1. ) AVETANI SDN BHD 2. ) UNITED APPROACH SDN BHD 3. ) BERJAYA HILLS BHD 4. ) SUMLAND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 5. ) BUKIT TINGGI RESORT BHD 6. ) SEMANGAT CERGAS SDN BHD Pengarah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Kerajaan Negeri Pahang

CB-25-2-04/2023 Kand. 50 10/04/2025 10:39:48 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO. CB-25-2-04/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Hakmilik Tanah HSD 10646 PT 11709 (PN 29078 LOT 19131), HSD 17514 PT 21994, HSD 17515 PT 21995, HSD 10648 PT 11705, HSD 10650 PT 11710, GRN 41900 LOT 19134, GRN 34609 LOT 19135, GRN 34608 LOT 19136, GRN 46882 LOT 42775 HSD 13998 PT 17659, HSD 15682 PT 19694, HSD 15737 PT 19862, HSD 15738 PT 19863, HSD 15739 PT 19864, HSD 15740 PT 19865, HSD 16921 PT 21575 HSD 16556 PT 20832 , HSD 16989 PT 21577, HSD 13720 PT 17201, HSD 17758 PT 20609, HSD 16950 PT 21612, HSD 16951 PT 21613, HSD 16952 PT 21614, HSD 12731 PT 15856, GRN 41736 LOT 18008, GRN 41737 LOT 18007, GRN 41894 LOT 18009, GRN 41899 LOT 18011, HSD 16986 PT 21773, HSD 14866 PT 18998, 1 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal GRN 34610 LOT 19129, Mukim Bentong, Daerah Bentong, Negeri Pahang (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Tanah-Tanah Tersebut”); DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Cukai Tanah-Cukai Tanah Tersebut Bagi Tahun 2023 Bertarikh Pada 12.01.2023; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Warta Kerajaan Negeri No. 2497 Dan No. 2501 Bertarikh Pada 21.11.2019 Dan Warta Kerajaan Negeri No. 1064 Dan No. 1065 Bertarikh Pada 23.04.2020; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 11, 14, 51 dan 101 Kanun Tanah Negara [Akta 828]; 2 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Kaedah 22, Kaedah-kaedah Tanah Pahang (Pindaan) (No.4) 2019 [Phg. P.U.54/2019] yang berkuatkuasa pada 1.01.2020; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Kaedah 22, Kaedah-Kaedah Tanah Pahang 1992 (Disemak 2015) [P.U. 27/2015]; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Perenggan 1, Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 3 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ANTARA 1. AVETANI SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 198901010121) (187422-T) 2. UNITED APPROACH SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 199201019945) (251449-D) 3. BERJAYA HILLS RESORT BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 198901011710) (189015-U) 4. SUMLAND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 198601000490) (149629-U) 5. BUKIT TINGGI RESORT BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 189015-U) 6. SEMANGAT CERGAS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 185995-W) … PEMOHON-PEMOHON DAN PENGARAH NEGERI PEJABAT PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI PAHANG Bangunan PTG Bandar Indera Mahkota 25990 Kuantan, Pahang … RESPONDEN 4 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Ini adalah permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan perintah bertarikh 19.08.2024. Keputusan Mahkamah pada 19.08.2024 ialah menolak permohonan semakan kehakiman yang difailkan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon. Pemohon-Pemohon telah memfailkan rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan tersebut pada 12.09.2024. Mahkamah Rayuan telah menetapkan tarikh pada 01.10.2025 bagi mendengar rayuan tersebut. [2] Pemohon-Pemohon di dalam notis permohonan menyatakan bahawa terdapat keadaan istimewa dalam kes ini untuk mewajarkan suatu penggantungan pelaksanaan perintah. Ia adalah disebabkan Responden yang telah mengeluarkan Borang 6A menurut seksyen 97 Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN) 1955 terhadap cukai yang kena bayar oleh Pemohon-Pemohon kepada Responden. [3] Pemohon-Pemohon juga menyatakan bahawa terdapat risiko dan ancaman bahawa tanah-tanah Pemohon-Pemohon akan dirampas sekiranya gagal menjelaskan cukai tanah-tanah tersebut. Seksyen 100 KTN memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: 5 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “100 Forfeiture for non-payment of sum demanded The Land Administrator shall not during the period specified in any notice under section 97 accept the tender by or on behalf of any person or body of a lesser amount than the sum thereby demanded; and if by the end of that period the whole of that sum has not been tendered to him, he shall thereupon by order declare the land forfeit to the State Authority, and the provisions of Part Eight shall have effect with respect thereto accordingly.” [4] Oleh itu Pemohon-Pemohon menyatakan bahawa sekiranya pelaksanaan perintah tersebut tidak digantung sementara menunggu pelupusan penuh rayuan, kemudaratan yang dialami oleh Pemohon- Pemohon tidak dapat diperbaiki. Ia meliputi perniagaan Pemohon- Pemohon di atas tanah tersebut dan ia menyebabkan tanah Pemohon- Pemohon mungkin dirampas oleh Responden. Sebaliknya jika perintah ini dibenarkan ia tidak akan memprejudiskan Responden disebabkan Responden masih boleh menuntut dan mengutip cukai tanah dengan denda lewat. [5] Dalam affidavit sokongan permohonan ini yang diikrarkan oleh Ahmed Ariff Meah bin Azlan Meah seperti yang terdapat di eksibit “A-2” iaitu Borang 6A Notis Tuntutan: Tunggakan Sewa yang melibatkan tanah Pemohon-Pemohon dan menjelaskan kemudaratan yang akan dialami oleh Pemohon-Pemohon sekiranya permohonan ini ditolak oleh Mahkamah. Begitu juga dalam affidavit balasan oleh Ahmed Ariff Meah bin Azlan Meah telah dinyatakan bayaran yang dibuat oleh Pemohon- 6 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pemohon di bawah protes (pay under protest) seperti yang terdapat di eksibit “AA-6” dalam affidavit tersebut. Surat-surat tersebut bertarikh 25.03.2024, 08.05.2024 dan 07.11.2024. [6] Sebaliknya pihak Responden menyatakan dalam affidavit jawapan oleh Hamadan@Hamdan bin Hussin menyatakan bahawa permohonan ini akan membuka ruang dan memberi peluang yang tidak adil kepada Pemohon-Pemohon untuk melengahkan lagi kewajipan melunaskan cukai. Responden juga menyatakan bahawa alasan masalah aliran tunai dan krisis kewangan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon tidak sewajarnya dipertimbangkan bagi tujuan untuk penggantungan untuk perintah tersebut. Pada masa yang sama kebimbangan bahawa tanah-tanah Pemohon-Pemohon akan dirampas tidak timbul sekiranya Pemohon-Pemohon membuat pembayaran yang sewajarnya kepada Responden. Sebaliknya sekiranya penggantungan pelaksanaan ini dibenarkan ia akan menjejaskan bayaran yang sepatutnya diperolehi oleh Responden di bawah undang-undang. Analisa Isu Awalan [7] Adalah didapati bahawa permohonan untuk penggantungan pelaksanaan perintah telah dibuat di bawah Jadual 1 yang dinyatakan di dalam intitulmen. Mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada seksyen 25 (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 bersama Jadual 1 Akta yang sama bagi meneliti sama ada terdapat peruntukan khusus berkenaan dengan 7 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal kuasa mahkamah untuk memberikan penggantungan pelaksanaan. Seksyen 25 (2) Akta tersebut memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “25 Powers of the High Court (1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 121 of the Constitution the High Court shall in the exercise of its jurisdiction have all the powers which were vested in it immediately prior to Malaysia Day and such other powers as may be vested in it by any written law in force within its local jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) the High Court shall have the additional powers set out in the Schedule: Provided that all such powers shall be exercised in accordance with any written law or rules of court relating to the same.” [8] Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012 memperihalkan berkenaan dengan bidang kuasa sedia ada mahkamah seperti yang berikut: “4. Kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah (A. 92 k. 4) Bagi menghapuskan keraguan dengan ini diisytiharkan bahawa 8 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tiada apa-apa jua dalam Kaedah-Kaedah ini boleh disifatkan sebagai mengehadkan atau menjejaskan kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah untuk membuat apa-apa perintah sebagaimana yang perlu untuk mencegah ketidakadilan atau untuk mencegah suatu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah.” [9] Hakikat bidang kuasa sedia ada ini dijelaskan dalam kes The Motor Emporium v. V Arumugam [1933] 2 MLJ 276 seperti yang berikut: “It is said that the English rules of equity, as administered by the Court of Chancery, have no application in the Federated Malay States, as the Court has not been given the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, nor is there any Civil Law Enactment incorporating into the law of the Federated Malay States the equitable principles applied in England. This is perfectly true so far as it goes, but under section 49 (i) of the Courts Enactment, the Supreme Court has the widest possible jurisdiction in all suits, matters and questions of a civil nature, and although the legislature has given no indication on what principles such jurisdiction should be exercised, every Court must have inherent jurisdiction to do justice between the parties, and apply such principles as are necessary or desirable for attaining such object, and for giving decisions which are in conformity with the requirements of the social conditions of the community where the law is administered. Looked at in this light, it would hardly be reasonable to exclude in the Federated Malay States a principle 9 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal of natural justice merely because a not less civilised community, namely England, has adopted such a principle as part of its recognised legal system. On the contrary, it is a cogent reason for adopting the same principle in the Federated Malay States.” [10] Dalam kes Permodalan MBF Sdn Bhd v Tan Sri Datuk Seri Hamzah bin Abu Samah & Ors [1988] 1 MLJ 178 Mahkamah Agong telah menyatakan berkenaan dengan pemakaian bidang kuasa sedia seperti yang berikut: “Has the court any jurisdiction to exercise its inherent powers in the instant case? Order 92 rule 4 R.H.C. provides: “4. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the court.” We read this to mean that the rules cannot interfere with the exercise of the inherent powers by the court so long as it deems it necessary to prevent any injustice or any abuse of its own process. It follows that where the rules contain provisions making available sufficient remedies, the court will not invoke its inherent powers.” 