the ACA . The plaintiff avers that the 7th defendant is subject to the control, supervision and direction of the Director General of the .
[10] The 8th defendant, Azmi Bin Ismail, was at the material time an investigating officer of the ACA . The plaintiff avers that the 8th defendant is subject to the control, supervision and direction of the Director General of the .
[11] The 9th defendant, Wan Abdul Rahman, was at the material time an investigating officer of the ACA . The plaintiff avers that the 9th defendant is subject to the control, supervision and direction of the Director General of the .
[12] The 10th defendant, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission ("MACC"), is the national agency for the prevention of corruption and the successor of the ACA . The plaintiff avers that the MACC is vicariously liable for any act or omission of its officers in the exercise of their powers, functions and discharge of their duties when exercised or performed in bad faith.
[13] The 11th defendant, Polis Diraja Malaysia, is a statutory body set up under the Police Act 1967 . The plaintiff avers that the PDRM is the institution responsible for maintenance of law and order, the preservation of peace and security of Malaysia, the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the collection of security intelligence. The plaintiff further avers that the PDRM is vicariously liable for the actions and omissions of its members who participated in the matters complained of in this action.
