JUDGMENT

(oral)

Gopal Sri Ram JCA (delivering the judgment of the court):

This case has a history. But we are spared from dealing with all of it. So far as this appeal is concerned, the facts fall within a narrow compass.

The plaintiff (the respondent before us) brought an action by writ in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur. In it he claimed a number of declarations. They were all directed at a meeting of the 3rd defendant which the defendants (the appellants before us) intended to convene for the purpose of discussing certain allegations relating to the judiciary which they considered matters of public interest. The plaintiff stopped that meeting by means of an interlocutory injunction. Later, a trial took place before the learned judge in the High Court. It was on issues framed by the plaintiff that encompassed the justiciability of the whole of the relief he had claimed at the foot of the writ. The judge amended the issues and ordered a trial. Oral evidence was led on both sides with the former President of the 1st defendant, namely the 2nd defendant, being subjected to cross-examination on his affidavit. After hearing evidence, and at the close of the proceedings, the learned judge reserved judgment. Later, on a date fixed for mention of the case, he made a statement in the following terms:

Gentlemen of the Bar

In so far as this case is concerned I have already reached a decision. All it requires is for me to tell you my decision and in the event of an appeal to write my judgment. But before I pronounce my decision I take this opportunity to appeal to both sides to reconsider your positions. In addressing the plaintiff I would urge you to consider the fact that whilst you might have been motivated by the highest of ideals for having filed this suit, you must be aware that subsequent events have so quickly overtaken your desired aims that they now seem superfluous. Let's face it. The raison d'etrefor your filing this suit, namely the allegations against Y.A.A. Tun Eusoff bin Chin, the former Chief Justice of Malaysia, is no longer an issue as he has since retired. Any perseverance of this goal is now an exercise in futility. Let bygones be bygones.

On this score, it must be noted that the present Chief Justice, Y.A.A. Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Haji Abdullah, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Y.B. Dato' Dr. Rais Yatim, and the President of the Bar Council, Tuan Haji Sulaiman bin Abdullah, have all voiced their hope that the new millennium will bring about a change. The joint effort of these three personalities must not go to waste. I now make this impassioned plea to both parties to hang up your gloves and enter the ring of peace.

The whole country is reverberating with the sound of the word "unity". It is axiomatic therefore that the Bar ought to lead by example. When I say the Bar, I include the plaintiff herein. Just about a year ago I was to hear the defamation suit filed by Mohammad Sabu (the then MP for Party PAS) and Ibrahim Ali from the UMNO, regarding a reference made by the latter in respect of a khalwat case. On the day fixed for hearing, and with the consent of both solicitors I talked with the plaintiff and the defendant and urged them to show the Nation that notwithstanding their different ideologies, they stood united as a race. The parties asked for a short adjournment and returned within half an hour to inform me that for the sake of Malay Unity the plaintiff was withdrawing his suit with no order as to costs. It was a spontaneous show of respect for each other which no doubt the media had then canvassed.

Then I had the occasion to hear yet another defamation suit whereby Mr. Lim Kit Siang, the DAP stalwart and its former MP, sued Y.B. Dato' Seri Lim Keng Yaik, the Minister of Primary Industries. Again on the morning of the hearing and with the consent of counsel for both parties, which included Mr. Karpal Singh for Mr. Lim Kit Siang, I spoke to both litigants of the need to show the country t