10 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [11] Ia turut dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes R. Rama Chandran (supra) berkenaan dengan pemakaian bidang kuasa sedia ada seperti yang berikut: “In my opinion, the inherent powers of the court as provided under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 must not only be exercised subject to other express provision of the Rules but it must also not be in conflict with the intention of the legislature to be found within the Rules or other substantive legislation.” [12] Di samping itu dalam kes R. Rama Chandran (supra), Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memperjelaskan berkenaan dengan tujuan bidang kuasa sedia ada seperti yang berikut: “I would readily agree that inherent powers as contained in O 92 r 4 are indispensible implements for use of the courts to prevent injustice or any abuse of the process of the court. But the powers themselves stand to be abused if they were to be exercised without circumspection by the courts. For myself, I would undoubtedly use them in cases where Parliament has omitted to provide in the Act something so glaring which obviously ought to have been there. But on no account should these powers be used to defeat the intention of the legislature, especially so when it has deliberately excluded the use of such particular remedy from any legislation.” 11 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Oleh itu dalam kes ini Mahkamah menggunakan kuasa sedia ada untuk mempertimbangkan permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon. Adakah perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan boleh diberikan terhadap perintah yang dibuat melalui semakan kehakiman dan apakah ujian yang digunakan [13] Persoalan yang timbul dalam kes ini pada peringkat awal ialah sama ada ujian bagi mendapatkan penggantungan pelaksanaan bagi kes semakan kehakiman adalah sama dengan fakta-fakta yang perlu dipertimbangkan bagi penggantungan pelaksanaan untuk kes writ saman dan saman pemula serta tuntutan sivil yang lain. Dalam erti kata lain adakah ujian dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257 perlu digunakan. [14] Penelitian kepada kes Puah Bee Hong & Anor v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Anor (Teo Keng Tuan Robert, Intervener) and another appeal [1994] 2 MLJ 601 telah menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “We would like to mention another well-known dissimilarity. It is that, apart from the Rules of the High Court 1980, the High Court has always that inherent jurisdiction to order a stay of proceedings to prevent any abuse of process. Further where a superior court of record such as the High Court and the courts above it, has the 12 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal jurisdiction or discretion to decide any cause or matter by way of appeal, judicial review or otherwise, such superior court will have the inherently incidental power in any event to suspend the operation or execution of any order concerned in such cause or matter pending the decision of such court, but such power will be exercised according to the usual principles applicable thereto, or otherwise judicially, according to fair play and common sense. To deny such power would render such appeal or judicial review, etc, illusory or an exercise in futility. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the learned judge's view to the effect that an order like the order of stay in the instant appeal is equivalent to an injunction and therefore amenable to the relevant sections of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and the Specific Relief Act 1950. We find his Lordship's process of interpreting the order of stay and the relevant statutory provisions unacceptable. We therefore hold that the High Court has jurisdiction to issue an order of stay of sale of charged land to a Land Administrator on any grounds that are sufficient.” [15] Malahan jika dilihat kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes Nasioncom Holdings Bhd v Suruhanjaya Sekuriti [2008] 4 MLJ 620. Mahkamah Tinggi telah menggunakan ujian di dalam Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) bagi tujuan permohonan 13 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal penggantungan pelaksanaan. Ini dapat dilihat di perenggan [15], [16] dan [17] alasan penghakiman tersebut seperti yang berikut: “[15] Hence I would like to adopt the dictum and apply it in the context of O 53 r 3(5) of the RHC in that the wording of O 53 r 3(5) has to have wider application and had it been intended that the proceedings to which the application relate ‘should only refer to judicial proceedings’, one would have expected the curtailment to have been specified by qualifying the word ‘proceedings’. In fact the approach that the phrase ‘a stay of proceedings’ must have a wider application and is not confined in a court alone but is wide enough to encompass the categories alluded to above was taken by Ramly Ali J in YAM Tunku Dato' Seri Nadzaruddin ibni Tuanku Ja’afar, with whose decision I agree, following Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Avon County Council. [16] It is trite that the grant of leave in judicial review proceedings is an exercise of the court's discretion and consequently pursuant to O 53 r 3(5) of the RHC which states, ‘The grant of leave under this rule shall not, unless the judge so directs, operate as a stay of the proceedings in question’ is likewise discretionary. [17] As to the proper exercise of this discretion, the court would need to consider whether there are special circumstances which warrant a stay of the proceedings. In this regard, support is drawn from the Federal Court case of Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257, which 14 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal although is a case with respect to an application for stay of execution pending appeal, the principles as to what constitute ‘special circumstances’ would in my view, nevertheless apply. At pp 266F-267B. Augustine Paul JCA (now FCJ) after referring to various authorities in particular opined, ‘The definition of special circumstances only serves to emphasise the fact that there are myriad circumstances that could constitute special circumstances with each case depending on its own facts. I am of the opinion that the list of factors constituting special circumstances is infinite and could grow with time. Any attempt to limit the list or close a category would be to impose a fetter on the exercise of the discretion less of a discretion. This is surely not what discretion is all about’.” [16] Penelitian kepada kes Nasioncom Holdings Bhd (supra) itu menunjukkan bahawa penggantungan pelaksanaan adalah di bawah Aturan 53 kaedah 3 (5) KKM 2012 yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “3. Kebenaran (A. 53 k. 3) … (5) Pemberian kebenaran di bawah kaedah ini tidak boleh, melainkan jika diarahkan sedemikian oleh Hakim, berkuat kuasa sebagai suatu penggantungan prosiding dalam persoalan.” [17] Ia membawa maksud penggantungan pelaksanaan dalam kes Nasioncom Holdings Bhd (supra) itu adalah terhadap proses yang 15 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal sedang dilakukan berkaitan dengan perkara yang sedang dikemukakan untuk semakan kehakiman dan bukannya penangguhan kepada keputusan yang telah dibuat di dalam semakan kehakiman. Apa yang berlaku dalam kes ini perlu dibezakan dengan fakta dalam kes Nasioncom Holdings Bhd (supra) tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan dalam kes ini permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan terhadap keputusan semakan kehakiman yang telah selesai diputuskan oleh Mahkamah. [18] Begitu juga dalam kes Islamic Financial Services Board v. Marlin Fairol Mohd Faroque & Anor [2010] 8 CLJ 173 yang juga melibatkan Aturan 53 kaedah 3 (5) KKM 2012 yang berbeza dengan kes ini. Mahkamah dalam kes Nasioncom Holdings Bhd (supra) itu telah menyatakan terdapat perbezaan di antara penangguhan pelaksanaan di antara kes semakan kehakiman dengan kes-kes prosiding yang lain. Ini dinyatakan seperti yang berikut: “[4] I indicated in my decision that "stay of proceedings" in the context of judicial review has a special connotation, and, although there could be overlaps in standards applied, judicial review stay is not the same as stay of execution after judgment in judicial proceedings….” [19] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes YAM Tunku Dato' Seri Nadzaruddin Ibni Tuanku Ja'afar v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2003] 1 CLJ 210. Dalam kes tersebut ia juga melibatkan permohonan penggantungan dalam konteks Aturan 53 kaedah 5 16 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 dan menyatakan seperti berikut: “That the court should have the power to order a stay of a decision of a decision-making body pending the conclusion of a challenge to the decision-making process by way of judicial review. In the present application, if the court does not direct a stay of proceedings as prayed by the applicant (as in para. 2 of encl. 1), it means that the 2nd respondent can proceed to develop the said land as approved by the 1st respondent. This would mean that the applicant's substantive motion for certiorari would be rendered nugatory in the event he succeeded in his application.” [20] Oleh itu persoalan sama ada Mahkamah boleh memberikan perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan dalam keputusan semakan kehakiman telah jelas dinyatakan dalam kes Puah Bee Hong & Anor (supra) di atas. Apa yang masih belum terjawab ialah apakah ujian yang wajar digunakan bagi tujuan penggantungan pelaksanaan adalah sama seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) atau terdapat ujian yang lain di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “ … It is therefore clear beyond doubt that there are many factors that may constitute special circumstances and the fact that an appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was refused is the most common one. It is an example of special circumstances. In other words, special circumstances is the genus of which nugatoriness 17 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal is a species. If it has been shown that an appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was refused what it means is that a special circumstance has been established. Thus, they cannot be treated as separateheads and one cannot be an alternative to the other. Neither can one be accepted or rejected in favour of the other as they are inter-related. See Teow Guan & Ors v Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors could have withstood scrutinyif it had merely referred to nugatoriness without rejecting special circumstances. As nugatoriness is a species of special circumstances, a mere reference to it is sufficient to convey the correct legal impression. Any attempt to restrict the grant of a stayto nugatoriness, quite apart from its impropriety, will severely restrict the grounds on which an applicant may rely. Learned counsel for the applicants is therefore wrong in submitting that the nugatory approach is not a matter for consideration in this caseas what is relevant is only the special circumstances. He would have been correct if he had said that he was not relying on nugatoriness but on some other species of special circumstances.” [21] Penelitian kepada kes Nasioncom Holdings Bhd (supra) di atas dan Islamic Financial Services Board (supra) menunjukkan bahawa penggunaan budi bicara memberikan penggantungan pelaksanaan bagi semakan kehakiman masih berpegang kepada prinsip yang dinyatakan dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra). Ini juga dinyatakan dalam kes Profound Reliance Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2022] MLJU 