Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak 1. ) Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak 1. ) Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

The High Court struck out the plaintiff's claims because the statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and was conspicuously unsustainable given the Attorney General's discretionary immunity under Article 145(3); the pleadings were vague, lacked particulars, and amounted to scandalous, frivolous and vexatious allegations and an abuse of process; moreover the prosecutions were pending and the defendant had not conducted the trials, so the torts alleged could not properly arise at this stage; costs of RM12,000 awarded to defendant.

Citation
WA-21NCVC-193-10/2021 - Enclosure (6) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff / Perayu: Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak; Defendant / Respondent: Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas
Court
6
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 December 2022
Case Number
WA-21NCVC-193-10/2021 - Enclosure (6) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 (rules of Court 2012)
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Malicious Abuse of Process (malicious Process), Negligence, Prosecutorial Discretion, Striking Out, Justiciability of Prosecution Decisions
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Tort Criminal Procedure Civil Procedure Misfeasance in Public Office Malicious Abuse of Process (malicious Process) Negligence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak

Plaintiff / Perayu

Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 (rules of Court 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the claims are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
  3. 3 Whether the claims constitute an abuse of court process

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court struck out the plaintiff's claims because the statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and was conspicuously unsustainable given the Attorney General's discretionary immunity under Article 145(3); the pleadings were vague, lacked particulars, and amounted to scandalous, frivolous and vexatious allegations and an abuse of process; moreover the prosecutions were pending and the defendant had not conducted the trials, so the torts alleged could not properly arise at this stage; costs of RM12,000 awarded to defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Defendant's application at Enclosure (6) allowed
  • Plaintiff's claims struck out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) Rules of Court 2012