ZAKARIA BIN SAAD MUHAMMAD AZHAR BIN IBRAHIM YACOB

ZAKARIA BIN SAAD MUHAMMAD AZHAR BIN IBRAHIM YACOB

The appeal is dismissed because the pleadings and affidavits disclose disputed issues of fact and law—particularly capacity (personal vs official) and connectivity to official duties—whose resolution requires a full trial; the proviso in s.14(1) Government Proceedings Act prevents automatic application of the 36‑month PAPA bar at strike-out stage, and the relevance of the defendant's criminal conviction cannot be finally determined on the present materials.

Citation
JA-12A-11-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/perayu (also Defendant in Sessions Court): Zakaria bin Saad; Respondent (also Plaintiff in Sessions Court): Muhammad Azhar bin Ibrahim Yacob
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Case Number
JA-12A-11-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment (challenge to Striking Out Application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court affirmed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Statute of Limitations (public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Government Proceedings Act 1956 S.14(1) Proviso, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19(1) and Order 92 Rule 4, Relevance of Criminal Conviction in Civil Proceedings (evidence Act S.43)
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Limitation Law Public/administrative Law Evidence Law Military Law Negligence Vicarious Liability Statute of Limitations (public Authorities Protection Act 1948) +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zakaria bin Saad

Appellant/perayu (also Defendant in Sessions Court)

Muhammad Azhar bin Ibrahim Yacob

Respondent (also Plaintiff in Sessions Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment (challenge to Striking Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's civil claim is statute-barred under s.2(a) Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 given the defendant was a member/agent of the Government
  2. 2 Whether the defendant acted in his personal capacity or in the execution of public/military duties (connectivity) such that PAPA or Government Proceedings Act protections apply
  3. 3 Whether the defendant’s criminal conviction precludes use of those facts in the civil claim or is otherwise dispositive at strike-out stage

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the pleadings and affidavits disclose disputed issues of fact and law—particularly capacity (personal vs official) and connectivity to official duties—whose resolution requires a full trial; the proviso in s.14(1) Government Proceedings Act prevents automatic application of the 36‑month PAPA bar at strike-out stage, and the relevance of the defendant's criminal conviction cannot be finally determined on the present materials.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court affirmed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 19.4.2022 refusing defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim is upheld