466 di mana permohonan penangguhan interim terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi menolak 18 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal kebenaran semakan kehakiman. Begitu juga dalam kes Akamai Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2023] 10 MLJ 184. [22] Namun demikian terdapat pandangan yang menyatakan terdapat perbezaan di antara permohonan penggantungan prosiding bagi tindakan selepas perbicaraan penuh dengan semakan kehakiman yang melibatkan keputusan badan awam. Ini dinyatakan dalam Malaysian Civil Procedure 2024 Volume 1, Sweet & Maxwell seperti yang berikut: “It is submitted that the courts in Nasioncom and Islamic Financial Services Board v Puan Marlin Fairol bt Mohd Faroque & Anor (above) did not sufficiently appreciate the distinction between a stay of execution of a judgment pending appeal under the Cours of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91), s 73 and an order directing a public decision-taker to stay his or her hand pending the outcome of the substantive motion for judicial review. In the former, the consideration is whether a successful litigant should be deprived of the fruits of his litigation (see The Annot Lyle (1886) LR 11 PD 114, CA (Eng)) whereas the governing factor in the latter is the preservation of the status quo pending the outcome of the substantive application. The court in Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd (above) was concerned with an application to stay execution of a judgment after trial where the burden on the appellant is higher, i.e., he has to show special circumstances. A stay sought after trial and a stay under this 19 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Order are poles apart. Thus no fair comparison may be made of the two. It is therefore the better view that all that an applicant for judicial review need to do is to show that the status quo should not be altered to defeat any relief that may be had on the substantive application.” [23] Sehubungan hal ini peguam Pemohon-Pemohon telah merujuk Mahkamah kepada seksyen 73 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang telah memperuntukkan bahawa: “73 Appeal not to operate as stay of execution An appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the decision appealed from unless the court below or the Court of Appeal so orders and no intermediate act or proceeding shall be invalidated except so far as the Court of Appeal may direct.” [24] Rujukan silang kepada seksyen 3 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 yang memberikan takrifan perkataan “keputusan” seperti yang berikut: “ "decision" means judgment, sentence or order, but does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.” 20 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [25] Oleh itu perintah yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah pada 19.08.2024 adalah termasuk di dalam perintah yang membolehkan perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan dilakukan dan ujiannya adalah sama seperti yang dinyatakan dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) tersebut adalah terpakai. Ia juga dipersetujui oleh Peguam Persekutuan yang mewakili Responden. Kedua-dua Peguam dan Peguam Persekutuan tidak berhujah dengan mendalam berkenaan dengan isu ini. Ia adalah disebabkan isu ini ditimbulkan oleh Mahkamah semasa pendengaran permohonan ini. Namun beliau menyatakan ujian tersebut tidak berjaya dilakukan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon. [26] Dalam konteks ini Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada Aturan 53 KKM 2012 bagi melihat apakah yang boleh dilakukan bagi satu semakan kehakiman. Aturan 53 KKM 2012 menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “1. Permohonan semakan kehakiman (A. 53 k. 1) (1) Aturan ini hendaklah mentadbir semua permohonan untuk mendapatkan apa-apa relief yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 bagi maksud yang dinyatakan di dalamnya. (2) Aturan ini tertakluk kepada peruntukan Bab VIII Bahagian 2 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950 [Akta 137].” 21 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [27] Rujukan kepada Jadual Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 telah memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “ (Section 25 (2)) ADDITIONAL POWERS OF HIGH COURT 1. Prerogative writs Power to issue to any person or authority directions, orders or writs, including writs of the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any others, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part II of the Constitution, or any of them, or for any purpose.” [28] Oleh itu Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dalam mempertimbangkan sama ada ujian untuk penggantungan pelaksanaan setelah perbicaraan penuh dan penghakiman kewangan adalah berbeza dengan pendengaran semakan kehakiman. Ini adalah disebabkan dalam semakan kehakiman ia memberikan kesan kepada writ prerogatif yang melibatkan badan awam. [29] Selain daripada itu Mahkamah juga perlu melihat remedi yang boleh diberikan oleh Mahkamah dalam mendengar suatu semakan kehakiman iaitu yang pertama adalah perintah mandamus. Hakikat perintah mandamus ini telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam 22 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal kes Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010] 4 MLJ 360 seperti yang berikut: “In MP Jain’s Administrative Law of Malaysia and Singapore (2nd Ed, 1980) the learned author said, at pp 449 and 450: … Mandamus can be granted only when a legal duty is imposed on an authority and the applicant has a legal right to compel the performance of the public duty prescribed by law, and to keep the subordinate bodies and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Mandamus is thus a very wide remedy which is available against a public officer to see that he does his duty. What can be enforced through mandamus is a duty of a public nature the performance of which is imperative and not optional or discretionary with the concerned authority. Thus, if an officer has a power rather than a duty, and he does not use his power, mandamus cannot be issued. Section 44(1) of the SRA also empowers the court to make an order in the nature of mandamus against any person holding public office requiring him to do certain specific acts subject to the fulfillment of the five provisos set out therein (see MP Jain’s Administrative Law of Malaysia and Singapore, at p 452). However it expressly provided in sub-s (2)(b) thereof that nothing in that section ‘shall be deemed to authorize a Judge to make any 23 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal order on any servant of any Government in Malaysia, as such, merely to enforce the satisfaction of a claim upon that Government’. It is clear from the aforesaid passages that the order of mandamus could be issued to enforce the performance of a public duty where there has been a failure to perform the same. However it cannot be used as a remedy to compel the exercise of a power by any person or authority. In the present case, the question as to whether there is a duty on the part of the appellant to pay the judgment sum pursuant to the s 33 certificate could, in my view, be answered by reference to the provisions of the state Constitution and the laws relating to financial matters for the time being force in the state. In the present case the effect of the order against the appellant is to compel him to make the payment of the judgment sum pursuant to the s 33 certificate. It is clear from the passages referred to above that the order of mandamus is to compel the performance of a duty and not the exercise of a power. As such the question here is not whether the appellant has the power to make or order the making of such payment but rather whether he has a duty or obligation to make such payment. Upon perusal of the provisions of the state Constitution and the FPA, I find nothing therein that imposes such a duty or an obligation upon the appellant. The duty to make payment in satisfaction of a judgment debt against the state relates to financial affairs of the state which lies in the hands 24 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal of the state financial officer. As such, I am of the view that the learned trial judge has erred in law in granting the order of mandamus against the appellant to compel him to pay the said judgment sum pursuant to the s 33 certificate.” [30] Seterusnya yang kedua adalah remedi certiorari yang telah diperjelaskan hakikatnya oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja, Malaysia v Evergreen Laurel Hotel (M) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2010] 4 MLJ 346 seperti yang berikut: “Another supportive view was expressed by the Federal Court through the judgment of Abdul Malek Ahmad FCJ (later PCA) in National Union of Newspaper Workers v Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja at pp 697–698. His Lordship cited with approval an unreported High Court decision in The Electrical Industry Workers Union v The Honourable Minister of Labour & Power & The Registrar of Trade Unions (MTKL Motion No A11 of 1981) where Hashim Yeop Sani J (later Chief Judge (Malaya)) opined that the whole function of certiorari is aimed at the examination of the record and that, in a certiorari proceeding, the court is acting as a supervisory court and not as an appellate court and that ‘it is clear that the Legislature has entrusted on the registrar and the Minister the discretion to decide on the membership and representation by the union and the courts should not usurp this function and embark on a rehearing of the matter’.” 