Back
2020 MarsdenLR 3202
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SHAHRUDI ABIDIN – Appellant
Versus
DATUK WIRA ABU SEMAN YUSOP & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)(W)-140-02/2018]
When asserting false imprisonment, the burden of justification rests on the defendant, and Habeas Corpus findings are admissible in civil claims against same parties.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 – Section 43 – Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 5, 1969 – Sections 4A(1), 7C and 7D – Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 – Section 2(a) – Appeal against dismissal of claim for damages for false imprisonment – Appellant detained for 60 days under Emergency Ordinance, subsequent Restriction Order issued – High Court found that Habeas Corpus Order was not admissible for establishing liability – Ouster clause in EO 1969 deemed applicable by High Court – Findings of High Court held erroneous, emphasizing legal justification for restraint must be provided by respondents – Court acknowledged tort of false imprisonment is a continuing tort, allowing action despite 36-month limit claim – Damages assessed higher than previous RM25,000; awarded RM100,000. (Paras 6-36)
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court dated 17 January 2018. The High Court had dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages for false imprisonment with costs of RM8,000.00. Aggrieved with this decision the plaintiff, now the appellant, has filed this appeal.
[2] The appeal was heard on 6 December 2019. After having read the written submissions as well as hearing oral arguments on the issues raised, we indicated to the parties that we would deliver our decision on a date to be informed. Having deliberated on the issues raised in this appeal, this is now our unanimous decision and will form the judgment of the Court.
The Factual Background
[3] The relevant facts leading to the filing of the claim are set out by the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") and can be summarized as follows.
The appellant was detained on 20 April 2009 for a period of 60 days under s 4A(1) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 5, 1969 PU(A) 187/69 ("EO 1969") on the grounds of being involved in gangster activities. On 18 June 2009, the 1st respondent issued a Restriction Order against the appellant for a period of two years. He was restricted to the area of Mukim Kerteh, Daerah Kemaman, Terengganu.
[4] The appellant then filed an Originating Summons dated 30 November 2010 to challenge his Restriction Order. On 6 January 2011, the High Court at Kuala Terengganu granted the declaration that the Restriction Order dated 18 June 2009 "adalah tidak mengikut nas undang-undang, tidak teratur dan seterusnya dibatalkan". The appellant was ordered to be released with immediate effect.
[5] On 3 January 2014, the appellant filed the instant suit under appeal and claimed for general damages for unlawful imprisonment for a period of 626 days from 20 April 2009 until 6 January 2011. He also claimed for aggravated and exemplary damages and costs.
Findings Of The High Court
[6] Arising from the contentions of the parties, several issues came up for deliberation before the High Court. The first issue was whether the Kuala Terengganu High Court Order dated 6 January 2011 ("the Habeas Corpus Order") was relevant and admissible to attach liability on the part of the defendants who are the respondents here. In other words, was the Habeas Corpus Order of probative value in order to establish liability?
[7] On this issue, the learned JC was quite emphatic that the Habeas Corpus Order was not admissible nor relevant to establish liability. This is how the learned JC addressed the issue (at paras 31,37 and 55 of the Judgment):
"[31] Berdasarkan keterangan yang diberikan oleh saksi-saksi Defendan- Defendan, Mahkamah mendapati dakwaan Plaintif mengenai isu tangkapan salah adalah tidak bermerit dan tidak berasas. Ini adalah kerana dari keterangan saksi-saksi Defendan-Defendan jelas menunjukkan bahawa Defendan-Defendan mempunyai sebab yang mewajarkan penahanan Plaintif di bawah Ordinan Darurat.
...
[37] Selain itu, Plaintif sendiri juga gagal untuk membawa apa-apa keterangan untuk menunjukkan bahawa Perintah Sekatan yang dikeluarkan terhadapnya oleh D1 adalah dibuat tanpa bidangkuasa atau di luar bidangkuasa D1, maka dengan itu Mahkamah berpuashati bahawa Perintah Sekatan yang dikeluarkan oleh D1 terhadap Plaintif adalah sah dan dikeluarkan oleh D1 menurut undang-undang berdasarkan kuasa yang diberikan kepada D1 sebagai Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri."
...
"[55] Oleh itu, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Terengganu adalah tidak terpakai untuk menjadi satu-satunya bahan bukti bagi maksud pembuktian untuk menyokong tuntutan gantirugi oleh Plaintif atas penahanan salah di sini kerana Mahkamah ini, yang menjalankan kuasa di bawah bidangkuasa sivil perlu membuatpenemuan fakta sendiri bagi menentukan samada Plaintif berjaya atau tidak membuktikan tuntutannya, berasaskan Kausa Tindakan Penahanan Salah yang dibawa oleh Plaintif di dalam tuntutan di sini, yang merupakan suatu tuntutan sivil terhadap