25 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [31] Sementara itu quo warranto telah dijelaskan dengan menarik sejarahnya dan hakikat perintah tersebut melalui buku Habeas Corpus From England To Empire, Paul D Halliday The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England 2010 yang memetik tulisan J.H. Baker, John Spelman’s Reading on Quo Warranto, Selden Society, 113 (London, 1997) di halaman 119 seperti yang berikut: “The governance of justice resides solely in the king's person, as head of the commonwealth, just as the five senses reside in the head of every man as the principal part of the body. And because its preservation is so great a task that his own person does not suffice, it is requisite that he should commit the administration of justice to some persons beneath him.” [32] Penelitian kepada lipatan sejarah menunjukkan bahawa quo warranto ini telah wujud dalam undang-undang Inggeris seawal tahun 1278. Ini dapat dilihat perbincangan perkara ini dalam artikel yang bertajuk The Prerogative Writs In English Law oleh Edward Jenks, D.C.L. [1923] Yale Law Journal Vol. xxxii No. 6 523 seperti yang berikut: “ The Quo Warranto and the Prohibition appear to be "prerogative" in the strictest sense. They are both very old; and both date from the critical years of the thirteenth century, when the newly consolidated State was entering upon its struggle with rival jurisdictions for the sole custody of the Fount of Justice. The Quo 26 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Warranto is a statutory writ invented to try the validity of the feudal franchises. It took its rise in the great Statute of Gloucester of 1278, which initiated the sweeping reforms of the English Justinian; and, after the long and acrimonious enquiry which resulted in the compilation of the Hundred Rolls, and the concession of the "time whereof the memory of man," etc.,15 it was consecrated as an established form, "to be awarded as an original out of the chancery," in 1301, when the old reformer, his great life's work done, was passing to his grave.16 The paraphrase of Edward's statutes given in Britton17 makes it fairly clear that the Quo Warranto was originally intended solely as a royal weapon; and it is worthy of notice that (seemingly) it does not appear in the ordinary printed Register. But it is equally clear that, at a later time, by the process of "informing" the royal officials of an alleged usurpation, a private person could make use of the writ; and though "informations" became unpopular after the Restoration, 18 and were definitely checked at the Revolution,19 the information in the nature of a Quo Warranto" took its place during the eighteenth century as a process open to the ordinary citizen. Though it could not be issued strictly as "of course," it was exhibited with leave of the courts at the relation of any person or persons desirous to sue or prosecute the same. 20 The Prohibition was the special weapon of the King's courts against the ecclesiastical tribunals. Its scope, though varying from century to century, was more or less settled for pre-Reformation times by certain apocryphal statutes of the early fourteenth century-the so-called Articuli Cleri 21 and the Articles against 27 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Prohibitions. 22 Unlike the Quo Warranto, it appears in the ordinary Register of Originals; and it is quite clear that, from the very first, the royal judges relied largely on the private litigant to start proceedings under it. 23 Still, the fiction, of its prerogative character was kept up by a requirement that the party applying by "suggestion" should allege that the King's interest was threatened, until the year 1831, when it was formally abolished by statute. 24 After that step it became easy to apply the writ to all cases of exceeded jurisdiction in inferior tribunals, whether royal or not; and the writ is at the present day aft ordinary means of deciding questions of jurisdiction. But it is significant that, unlike most of the so-called "prerogative writs," the Prohibition has always been, according to the better opinion, ex debito justice, when the excess of jurisdiction is clear. 25 ” [33] Mahkamah telah menjelaskan hakikat perintah quo warranto dalam kes Lim Cho Hock v Government of The State of Perak, Menteri Besar, State of Perak and President, Municipality of Ipoh [1980] 2 MLJ 148 melalu penghakiman YA Hakim Abdoolcader yang menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “I should perhaps also touch on one other matter with regard to the plaintiff's standing. It would have been open to the plaintiff to apply for a writ in the nature of quo warranto under the provisions of section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 and paragraph 1 of the Schedule thereto to challenge the office of President of the Council simultaneously held by the Menteri 28 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Besar. In England, an information in the nature of a quo warranto (which had replaced the old prerogative writ of quo warranto) was abolished and substituted by an injunction by the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938. The High Court, however, has power to entertain proceedings for a quo warranto by virtue of the statutory provisions I have referred to, and adverting to the old rules of substantive law applicable in relation thereto, the position is that in order to exhibit an information against a member of a borough corporation, the relator has to have an interest in the proceedings such as that of a ratepayer or corporator; the court however exercises a broad discretion in determining questions of locus standi, and in the most recent of the leading cases, Rex v Speyer [1916] 1 KB 595; affd [1916] 2 KB 858, involving an information against a member of the Privy Council, the court adopted a liberal view, holding that any member of the public could sue if he had no private interest to serve and that it was to the public advantage that a matter concerning the public government should be judicially affirmed when there was no other remedy. If then the plaintiff would have standing in quo warranto proceedings there can be no justification to refuse him that when he seeks declaratory relief in respect of a public office such as that of President of the Council.” [34] Sementara itu habeas corpus pula dan remedi yang berkaitan dengannya telah diperjelaskan oleh YA Hakim Abdoolcader dalam kes Yeap Hock Seng @ Ah Seng v Minister For Home Affairs, Malaysia & Ors [1975] 2 MLJ 279 seperti yang berikut: 29 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “Habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ of summary character for the enforcement of this cherished civil right of personal liberty and entitles the subject of detention to a judicial determination that the administrative order adduced as warrant for the detention is legally valid, in the sense that it is pursuant to valid statutory authority, and to test whether the detention proceedings are, in the words of Frankfurter J. in Estep v United States (1946) 327 US 114 141 “a mere sham, nothing but an empty form.” The grant of habeas corpus is as of right and not in the discretion of the court as in the case of such extraordinary legal remedies as certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. It is a writ of right against which no privilege of person or place can be of any avail (R v Pell And Offly 84 ER 720. The heavy musketry of the law will always be brought to bear upon any suggestion of unlawful invasion or infringement of the personal liberty of an individual in the form of habeas corpus and kindred orders where necessary to grant relief when warranted. It was aptly put in the American case of State ex rel Evans v Broaddus 245 Mo 123 140 that at least in times of peace every human power must give way to the writ of habeas corpus and no prison door is stout enough to stand in its way. Such then is the purpose and power of this great writ of liberty that I am impelled to the view that the principles governing the exercise of the court's discretion and the rules pertaining to the existence of alternative remedies in granting mandamus, prohibition 30 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal and certiorari should not apply to habeas corpus. My conclusion in this respect is not inhibited or affected by the judicial discretion provision in section 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code that “The High Court may whenever it thinks fit direct –” and certain Indian decisions on the like provision in section 491 of the former Indian Criminal Procedure Code (now replaced by the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which omits this section), in view of the fact that the complaint now made by the applicant purports to be one of a breach of his fundamental right of personal liberty under the Constitution and this application must of necessity be made both under the procedural provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 5(2) of the Constitution which must be read together with its enforcement provision enacted in section 25(2) and paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964. section 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code must now therefore be read, in my view, in this light and as modified accordingly by the application of the provisions of Article 162(6) of the Constitution.” [35] Adalah wajar juga untuk memahami undang-undang berkaitan habeas corpus dengan meneliti artikel yang bertajuk Habeas Corpus in Malaysia and Singapore [1977] 2 MLJ lv oleh Low Hop Bing. [36] Malahan penelitian kepada sejarah habeas corpus dapat dilihat dengan menarik bagaimana ia berkembang dan termasuk dalam writ prerogatif melalui catatan Sir Henry Montagu pada tahun 1619 di dalam 31 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Palmer 54, 81 ER 975 (Bourne, 1619) yang menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “Habeas corpus was a writ of the prerogative in order to be a writ of liberty. In the first two decades of the seventeenth century, the judges of King's Bench attached habeas corpus to the prerogative, taking it for their own use, thereby making themselves the sun that lit the heavens.” [37] Penelitian ringkas kepada hakikat semakan kehakiman dan remedi-remedi yang boleh diberikan menunjukkan ia tidak secara langsung melibatkan apa-apa perintah bagi pembayaran wang. Ia lebih melibatkan kepada penentuan sama ada adakah proses yang dilakukan oleh badan awam adalah teratur dan mengikut undang-undang. Di samping itu adakah sebarang perlanggaran kepada jaminan yang diberikan di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa di dalam Aturan 53 kaedah 5 KKM 2012 membolehkan Mahkamah semasa mendengar semakan kehakiman mengawardkan gantirugi. Ia memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “5. Ganti rugi (A. 53 k. 5) (1) Atas permohonan bagi semakan kehakiman Mahkamah boleh, tertakluk kepada perenggan (2), mengawardkan ganti rugi kepada pemohon sekiranya- 32 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) dia telah memasukkan dalam pernyataan sebagai menyokong permohonan minta kebenarannya di bawah kaedah 3 suatu tuntutan bagi ganti rugi yang berbangkit daripada apa-apa perkara yang permohonan itu berkaitan; dan (b) Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa, sekiranya tuntutan itu telah dibuat dalam suatu tindakan yang dimulakan oleh pemohon pada masa membuat permohonannya, dia sepatutnya diawardkan ganti rugi. (2) Aturan 18, kaedah 12, hendaklah terpakai bagi suatu pernyataan yang berhubungan dengan suatu tuntutan bagi ganti rugi sebagaimana ia terpakai bagi suatu pliding.” Hal ini telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor v The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 200. [38] Sebaliknya bagi penghakiman atau perintah yang melibatkan pembayaran kewangan, sebarang permohonan untuk penggantungan pelaksanaan adalah dengan menggunakan garis panduan di dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra). Adakah bagi permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan perintah semakan kehakiman wajar mengenakan ujian yang sama? Ini adalah disebabkan perintah bagi pembayaran wang kepada pihak yang berjaya di dalam suatu tuntutan mempunyai pilihan untuk menguatkuasakan perintah pembayaran 33 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wang tersebut melalui proses pelaksanaan seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah Aturan 45 KKM 2012 yang telah menjelaskan bahawa suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang boleh dilakukan pelaksanaanya dengan kaedah-kaedah seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah Aturan 45 kaedah 1 KKM 2012 seperti yang berikut: “1. Penguatkuasaan penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang (A. 45 k. 1) (1) Tertakluk kepada peruntukan Kaedah-Kaedah ini, suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang, yang bukan suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang ke dalam Mahkamah, bolehlah dikuatkuasakan melalui satu atau lebih daripada cara-cara yang berikut - (a) writ penyitaan dan penjualan; (b) prosiding orang digarnis; (c) dalam suatu hal yang kaedah 5 terpakai, suatu perintah komital. (1A) Sebagai tambahan kepada kaedah 1(1) dan tertakluk kepada peruntukan Kaedah-Kaedah ini, suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang, yang bukan suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang ke dalam Mahkamah, bolehlah 34 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dikuatkuasakan di Mahkamah Tinggi melalui satu atau lebih cara yang berikut - (a) perintah gadaian; dan (b) pelantikan seorang penerima. (2) Tertakluk kepada peruntukan Kaedah-Kaedah ini, suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang ke dalam Mahkamah bolehlah dikuatkuasakan dalam suatu kes yang kaedah 5 terpakai, melalui suatu perintah komital. (2A) Sebagai tambahan kepada kaedah 1(2) dan tertakluk kepada peruntukan Kaedah-Kaedah ini, suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang ke dalam Mahkamah bolehlah dikuatkuasakan di Mahkamah Tinggi melalui pelantikan seorang penerima. (3) Perenggan (1) dan (2) adalah tanpa menjejaskan apa-apa remedi lain yang terdapat bagi menguatkuasakan suatu penghakiman atau perintah yang sedemikian sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalamnya atau kuasa Mahkamah di bawah Akta Penghutang 1957 [Akta 256] untuk mengkomitkan ke penjara seseorang yang ingkar membayar wang yang dihukum atau diperintahkan supaya dibayar olehnya, atau undang-undang bertulis yang berhubungan dengan kebankrapan atau penggulungan syarikat. 35 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (4) Dalam Aturan ini, sebutan kepada apa-apa writ hendaklah ditafsirkan sebagai termasuk sebutan kepada mana-mana writ selanjutnya yang menyebelahi writ yang mula-mula disebut itu.” [39] Penggunaan ujian yang betul dalam memutuskan sama ada penggantungan pelaksanaan bagi perintah semakan kehakiman adalah penting disebabkan remedi yang diberikan seperti yang dinyatakan di atas adalah berbeza dengan suatu penghakiman atau perintah bagi pembayaran wang. Ini adalah disebabkan bentuk perintah semakan kehakiman adalah mengarahkan badan awam melakukan sesuatu tindakan atau membatalkan suatu keputusan yang didapati tidak sah dan menyalahi undang-undang atau ia melibatkan keputusan pembebasan individu yang ditahan secara tidak sah melalui writ habeas corpus. Apakah wajar untuk suatu permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan perintah-perintah yang dikeluarkan dalam suatu prosiding semakan kehakiman menggunakan ujian yang sama dengan suatu perintah bagi pembayaran wang. Jika ini dilakukan ia tidak dapat menggambarkan bahawa perintah-perintah tersebut adalah dibuat berkaitan dengan writ prerogatif yang mempunyai ujian yang berbeza dengan tuntutan kewangan. Ia juga akan menyebabkan perintah yang dikeluarkan melalui prosiding semakan kehakiman tidak akan membawa makna dan kesan segera kepada perintah tersebut. Misalnya sekiranya perintah semakan kehakiman dibenarkan dan seseorang diminta untuk dibebaskan daripada tahanan maka adakah wajar satu perintah pelaksanaan habeas corpus tersebut digantung sehingga rayuan didengar oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dengan hanya 36 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal berdasarkan ujian yang dinyatakan dalam Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) tersebut. Jika ini berlaku adalah tidak bermakna perintah pembebasan yang dibuat melalui writ habeas corpus tersebut. [40] Dalam konteks ini wajar dilihat kepada seksyen 365 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ) berkenaan dengan habeas corpus. Seksyen 365 KPJ memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “365 Power of High Court to make certain orders The High Court may whenever it thinks fit direct- (a) that any person who: (i) is detained in any prison within the limits of Malaysia on a warrant of extradition whether under the Extradition Act 1992 [Act 479]; or (ii) is alleged to be illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody within the limits of Malaysia, be set at liberty; (b) that any defendant in custody under a writ of attachment be brought before the Court to be dealt with according to law.” 37 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mahkamah boleh mengeluarkan writ habeas corpus bagi maksud untuk memastikan pembebasan individu yang ditahan secara tidak sah. [41] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga mengambil perhatian dalam habeas corpus terdapat peruntukan berkenaan dengan rayuan terhadap keputusan tersebut. Ini dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 374 KPJ seperti yang berikut: “374 Appeal Any person aggrieved by any decision or direction of the High Court under this Chapter may appeal to the Federal Court within thirty days from the date of the decision or direction appealed against.” [42] Kesan kepada writ habeas corpus itu sekiranya berjaya diperolehi dan pemakaian seksyen 374 KPJ dinyatakan dalam kes Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia & Anor v Karpal Singh (No. 2) [1988] 3 MLJ 85 oleh Mahkamah Agong seperti yang berikut: “Section 374 of the Code comes under Chapter XXXVI dealing with directions of the nature of a habeas corpus application and s 365(2)(b) under the same Chapter empowers the High Court, whenever it thinks fit, to order any person who is to be illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody to be set at liberty. The words ‘decision or direction’ under s 374 of the Code clearly must necessarily refer to the final decision or direction made under 38 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal s 365 of the Code. The respondent succeeded in his application and obtained an order that he be set at liberty. He is therefore not an aggrieved person to entitle him to appeal.” [43] Penganalisaan kepada perintah-perintah yang diberikan itu mencadangkan bahawa pendekatan yang digunakan dalam Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) bagi tujuan penggantungan pelaksanaan perlu dilihat dengan mengambil kira remedi dan kesan kepada perintah tersebut. [44] Misalnya, apabila permohonan semakan kehakiman tidak dibenarkan dan mengesahkan keputusan badan awam berkenaan dengan bayaran yang dikenakan mengikut peraturan atau undang- undang apakah wajar untuk perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan dibenarkan sehingga selesai keputusan di peringkat Mahkamah Rayuan. Ini akan menyebabkan badan awam tersebut akan mengalami kesukaran dalam menguatkuasakan undang-undang. Misalnya dalam pengutipan cukai seperti dalam kes ini. [45] Pada masa yang sama adakah wajar Mahkamah ini untuk tidak menggunapakai prinsip dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) tersebut. Ia adalah satu keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dan berdasarkan kepada prinsip duluan kehakiman ia mesti dipatuhi oleh mahkamah bawahan (Public Prosecutor v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 276, The Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd v. Feyen Development Sdn Bhd [1997] 3 CLJ 365). 39 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [46] Adalah juga didapati bahawa keputusan dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) ini turut digunakan dalam kes jenayah bagi tujuan memutuskan permohonan penangguhan prosiding. Ini dapat dilihat dalam kes Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [2011] 5 MLJ 535. Keputusan dalam kes itu telah dirumuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak [2019] 4 MLJ 421 seperti yang berikut: “[20] On this point, we note that there is only one reported decision from the Court of Appeal affirming the proposition that Kosma is applicable. In Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [2011] 5 MLJ 535, Abdul Malik Ishak JCA expressly endorsed the dual tests of ‘special circumstances’ and ‘nugatoriness’ propounded in Kosma (at para [81]) as being equally relevant in an application to stay a criminal proceeding. His Lordship further held that the background scenario, seriousness of the offence which the accused is currently facing, and the conduct of the defence in the trial (ie the delaying tactics employed by the defence) are all relevant factors to be considered by the court in deciding whether a stay of proceedings in a criminal trial should be granted (at paras [88] – [90]).” [47] Apa yang lebih menarik dalam kes Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak (supra) adalah penekanan Mahkamah Persekutuan bahawa kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) merupakan kedudukan undang-undang berkaitan dengan penggantungan pelaksanaan bagi rayuan-rayuan sivil. Ini dinyatakan seperti berikut: 40 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “[19] Kosma Palm Oil represents the legal position governing stays of execution for civil appeals (see: Tan, Kee Heng, Civil and Criminal Appeals in Malaysia (3rd Ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 2016) at Chapter 7.3). The relevant question before us now is whether it applies with equal force to a stay of criminal proceedings at the trial court when there are pending appeals in respect of interlocutory applications before this court.” [48] Penelitian kepada kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) juga menunjukkan bahawa permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan adalah terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membenarkan relif berbangkit pada 07.07.2003. Ini dapat dilihat di para [1] penghakiman kes tersebut seperti yang berikut: “[1] The applicants entered into four agreements in 1998 for the purchase of certain estate lands from the respondents subject to certain conditions. The respondents are a co-operative society and are the registered ownersof the estate lands which were used for the planting and cultivation of oil palm and an oil palm mill was erected on one of the lands. The applicants and the respondents soon had disputes over the completion of the agreements and several legal proceedings wereinstituted by them. Sometime in 2001, the respondents took over possession of the estate lands. This resulted in the applicants obtaining an interim injunction against the respondents on 26 September 2001. However, the interim injunction was dissolved by theHigh Court of Temerloh on 41 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 April 2002 though an Erinford order was granted in favour of the applicants which resulted in them obtaining possession of the estate lands. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the dissolution of the interim injunction. It was dismissed on 12 May 2003 and the Erinford order lapsed. An oral application made by the respondents for consequential relief for possession was refused. The respondents then filed an application in the High Court at Temerloh for consequential relief overthe estate lands for the status quo of the parties to remain as of the time prior to the signing of the agreements. This application was allowed on 7 July 2003. The High Court dismissed an oral application made by the applicants for a stay of execution. Theapplicants then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the consequential relief granted by the High Court and also applied for a stay of execution. Both the applications were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 21 July 2003. The applicants then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court and a motion for a stay of execution (‘the motion’) of the order made by the High Court on 7 July 2003 and the Court of Appeal on 21 July 2003.” [49] Sebaliknya dalam kes ini permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan ialah terhadap satu perintah yang berkaitan dengan penolakan permohonan semakan kehakiman. Perintah Mahkamah tersebut yang menolak permohonan semakan kehakiman itu membawa maksud kedudukan keputusan pihak Responden adalah kekal status quonya. 42 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Sorotan ringkas penggantungan pelaksanaan di bawah undang- undang dan Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 [50] Pada dasarnya ketika sesuatu permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan penghakiman dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah, Mahkamah perlu mengambil kira bahawa ianya tidak akan menghalang pihak yang berjaya dalam sesuatu prosiding untuk menikmati hasil kejayaan tersebut. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Serangoon Garden Estate Ltd v Ang Keng [1953] 1 MLJ 116 seperti yang berikut: “But it is a clear principle that the Court will not deprive a successful party of the fruits of his litigation until an appeal is determined, unless the unsuccessful party can shew special circumstances to justify it.” [51] Ia juga dinyatakan dalam kes Wilson v Church (No 2) 1879 Ch.D. 454, Brett LJ menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “ … the Court as a general rule ought to exercise its best discretion in a way so as not to prevent the appeal, if successful, from being nugatory.” [52] Penentuan sama ada pemakaian ujian dalam Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) adalah wajar dalam kes ini atau sebaliknya perlu dilakukan dengan mempertimbangkan bahawa terdapat beberapa peruntukan yang melibatkan penggantungan pelaksanaan di bawah undang-undang sivil. Ini dapat dilihat dalam KKM 2012 sendiri misalnya 43 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dalam Aturan 45 kaedah 11 yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “11. Perkara yang berlaku selepas penghakiman: Penggantungan pelaksanaan (A. 45 k. 11) Tanpa menjejaskan Aturan 47, kaedah 1, suatu pihak yang terhadapnya suatu penghakiman telah diberikan atau suatu perintah dibuat boleh memohon kepada Mahkamah untuk mendapatkan penggantungan pelaksanaan penghakiman atau perintah itu atau relief lain atas alasan kerana perkara yang telah berlaku sejak tarikh penghakiman atau perintah itu, dan Mahkamah boleh melalui perintah memberikan apa-apa relief, dan atas apa-apa terma, sebagaimana yang difikirkannya patut.” [53] Sepintas lalu Aturan 45 kaedah 11 KKM 2012 ini adalah suatu permohonan untuk penggantungan pelaksanaan. Namun ia perlu dibezakan dengan permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan sekiranya terdapat rayuan kepada Mahkamah yang lebih tinggi di mana sekiranya pemohon dapat menunjukkan bahawa terdapat keadaan istimewa dan khas bahawa permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan tersebut boleh diberikan. Ia berdasarkan kepada ujian yang dinyatakan dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra). [54] Sebaliknya di dalam kes ini penggantungan pelaksanaan tersebut telah diberikan keadaan di mana ia boleh dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah iaitu apabila terdapat perkara baharu yang berlaku selepas 44 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal daripada penghakiman tersebut sehinggalah kepada permohonan penggantungan itu dibuat. Jika dilihat kepada Mallal's Supreme Court Practice 2nd Edition Vol. 1 di halaman 588 dinyatakan kesan kepada Aturan 45 kaedah 11 KKM 2012 seperti yang berikut: "Effect of the rule: This rule concerns cases in which judgement has already been obtained and should be distinguished from O. 18 r. 9, supra, as to pleading matters arising after the issue of the writ and O. 47 r. 1, infra, as the powers of the Court to stay execution by writ of seizure and sale. The rule also puts an end to proceedings by Audita Querela (see Day's Common Law Procedure Acts, 4th Edn. pp. 334 & 400)." [55] Audita Querela adalah istilah latin yang merujuk kepada amalan undang-undang lazim Inggeris (English Common Law) yang mana membenarkan pihak Defendan yang diberikan penghakiman terhadapnya untuk memohon supaya pelaksanaan penghakiman tersebut ditangguhkan daripada dilaksanakan sekiranya terdapat keterangan baharu yang tidak diperolehi sebelumnya. Ia adalah satu bentuk writ yang digunakan untuk menghalang pelaksanaan penghakiman yang bercanggah dengan keadilan. Ia telah diperkenalkan di United Kingdom oleh Parlimen pada tahun 1336 dan telah wujud semenjak tahun 1282. Secara amalinya ia akan dilakukan dengan Mahkamah Chancery mengeluarkan writ yang mengarahkan King's Bench atau Mahkamah Common Plea mendengar permohonan pihak-pihak bagi memberikan keadilan yang secepat 45 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mungkin kepada penghutang penghakiman. Walau bagaimanapun Audita Querela telahpun tidak lagi diamalkan di United Kingdom dengan pengenalan Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 terutamanya Schedule 1 Rules of Court yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: [56] Apa yang jelas daripada Aturan 45 kaedah 11 KKM 2012 ialah sekiranya terdapat apa-apa perubahan setelah penghakiman diberikan ia boleh dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah untuk penggantungan kepada pelaksanaan penghakiman tersebut. Oleh itu jika dilihat kepada Aturan 45 kaedah 11 KKM 2012 itu ia terletak di bawah Aturan berkaitan dengan penguatkuasaan penghakiman dan perintah. Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dan tidak keliru dengan penggantungan pelaksanaan penghakiman di bawah Aturan 55 kaedah 16 KKM 2012. [57] Pemakaian Aturan 45 kaedah 11 KKM 2012 ini dapat dilihat di dalam keputusan di Mahkamah United Kingdom di dalam kes Ellis v. Scott [1964] 2 All ER 987 di mana Sachs J menyatakan seperti yang berikut: "having referred in the course of the argument to the fact that RSC, Ord. 42, r. 19(1), was introduced in 1956, after the Evershed 46 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Reportb, in order to give the court further powers than those that had existed previously, said that he had come to the conclusion that the first order, made on 20 April was made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, which had always been exercised on the footing that the court applied to RSC, Ord. 58, r. 12, the principles set out in the notes to that rulec in the Annual Practice (1964 Edn), pp 1693 et seq. As he had concluded that the powers of the court which he had exercised immediately after giving judgment in the action were not the same as those given to the court by RSC, Ord. 42, r. 19, he was not, therefore, functus officio as regards RSC, Ord. 42, r. 19(1). This seemed to be a case where there were special circumstances within the meaning of Ord. 42, r. 19(1), and he would grant the second application." [58] Selain daripada itu terdapat juga Aturan 47 kaedah 1 KKM 2012 yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “1. Kuasa menggantung pelaksanaan melalui writ penyitaan dan penjualan (A. 47 k. 1) (1) Jika suatu penghakiman diberikan atau suatu perintah dibuat bagi pembayaran wang oleh mana-mana orang, dan Mahkamah berpuas hati, atas suatu permohonan yang dibuat pada masa penghakiman atau perintah itu, atau pada bila-bila masa selepas itu, oleh penghutang penghakiman atau pihak lain yang dikenakan pelaksanaan- 47 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) bahawa terdapat hal keadaan khas yang menjadikan tidak suai manfaat untuk menguatkuasakan penghakiman atau perintah itu; atau (b) bahawa pemohon itu tidak berupaya kerana apa-apa sebab jua untuk membayar wang itu, maka, walau apa pun apa-apa jua dalam kaedah 2 atau 3, Mahkamah boleh melalui perintah menggantung pelaksanaan penghakiman atau perintah itu melalui writ penyitaan dan penjualan sama ada secara mutlak atau bagi apa-apa tempoh dan tertakluk kepada apa-apa syarat sebagaimana yang Mahkamah fikirkan patut. (2) Suatu permohonan di bawah kaedah ini, sekiranya tidak dibuat pada masa penghakiman diberikan atau perintah dibuat, hendaklah dibuat melalui notis permohonan dan bolehlah dibuat sedemikian walaupun pihak yang dikenakan pelaksanaan tidak memasukkan kehadiran dalam tindakan itu. (3) Suatu permohonan yang dibuat melalui notis permohonan hendaklah disokong dengan suatu afidavit yang dibuat oleh atau bagi pihak pemohon dengan menyatakan alasan membuat permohonan itu dan keterangan yang perlu bagi membuktikannya dan, khususnya, jika permohonan sedemikian dibuat atas alasan ketidakupayaan pemohon untuk membayar, dengan 48 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mendedahkan pendapatannya, jenis dan nilai apa-apa hartanya dan amaun apa-apa liabilitinya yang lain. (4) Notis permohonan dan suatu salinan afidavit sokongan mestilah, tidak kurang dari empat hari genap sebelum tarikh kembalian, disampaikan kepada pihak yang berhak untuk menguatkuasakan penghakiman atau perintah itu. (5) Suatu perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan di bawah kaedah ini bolehlah diubah atau dibatalkan melalui suatu perintah yang terkemudian.” [59] Pada masa yang sama juga terdapat penggantungan pelaksanaan yang boleh diberikan oleh Mahkamah seperti yang terdapat di seksyen 44 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 seperti yang berikut: “44 Incidental directions and interim orders (1) In any proceeding pending before the Court of Appeal any direction incidental thereto not involving the decision of the proceeding, any interim order to prevent prejudice to the claims of parties pending the hearing of the proceeding, any order for security for costs, and for the dismissal of a proceeding for default in furnishing security so ordered may at any time be made by a Judge of the Court of Appeal. 49 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (2) Every application under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a proceeding in the Court of Appeal. (3) Every order made under subsection (1) may, upon application by the aggrieved party made within ten days after the order is served, be affirmed, varied or discharged by the Court.” [60] Adalah didapati bahawa ujian yang digunakan bagi penggantungan pelaksanaan di bawah seksyen 44 Akta tersebut. Ini dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong v Da Land Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] MLJU 778 seperti yang berikut: “[22] We take the view that the special circumstance rule does not apply to a section 44 stay and the principles in See Teow Guan is a sound decision to be guided in granting a section 44 stay. If it is desired that special circumstances should exist then appropriate amendments should be made to the Federal Constitution, Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and to the rules of the court. Now the decision of the Court of Appeal in See Teow Guan is most enlightening and reflects the contemporary thinking in United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. However, the Federal Court in Kosma Palm did not endorse the Court of Appeal’s decision though to some extent the decision paves a flexible approach.” 50 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [61] Kepelbagaian pelaksanaan penghakiman mencadangkan bahawa bagi tujuan untuk membenarkan penggantungan pelaksanaan remedi-remedi yang diperolehi daripada perintah tersebut, kepentingan awam, penentuan bahawa pihak yang berjaya di peringkat rayuan tidak akan mendapat penghakiman yang sia-sia juga perlu diambil kira. Kecenderungan untuk Mahkamah mempertimbangkan kepentingan pihak-pihak tanpa mengorbankan pihak yang berjaya dalam satu tindakan untuk menikmati hasil tindakan tersebut telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Renew Capital Sdn Bhd & Ors v. ADM Ventures (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2022] 8 CLJ 817 seperti yang berikut: “[32] Courts have increasingly been more inclined to explore a partial conditional stay upon terms to balance the competing rights, interest, needs and concerns of the parties without offending the general principle that generally a party a successful litigation even at first instance is entitled to the fruit of its litigation unless "special circumstances" can be shown by the unsuccessful party that is appealing. [33] The law on stay of execution of a monetary judgment is trite in that the court may exercise its discretion to grant a stay of execution of the judgment debt if the judgment debtor as the applicant in the stay application could show "special circumstances" relating to the enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. It is an accepted "special circumstance" if the appeal were to succeed, the appeal would nevertheless be 51 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal nugatory if the successful appellant would be deprived of the result of the successful appeal that would have set aside the payment of the judgment debt or so much of it.” Pendekatan penggantungan pelaksanaan perintah semakan kehakiman di bawah undang-undang United Kingdom [62] Pendekatan yang digunakan di United Kingdom dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan oleh pihak yang terkesan dengan keputusan semakan kehakiman tersebut telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di United Kingdom dalam kes Regina v. Inspectorate of Pollution And Another, Ex parte Greenpeace Ltd. [1994] 1 WLR 570. Hakim Scott LJ menyatakan seperti yang berikut “In my opinion, if the real purpose of interlocutory relief in a judicial review case is to prevent executive action by a third party being carried out pursuant to the decision under attack, the more suitable procedure would be to have the third party in question joined and then to seek an interlocutory injunction against that party, rather than to seek a stay of the decision. If, however, the purpose is pursued as it has been in the present case by an application for a stay of the decision rather than by an application for an interlocutory injunction against the third party, the courts should, in my opinion, look to the substance rather than to the form, and apply the same principles to the application as would 52 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal have been applicable had the application been for an interlocutory injunction.” Seterusnya dalam kes yang sama di muka surat 577 dinyatakan seperti yang berikut: “Mr. Owen Davies has argued that, where interlocutory relief in the form of a stay is sought in judicial review proceedings, a requirement that an undertaking in damages be given as a condition of the grant of the interlocutory relief, is not in accordance with practice and is inappropriate. I make no comment on previous practice in this regard. Mr. Owen Davies may well be right. But if the purpose of the interlocutory stay is, as here, to prevent executive action by a third party in pursuance of rights which have been granted by the decision under attack, then, in my judgment, to require a cross-undertaking in damages to be given is, as a matter of discretion, an entirely permissible condition of the grant of interlocutory relief and in general, I would think, unless some special feature be present, a condition that should be expected to be imposed. Therefore, I think that Brooke J. directed himself correctly in taking into account the matters regarding B.N.F.L.'s financial position and regarding the absence of a cross-undertaking to which I have referred.” 53 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Namun Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati disebabkan dalam kes Inspectorate of Pollution And Another, Ex parte Greenpeace Ltd. (supra) ia melihatkan pihak ketiga yang berkaitan dengan keputusan semakan kehakiman tersebut. [63] Berdasarkan kepada penelitian kepelbagaian pelaksanaan penghakiman dan hubung kaitnya dengan remedi di dalam semakan kehakiman adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa remedi-remedi di dalam semakan kehakiman ini tidak secara langsung berkaitan dengan perintah bagi pembayaran wang. Ia lebih kepada perintah-perintah mengarahkan badan awam melaksanakan sesuatu tindakan atau memutuskan bahawa tindakan tersebut adalah tidak sah dan bercanggah dengan undang-undang atau pembebasan seseorang individu daripada tahanan yang tidak sah. Adakah ujian dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) perlu digunakan sepenuhnya dalam permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan keputusan semakan kehakiman [64] Penilaian kepada Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) mencadangkan bahawa hasil yang tidak berguna atau yang sia-sia (nugatoriness) adalah merupakan salah satu daripada cabang keadaan istimewa yang boleh dipertimbangkan untuk penggantungan pelaksanaan. Malahan dalam kes tersebut juga dinyatakan terdapat faktor-faktor lain yang boleh mewujudkan keadaan istimewa ini. Ini dijelaskan seperti yang berikut: 54 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “It is therefore clear beyond doubt that there are many factors that may constitute special circumstances and the fact that an appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was refused is the most common one.” [65] Ia mencadangkan bahawa terdapat faktor-faktor yang boleh diambil kira dan digolongkan dalam keadaan istimewa bagi pertimbangan untuk penggantungan pelaksanaan. Pada hemat Mahkamah ini ia juga bergantung kepada remedi-remedi yang diperolehi ekoran daripada semakan kehakiman tersebut. Ini adalah disebabkan terdapat keadaan apabila semakan kehakiman tersebut akan memberikan kesan yang melibatkan isu kewangan dan bayaran. Misalnya semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Perusahaan yang jelas di bawah seksyen 20 (3) Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 dan Jadual Kedua Akta yang sama, Mahkamah Perusahaan boleh mengeluarkan award terhadap gaji kebelakang yang melibatkan kewangan. [66] Namun demikian Mahkamah juga perlu mengambil kira pindaan kepada Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 berkenaan dengan rayuan yang boleh dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah terhadap award yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Perusahaan. Sebelum ini award yang dikeluarkan adalah tertakluk kepada semakan kehakiman. Seksyen tersebut adalah seperti berikut: 55 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “33C Appeal against an award to the High Court (1) If any person is dissatisfied with an award of the Court made under section 30 such person may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the award. (2) The procedure in an appeal to the High Court shall be the procedure in the Rules of Court 2012 [P.U. (A) 205/2012] for an appeal from a Sessions Court with such modifications as the circumstances may require. (3) In dealing with such appeals, the High Court shall have like powers as if the appeal is from the Sessions Court.” [67] Walau bagaimanapun Mahkamah ini juga perlu sedar bahawa apabila terdapatnya peruntukan berkenaan dengan rayuan ia tidak menghalang satu semakan kehakiman dikemukakan. Ini dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ketua Pengarah Dalam Negeri v Kind Action (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 672 seperti yang berikut: “[74] On alternative remedy, the Court of Appeal held that there is no acid test applicable in judicial review applications and that if a good case is brought before the court for review, for instance, if there is clear illegality on the part of the decision-making authority, then it is in the interest of justice that such application be allowed. The Court of Appeal found that on the facts of the present case, 56 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the decision of the appellant in issuing the Disputed Notices was tainted with illegality. [75] There was no error committed by the Court of Appeal in dismissing the appellant’s contention that this was not a proper case for the respondent to bypass the avenue to appeal to SCIT. The finding of the Court of Appeal is supported by the authorities (see Jagdis Singh; and Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-Sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1 (“Sungai Gelugor”). [76] In Jagdis Singh, Hashim Yeop A Sani SCJ (as he then was) said: “A clear principle is reiterated here i.e. it is not a rigid rule that whenever there is an appeal procedure available to the applicant he should be denied judicial review. Judicial review is always at the discretion of the court but where there is another avenue or remedy open to the applicant it will only be exercised in very exceptional circumstances.”. [77] In Sungai Gelugor, this Court stated thus: “The reason for this is that whilst in theory the courts there frequently recite the incantation that alternative remedies must be exhausted before recourse may be had to Judicial Review, in practice, the courts are often much kinder to the 57 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal applicant with a good case on the merits, who is faced with this hurdle to clear and will most probably entertain this application as an exception … … Speaking generally, it is right to say that if an applicant in judicial review proceedings can demonstrate illegality, that is to say, unlawful treatment, it would be wrong to insist that he exhausts his statutory right of appeal where one is available. Why should illegal action not be nipped in the bud by the quicker, more convenient and adequate remedy of Judicial Review rather than appeal? It is, of course, true that convenience in this context means convenience not only for the parties but also in the public interest. … Having said that we recognize that there are certain classes of cases such as planning, employment cases and tax cases … where a statute provides for a specialised appeal procedure, and so the courts understandably may not grant judicial review but this is always subject to the grant of review in certain cases, for example, where an applicant is able to demonstrate excess of power, or breach of the rules of natural justice.”. [68] Walau bagaimanapun Mahkamah ini berpendapat keputusan dalam kes Kind Action (M) Sdn Bhd (supra) itu adalah berkaitan dengan sekiranya terdapat prosedur rayuan dalaman yang terdapat di dalam mana-mana peruntukan. Misalnya dalam kes tersebut ialah 58 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal rayuan kepada Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan. Ia tidak membawa maksud apabila adanya rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah undang-undang misalnya di bawah seksyen 33C Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 membolehkan semakan kehakiman dilakukan. Ini adalah disebabkan undang-undang telah memperuntukkan dengan jelas berkenaan dengan rayuan terhadap keputusan tribunal seperti Mahkamah Perusahaan tersebut. [69] Oleh itu Mahkamah dalam mempertimbangkan terdapatnya keadaan istimewa bagi menangguhkan sesuatu perintah di dalam semakan kehakiman, perlu juga mengambil kira sama ada terdapatnya isu yang berkaitan dengan kewangan agar ia dapat dipertimbangkan dengan sewajarnya sebelum memutuskan membenarkan atau menolak permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan tersebut. [70] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu melihat pendekatan yang digunakan berkenaan dengan penggantungan pelaksanaan ini seperti yang dinyatakan dalam kes See Teow Guan & Ors v Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 3 MLJ 598 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah menggunakan pendekatan seperti yang berikut: “In my judgment, the paramount consideration governing an application for a stay, whether of execution or of proceedings, or, in the case of an application for some other form of interim preservation of the subject matter of an appeal, such as the grant of an injunction or other appropriate relief under s 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, is that the appeal to this court, 59 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal if successful, should not be rendered nugatory. If upon balancing all the relevant factors, this court comes to the conclusion that an appeal would be rendered nugatory without the grant of a stay or other interim preservation order, then, it should normally direct a stay or grant other appropriate interim relief that has the effect of maintaining the status quo.” [71] Oleh yang demikian adakah wajar untuk menerima sepenuhnya pendekatan yang digunakan dalam Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) bagi tujuan penggantungan pelaksanaan bagi kes semakan kehakiman? Apakah boleh disama-ratakan ujian dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) dalam kes semakan kehakiman? Ini adalah disebabkan remedi adalah berbeza dan ia bukannya perintah yang melibatkan pembayaran wang. Mahkamah ini berpendapat ujian di dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra) perlu dipatuhi. Ia disebabkan prinsip tersebut telah digariskan oleh Mahkamah Tertinggi Negara. Namun semasa menimbangkan sama ada terdapatnya keadaan istimewa ia harus mengambil kira remedi yang diberikan di dalam semakan kehakiman tersebut. Ia membawa maksud pertimbangan yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah dalam membenarkan permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan tidaklah seketat di dalam proses penggantungan pelaksanaan penghakiman bagi pembayaran wang. Ini adalah disebabkan perintah di dalam semakan penghakiman itu adalah melibatkan hak individu yang dijamin di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau hak-hak lain individu dalam undang-undang yang telah tidak dipatuhi dengan sewajarnya oleh badan awam. Sekiranya ujian yang ketat digunakan bagi mendapatkan 60 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal penggantungan pelaksanaan ia akan menjejaskan hak seseorang individu di bawah undang-undang dan Perlembagaan. [72] Pada masa yang sama sekiranya Mahkamah begitu mudah memberikan pertimbangan untuk membenarkan satu penggantungan pelaksanaan bagi semakan kehakiman ia akan menyebabkan perintah- perintah yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah ekoran daripada semakan kehakiman tidak akan memberikan kesan seperti yang diharapkan di bawah undang-undang. Misalnya, Mahkamah membenarkan satu semakan kehakiman bagi tujuan menghalang keputusan yang diputuskan tidak teratur dalam satu kelulusan pelan pembangunan. Sekiranya pihak berkuasa dibenarkan dengan mudah untuk memohon penangguhan pelaksanaan tersebut dan terus melaksanakannya maka perintah semakan kehakiman tersebut tidak memberi kesan kepada pihak Pemohon. Ini boleh menyebabkan hak mereka yang sepatutnya dilindungi hasil daripada perintah semakan kehakiman itu tidak akan dinikmati oleh Pemohon. [73] Begitu juga, sekiranya perintah semakan kehakiman tidak dibenarkan dan badan awam tersebut terus melaksanakan perintah atau kelulusan pelan pembangunan tersebut tanpa menunggu keputusan mahkamah atasan ia akan menyebabkan Pemohon tidak dapat menikmati hasil keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut. Sebaliknya jika permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan dibenarkan dengan mudah ia akan menghalang badan awam tersebut untuk meneruskan pelan pembangunan itu dan terpaksa menangguhkannya sehingga keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan. Ini adalah tidak sejajar 61 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dengan kepentingan awam. Oleh yang demikian dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan perintah semakan kehakiman bagi meneliti sama ada terdapatnya keadaan istimewa seperti yang dinyatakan dalam kes Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra), Mahkamah perlu mengambil kira perkara- perkara berikut: (a) kepentingan awam; (b) perimbangan di antara kepentingan awam dengan kepentingan Pemohon; (c) kebenaran atau penolakan kebenaran tersebut tidak akan menjadikan perintah semakan kehakiman itu tidak membawa makna dan bercanggah dengan tujuan semakan kehakiman itu sendiri; (d) menganalisa remedi yang diberikan semasa semakan kehakiman tersebut sama ada ia melibatkan kewangan atau sebaliknya; (e) status quo pihak-pihak yang terkesan daripada perintah semakan kehakiman tersebut. [74] Adalah mustahil untuk menyenaraikan semua pertimbangan yang wajar diberikan oleh Mahkamah dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan penggantungan semakan kehakiman. Ini bermakna 62 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal senarai di atas bukanlah suatu yang tuntas tetapi bergantung kepada fakta dan keterangan dalam sesuatu kes. Adakah permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan wajar diberikan dalam kes ini [75] Alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon dalam kes ini ialah seperti yang dinyatakan di perenggan [2], [3] dan [4] di atas. [76] Mahkamah ini berpendapat apabila permohonan semakan kehakiman dalam kes ini tidak dibenarkan ia bermakna keputusan Responden berkenaan dengan penentuan kadar cukai baharu yang dipertikaikan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon adalah kekal. Ini bermakna Pemohon-Pemohon adalah tertakluk untuk membuat bayaran cukai tanah-tanah tersebut. Pemohon-Pemohon menyatakan bahawa kemungkinan tindakan rampasan tanah akan dilakukan oleh Responden. Ini akan menyebabkan Pemohon-Pemohon akan kehilangan tanah-tanah tersebut. Kebimbangan ini tidak disokong dengan sebarang keterangan sebaliknya terdapat pembayaran yang dibuat oleh Pemohon-Pemohon kepada Responden dengan bantahan seperti yang dapat dilihat di eksibit “AA-6” seperti yang terdapat di perenggan [6] di atas. [77] Mahkamah ini juga tidak dikemukakan dengan sebarang keterangan menunjukkan tindakan rampasan tanah oleh Responden akan dilakukan dan telah dimulakan. Apa yang ada hanyalah Borang 6A Kanun Tanah Negara. Pihak Pemohon menyatakan bahawa 63 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tempoh tamat Borang 6A itu sudah hampir tiba. Oleh itu dalam hal ini Mahkamah perlu menimbangkan bahawa adalah menjadi tanggungjawab pihak Pemohon untuk melunaskan cukai-cukai tanah yang telah diputuskan sebagai teratur melalui prosiding semakan kehakiman. Adalah tidak wajar dan bercanggah dengan kepentingan awam bagi membenarkan penggantungan pelaksanaan terhadap pembayaran cukai tanah dalam kes ini. Jika ini berlaku ia akan menyebabkan Responden tidak akan memperolehi cukai yang sah di sisi undang-undang. Ia sudah pasti akan memprejudiskan pihak Responden dan memberi kesan kepada pungutan hasil Responden yang sah di sisi undang-undang. [78] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga menimbangkan hujahan pihak Pemohon bahawa sekiranya Pemohon-Pemohon diminta membayar jumlah cukai yang dituntut tersebut dan Pemohon-Pemohon berjaya di Mahkamah Rayuan maka bagaimanakah Pemohon- Pemohon akan memperolehi kembali bayaran cukai yang telah dibayar kepada Responden. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa isu ini adalah isu pentadbiran dan tidak sewajarnya dijadikan alasan untuk mewajarkan permohonan untuk penangguhan pelaksanaan dalam kes ini. [79] Mahkamah ini juga mengimbangkan kepentingan awam dan kepentingan pihak Pemohon dalam menentukan sama ada wajar penggantungan pelaksanaan dibenarkan. Mahkamah berpendapat kepentingan awam dalam kes ini adalah melebihi daripada kepentingan pihak Pemohon. Ini adalah disebabkan sekiranya permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan dibenarkan semata-mata disebabkan 64 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal pihak Pemohon tidak mahu menjelaskan cukai tanah tersebut disebabkan ia masih belum diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan ia akan membuka ruang kepada pembayar-pembayar cukai tanah yang lain untuk tidak menjelaskan cukai tanah yang telah diputuskan sebagai teratur semata-mata disebabkan terdapat rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan. Ini pada hemat Mahkamah adalah jelas bercanggah dengan kepentingan awam. [80] Oleh itu setelah menimbangkan kepentingan awam, mengimbangkannya dengan kepentingan Pemohon-Pemohon, fakta- fakta dan keterangan di dalam permohonan ini Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa permohonan ini tidak dibenarkan. Akhirnya, permohonan pihak Pemohon ditolak bagi kes ini dan kes CB-25-1- 04/2023, CB-25-3-04/2023, CB-25-4-04/2023 dan CB-25-5-04/2023 adalah ditolak. Bertarikh: 10 hb. April 2025 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR 65 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Pemohon-Pemohon Chuar Kia Lin, Valerie Seaw Ja Hui dan Taryn Woh Yu Luo Tetuan Pierre Chuah & Associates Level 6 (West Wing), Lot No. 06-27, Berjaya Times Square No. 1, Jalan lmbi 55100 Kuala Lumpur Bagi Pihak Responden Syamsul Kahar bin Ahmad Nadri Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang Tingkat 3, Blok B, Wisma Sri Pahang 25000 Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur 66 S/N kPpiLHX1MkivxT0XZF799w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal